Senate Judiciary Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Judiciary Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
K. Once again, good morning, mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present senate bill eleven twelve. I'd like to start off by thanking the committee for their work on this measure and to bring this version forward with the amendments accepted. The bill is in front of you as a small but necessary consumer protection measure targeted to bad actors in the towing industry.
Under current law, tow yards and vehicle storage facilities are required to post a notice of the fees they charge for towing and storage. This notice must be easily readable and visually for the consumer at these businesses. Senate bill eleven twelve increases the fines associated with violations of notice requirements from two to three times the amount charged to the consumer with a cap of $1,000. I am continuing to work with all the stakeholders on this bill and plan to continue discussions over the next few weeks and months. Joining me today in support is Rosemary Shahan from Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
And John Mayhell on behalf of the Enterprise Rental Car Company.
Speaker 49
Good morning, chair Laird and members. I'm Rosemary Shehamp, president of consumers for auto reliability and safety. And I'd just note for the record that there are other groups that I work within a coalition that are in support. They got in their letter too late to be included in the analysis, and that's the Dolores Huerta Foundation, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Consumer Federation of California. And all of our groups recognize that the problem of bandit towing is a serious problem in California.
Speaker 6
And just a few samples of the headlines that have been are being made and have been made around the state. There are rogue towers that listen to the radio signals of vehicle safety services like OnStar respond to a crash on the side of the road, impersonate the safety service, and then charge thousands of dollars to consumers if they wanna get their car back. And as you know, most people are they have to have their car to keep their life together. Right? They called a victim of the Eaton fire claiming to be authorized by the local government to remove their car from their property and then basically held it for ransom.
Listening to police scanners responding to a 911 call pretending to be affiliated with emergency response and doing the same thing. And there have been instances where tow companies illegally towed vehicles from Camp Pendleton in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the list goes on, you know, very often targeting vulnerable communities. And we're hoping that the bill will move forward. And if it gets out of this committee, we look forward to having a constructive dialogue with the more legitimate, reputable tow companies to help consumers get their cars back without having to go through a prolonged legal process.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is John McHale. I'm here on behalf of Enterprise Mobility. First, I'd just like to say, that we concur with everything said by cars before us. We're here just to give a little bit of context in terms of numbers and the business perspective on the issue of Rogue Towers.
The leading as a leading rental car company, Enterprise Mobility has deep experience with existing rental car law. We have existing relationships with local law enforcement, CHP, the DMV. We're, well resourced to fight bad actor towers. Despite all these advantages, we're still seeing our vehicles being targeted by rogue towers, and we're seeing the problem increase in scope. So when, our Southern California office first started analyzing this problem in 2023, we saw 74 vehicles taken by these, operations.
In 2025, the the problem had more than doubled to over a 160. Now, the average payout that we end up giving to these vehicles is, about $4,000, but that's after several days of difficult and intense negotiation. So it is not uncommon to see the starting point for these fees to be in the tens of thousands of dollars for just a few days of storage. At this moment in time, just in Southern California alone, we have five vehicles being held for between 10 and $20,000. Now, that's what they're willing to do to a large multinational company like Enterprise, and just imagine what they are doing to everyday consumers.
Speaker 14
This bill makes sure that vehicle owners are kept aware of some of their rights and some of the limitations on what their fees can look like when a vehicle is towed. More importantly, it keeps the conversation alive about what else can be done to prevent these rogue towers from taking advantage of vehicle owners. Thank you. Really appreciate your time. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you. This would be the opportunity, for me too testimony, in support of the bill, which would be your name, your organization, and that you actually support the bill. Seeing no one, uh-oh, we will move to the opposition. Is there anybody that wishes to be a primary witness here? You have up to two minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Good morning, chairman members. Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson Agassi here on behalf of the California Tow Truck Association. We were in opposition to the prior bill, but in light of the amendments, we're moving our position to support. We, really, are supportive of the proponents of this bill to try and crack down on the bad actors in the towing industry, and this bill takes a small but important step of, increasing the penalties for some of the bad actions.
A lot of the, incidents that were mentioned by the supporters are already illegal. The problem for years has been a lack of enforcement. So we look forward to working with the author to try and get at the bad actors and thank thank the author for the, the amendments.
Speaker 8
Just remove good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McHalee, on behalf of the official police garages of Los Angeles. We did submit an oppose unless amended. We thank the author and his staff, the sponsors, and your chief counsel for working on these amendments.
We've just removed our opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Great. Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody in opposition to do a me too opposition. Your name, your organization, and that you oppose the bill. Seeing no one, we will bring it back to the committee.
We do not have a quorum, but this is a chance for questions or comments. Senator Nilo. Very quick question.
Speaker 10
was arrived here while you were presenting. Did you articulate what the amendments are?
Speaker 7
The the amendments, what we were trying to do to begin with was, to make sure that anyone who had legally obtained a vehicle without the consent of the owner, As an example, a vehicle that off the side of the road and we've had problems where bad apples, tow trucks would pull up and indicate that they were sent there by the police or the triple a or OnStar some way. So, of course, the consumer said, sure. Take the vehicle. And they it would be taken to the yard and time would go on and they wouldn't be able to get the car back. And the bill went up from 2 to 3 to 4 to $5,000 to get the car back.
Speaker 3
So the insurance companies, were obviously hurt by all this. Those amendments were taken out of the bill. This bill is strictly posting to let the consumer know the fees. And if the tow yard doesn't post it, yes, it's capped at a thousand dollars. Consumers should know what is about to take place.
That's where the amendments taken place and that's where we're at now. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Any other questions or comments from the rest of the members of the committee? Senator D'Arroza.
Speaker 11
I I just wanna thank the author for bringing the bill forward and, you know, keeping consumers, you know, as a top consideration for what's going on out there. Just people, not only can they not afford it, it's just outright terrible to abuse people in the way that that they have been. So, you know, the the everyday consumer, not to mention what it could have the impact it could have on these companies, but rather the everyday consumer should be at the core of the stakeholders that we listen to. Thank you very much. I guess I can't move.
Okay.
Speaker 2
Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet. And I want to thank you for bringing the bill. I know the chair is supportive with the amendments. And at the appropriate time when we have a quorum, we would have a vote.
Would you like to close?
Speaker 3
Yes. Once again, this is a consumer protection bill and I urge an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here. We'll move to item number three, which is Senate Bill eleven forty two. Senator Becker. I saw Senator Becker here.
When you're ready, when you're ready, senator Becker, please present.
Speaker 50
Thank you. I wanna thank, first the committee and, the staff for their work on this issue. I will be accepting the committee amendments. At the beginning of this year, Elon Musk's social media company X and its company AI system Grok was used to generate pornographic content of real people including children. That system was released without regard for the well-being of the users or the legality of the content being generated.
Speaker 13
As AI becomes integrated with social media, some companies are reverting to a growth at all costs mindset at the expense of the dignity, reputation, and privacy of Californians. Early in 2024, an employee at a UK engineering company, Arup, was tricked into transferring over $25,000,000 to fraudsters after attending a video conference call where every other participant, including the CFO, was actually a digital replica. And finally, in December, a nineteen year veteran of Washington State paratrooper I'm sorry, Washington State patrol trooper brought forth a suit alleging a pattern of harassment by other officers wherein they circulate an AI generated video which mocked his sexuality and falsely depicted him engaging intimate contact with other officers. These stories tell a clear message. We're entering a new era where anyone's face or voice can be replicated and used to defame, extort, harass, or defraud them.
SB eleven forty two is about protecting California's dignity and preventing their likeness from being weaponized against them. The bill establishes common sense obligations for large online platforms and deters bad actors who seek to abuse Californians using their digital replica. Here with me today, have Jay from the Jay from the Transparency Coalition to provide testimony and answer any questions.
Speaker 14
Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Jay Jacema, and I'm here to urge your I vote on SB eleven forty two. I'm testifying in support of eleven forty two as the cofounder of Transparency Coalition. We're an independent nonprofit which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in generative AI. We're proud to act as sponsors of the bill.
We're currently facing an epidemic of, non consensual digital likeness abuse, as the senator stated. Bad actors are increasingly using AI to create digital replicas, which are highly realistic deepfakes used for harassment, extortion, and misinformation. Today's victims are often trapped in illegal no man's land. When an AI generated intimate image of a high school student or a working professional is uploaded to a major platform, the victim currently has virtually no recourse to regain control. SB eleven forty two addresses some of these issues by creating clear penalties.
It strengthens civil and criminal penalties for those who knowingly distribute harmful digital replicas for the purposes of defamation, false impersonation or unauthorized commercial gain. It requires platforms to implement forty eight hour takedown regimes, similar to the federal Take It Down Act, upon receiving valid reports of likeness abuse, ensuring that harm is mitigated before it becomes permanent. Valid reports of likeness abuse are subject to a judicial ruling or finding before they must be addressed by the platform. To those who say this is technically impossible, the tools to manage this already exist. Platforms already use robust content moderation systems for copyright and child safety material, and SB eleven forty two simply requires applying the same rigorous standards to digital replicas.
Mandating a revoke mechanism and a reporting portal is a straightforward engineering task. Dignity should not be a casualty of innovation. SB eleven forty two provides the robust legal tools California's need to protect their digital selves. I strongly urge you to support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Seeing no other primary witnesses, this would be the opportunity for me to support in this bill. Name, organization, and that you support the bill. Seeing no one moving to the mic, we will move to opposition. I don't know if there's anybody that is a primary witness.
Welcome. You have up to two minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Senator Laird. Melissa Patak with the Motion Picture Association. On behalf of our member companies, members of the committee, thank you, for the opportunity to testify today and for the very productive meetings we've had with the author, with the author staff, and with the committee staff. We appreciate the amendments recommended by the committee and the author's acceptance of the amendments. Many of them do align with the concerns MPA has raised.
We have two outstanding issues, so we're in a opposed unless amended, and we expect conversations to be ongoing. We remain opposed to creating a new section of the civil code, included as section four in the bill. This section penalizes technology, the use of a digital replica without connecting it to a harm cause. Enhanced penalties should really be focused on the harms that may be caused. Additionally, the committee amendments to Section four create duplicate statutory damages for violations of the right of publicity laws in Sections three thousand three forty four for the living and 3,344.1 for the deceased.
Those sections of law already provide statutory damages. And for both, as I said, the living and the deceased, these existing violations should not be covered by new enhanced damage provisions. As you might imagine, our member companies are perceived as deep pocketed defendants. And including additional statutory damages makes those who may be asserting a claim more aggressive in seeking a settlement. And so that's why we'd like to keep the damages as is in the current law.
Separately, we think subsection D is unnecessary and confusing, as it's language that would be tied to a right of publicity law and not just a simple damage provision sort of hanging out in the bill. Like I said, we've had very productive discussions. I expect they will continue. And we appreciate the author's consideration and the committee's consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for ME2S in opposition, which is is there a second witness?
Speaker 101
two minutes. I don't know how far this is gonna reach, so I might be just bent over here. But good morning, senator Laird, members of the committee. Aiden Downey representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. I'd like to begin by extending our sincere gratitude to Senator Becker, Chair Umburg, and the committee staff for their work in addressing several of our concerns with the bill.
Speaker 17
We appreciate the amendments, which shift the bill towards a more constitutionally sound framework. Specifically, we thank the author for the reporting mechanism amendments, some of the clarity there by requiring a certified court order or a judgment to trigger the forty eight hour removal requirement. The bill now better respects the First Amendment principles that speech should not be compelled for removal without, prior judicial determination. We also appreciate the amendments that clarify the enhanced liability only applies when a person distributes a digital replica with actual knowledge and is subsequently found liable for defamation or guilty of criminal false impersonation. While these changes represent a positive step forward, our coalition, remains in an oppose unless amendment position due to several outstanding issues.
Removing a piece of content within forty eight hours is still a timeline we think can cause problems. There may need to be a longer time frame for the service to review the validity or scope of the court order before removing any content. We continue to believe that liability should be strictly targeted at bad actors who maliciously exploit a person's likeness rather than the intermediaries or tool providers who lack intent or knowledge of the specific misuse. We're still reviewing the new reporting requirement standards, but our initial reading, concerns are that adding another conspicuous, prominent, or easily accessible reporting mechanism inherently degrades all the other reporting mechanisms that have that same requirement. So we're we're excited to continue to work with the senator on that.
But we appreciate the progress made to align this bill with existing California protections and constitutional requirements. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the senator to ensure, eleven forty two protects Californians. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much for your comments. Now this would be the opportunity for somebody to do a Me Too in opposition, name organization, and that you oppose the bill.
Speaker 20
Good morning, Chair and Members. Robert Polican with TechNet. Opposed unless amended position.
Speaker 8
Mr. Chair, Chris McAiley, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, oppose unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else moving to the microphone, I'll bring the matter back to the committee. Are there questions or comments?
Speaker 10
Senator Niello. And senator Laird, you are doing a fine job as chair, and I have a bill up in elections once they get past the special consideration also. So I'd have to leave then. Perhaps this was addressed, but the the true offender is the person that posts the content, not the platform itself, it would seem to me. So what would you say to that, senator Becker?
Speaker 13
Well, with the committee amendments, this removal trigger is is only by certified court order or judgment that the platform must remove content and known identical copies of forty eight hours. So we've we went from kind of a user reporting to a certified court order judgment. We think that's a fair standard.
Speaker 2
you. Anything else from committee members? Then let me ask if if I know that you've taken amendments. The amendments were praised by some of the opponents, but they still have remaining issues. Could you speak to the remaining issues that they raised?
Speaker 13
Yeah. I will have to review a few of those. Was was taking notes here. Excuse me. But I know we've had extensive discussions just in the last few days with my team and the committee and the opposition.
So, know, certainly committed to continuing those. I have to look at the section for concerns and, you know, concerns about sort of a you know, any any sort of duplicate, you know, duplicate I'm saying reporting, you know, kind of duplicate duplication issues. So we'll look at those.
Speaker 2
There's a way with the opponents. For sure. Thank you. I know that the chair has recommended an I vote based on the amendments that did come in. Would you like to close?
Speaker 13
Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Extensive work with my team and and mentioned the opposition of the committee. Really appreciate that.
I respectfully ask for an I vote. I think this is gonna help advance us to our digital ecosystem driven by respect, accountability, and trust. And I ask for an I vote at the appropriate time.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And we are subcommittee now. And at such time as we do have a quorum, we will catch up on the the bills that we have heard and have yet to take action on. So thank you very much. Okay.
Thank you. The next two bills are both by senator Blake Spear. The first one is senate bill nine eighty nine. It has to do with the care court program. Welcome to the committee.
Whenever you're ready, please, present.
Speaker 21
Well, thank you, chair, senator Laird, acting as chair. And hello, committee members. Just wanna make sure that my witnesses are in the room. Okay. Good.
I'm pleased to author SB nine eighty nine, which is sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters. This bill would expand access to CARE Court and help more Californians with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders receive the care that they need. CARE Court was created to provide a structured, coordinated pathway to treatment for individuals with severe mental illness who are too often cycling through emergency rooms, jail, and repeated law enforcement encounters. While early implementation shows promise, barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve. Early implementation data has shown that the system is not reaching everybody that it could serve.
Through 06/30/2024, there were five fifty seven petitions filed to care court statewide. Of those, two seventeen were dismissed, and only 100 individuals that's just eighteen percent ultimately developed treatment and housing plans. Today, first responders are often the first point of contact for individuals in crisis, but under current law, they must navigate a complex court filing process, obtain sensitive medical records, and appear in court to initiate a care petition. As a result, many individuals who would benefit from Care Court are never connected to the program. SB nine eighty nine creates a more practical and effective pathway by allowing first responders to request that county behavioral health agencies review and file care petitions on their behalf.
Counties are required to assess these requests within thirty business days and determine whether to file a petition when eligibility criteria are met or likely to be met. The bill also directs the Department of Health Care Services to develop a standardized referral form, provide guidance to first responders, and establish data reporting requirements to improve transparency and program performance. This reduces this will reduce administrative barriers, better align responsibilities with expertise, and ensure that individuals in crisis are connected to care not lost in the system. SB nine eighty nine builds on the promise of CARE Court by making it more accessible, more accountable, and more effective. And with me today in support to testify, I have Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters Association.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and pleased to be a sponsor of SB nine eighty nine. CPF and our local affiliates have been leading and evolving the local response framework to improve patient care and outcomes for individuals experiencing mental health crisis. Our members are committed to this work, and I hear again and again for them too often running 911 calls on individuals repeatedly and feeling like they can't connect members to the individuals to the care that they need.
We've worked in this legislature to improve access to community paramedicine programs, mobile integrated health programs, and we see care as the next step, another tool in that toolbox for our locals. When our members have to run these calls repeatedly on individuals and take them to the hospital knowing that they're gonna have to respond to that person again, my members tell me that they feel helpless. We see this pathway as another option for them. You may have heard from some folks who are going to express concerns about the underlying law of care and CARE Act. I think, from our perspective, if this process if there was a way to get individuals the treatment that they needed prior to care, we would not have CARE Act today.
And so now that we have CARE Act, we are committed to seeing implementation work, and we are happy to be working on these issues. The cycle of continuing to push these individuals to seek care through the EMS system is not sustainable and not fair to the person who needs help. In terms of the CARE Act, we have some really good examples of counties and local jurisdictions working alongside EMS and fire personnel. Those firefighters have been trained and understand the petition process. They show up at that first petition court date, and have experience doing it at the local level.
However, it is not being done in a more systematic way across the state, so we do have jurisdictions where the local EMS personnel do not feel equipped to do the petitions themselves, have not received that information and training at the local level. And this bill is aimed at those jurisdictions, giving them the resources, to, provide the information that they know about that individual to the county and having the county follow-up and do the petition based on, their expertise at the county level with county social workers and the like. So for those reasons, we are pleased to be a sponsor of this bill and ask for your support today. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody, with a me too support of this bill. Name, organization, and that you support the bill.
Speaker 89
Good morning. Theresa Pasquini, NAMI member, California ambassador for the treatment advocacy center, and most importantly, Danny's mom, who's been fifty one fifty to over 50 times. I'm proud to support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Elizabeth Kinohopper, care court petitioner for my daughter and representative for family advocates of individuals with serious mental illness from Sacramento region, member of NAMI California, NAMI Sacramento. Thank you. I support this bill.
Speaker 26
Mary Ann Bernard, also a member of NAMI, also a member of FazeMe, families family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness, and I support this bill.
Speaker 27
I'm Alice Feller. I'm also a NAMI, and I'm a psychiatrist with decades of experience treating people with severe mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. It's important. It's really important to get people with early
Speaker 2
Yes. Okay. Thank thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else, we'll move to opposition.
Is there anybody that is a primary witness in opposition to this bill? Welcome.
Speaker 29
Thank you, chair and members. Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. We apologize for getting our letter in late. We did oppose this bill in Senate Health, and we would like to share those same objections with this committee. Also, I want to thank the author and sponsor for their engagement on this bill.
The recent amendments do move the bill in a better direction, but we still have concerns and are here in opposition. While we share the concerns of first responders that too many people are cycling through emergency services, funneling people into CareCourt is not the solution. We continue to expand and add cost to CareCourt without fully understanding if it's actually working. The numbers from the CareCourt annual report are not promising. The report found over half, fifty six percent, of care participants did not receive at least one ordered mental health service.
Additionally, care participants are still suffering from adverse outcomes. During Care Court, twenty five percent of participants had criminal justice involvement, twenty one percent visited an emergency department, twenty percent had inpatient hospitalizations, and twenty percent experienced an involuntary hold. Further, people in Care Court are not actually being housed. The report found that twenty eight percent of care participants were unhoused during their active service period. Lastly, the cost of Care Court is astronomical.
The state is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this program without fully understanding the efficacy of the program. A report from the state legislature last year found the program cost $713,000 per participant. SB nine eighty nine, this bill would add yet another process, more complexity, and more cost to an unproven program that's struggling to meet its basic goals. For these reasons, we ask your no vote on SB nine eighty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any Me Too opposition, to this bill. Name, organization, and the fact that you oppose the bill. Welcome.
Speaker 20
Alright. Danny Theragall with Mental Health America of California and also on behalf of Calvoices in opposition.
Speaker 30
Senator Ken, on behalf of the rural county representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, and the urban counties of California, we're opposed unless amended, with the recent amendments, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. Wanted to echo the comments made by our county colleagues previously. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Male Thank you very much. Anybody else in Me Too opposition? Seeing none, we're going to bring the matter back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator D'Arrazza?
Speaker 11
wanna say I supported the health committee, supported the bill, and I think as either you said or the witness said, we had discussed a lot of issues that were related to, care court, and concerns and information that's needed, but that's really not what's before us. We're not deciding yes or no to go forward with care court. We're deciding a way to help make Care Court work. That's the way I see it being presented. Glad to support.
Speaker 2
yes, let me recognize the coauthor of the bill who's returned to the committee hearing.
Speaker 1
Okay. I can't wait. Thank you, senator Blakeshore, for carrying the torch. I've heard the end of the opposition. This is the care court is still a work in progress, and I appreciate you working to continue to improve the bill.
And I would expect that next year there'll be a bill to improve it, and the year after that there'll be a bill to improve it. But this is a new dynamic, and I realize that there are challenges, and I'm grateful for you helping to meet some of those challenges and continue to improve the efficacy and the efficiency of CareCort. With that, back to you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 52
Yes. Thank you. I I just wanna, say, thank you to senator D'Arrazza, who's now heard this in both committees, for putting her finger on exactly what this bill is doing, which is it's trying to make Care Court work better for first responders who are frequently interacting with a person who should be involved in CareCourt. And I think the, the many problems with CareCourt that were pointed out by the opposition are all things that we can work to fix. And when I toured CareCourt in San Diego, most of those people were actually able to access housing through CareCourt and were were it's almost like winning the lottery because in the same way that somebody who gets, a housing voucher and finds a place to live, when somebody's connected to all the services that CareCourt provides, they're able to be tremendously more supported than they were when they were living on the streets or in other, situations that were less ideal.
Speaker 21
So so I think CareCourt has a lot of things that could be improved, and this is one of them, the entrance points from first responders, to make that, more systematized, standardized across the state, and to allow first responders to ask counties, to, review and file the CARE petition. So, with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And we are a subcommittee, and when we do have a quorum, I'm sure we'll take this up for a vote. And then the next item is yours, item number five, and I'm gonna give the gavel back to the chair to take the next part of the hearing.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Laird. All right. File number five, SB ten sixteen. Senator Blakefield, the floor is yours.
Speaker 21
Okay. Thank you. This is the second bill that's related to Care Court in some way. So, thank you to the chair and committee for your work on this measure. I will be accepting the committee's amendments.
I'm here today to present SB ten sixteen, which bridges a gap in the CARE Court system that leaves those with the most serious mental illness unconnected to care. CARE Court was not designed for the most severe mental illnesses, including those considered gravely disabled. Some people are dismissed from care court process entirely because their illnesses are too severe. When care court is not sufficient, there is no clear or reliable pathway to escalate care. Existing law does allow for higher levels of intervention, but in practice, that path pathway is difficult to access.
Under section 5,200 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, courts can order a comprehensive mental health evaluation for individuals who are gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others. This process requires counties to order the pre petition screening, and many do not have the processes in place to do so. As a result, individuals frequently end up routed through emergency rooms where assessments are limited to short term crisis decisions rather than comprehensive evaluation and care planning. SB ten sixteen bridges this gap by allowing a petitioner to request that the court consider a higher level mental health evaluation if the individual is unable to participate due to the severity of their condition. SB ten sixteen does not create a new program or expand Care Court.
Rather, it ensures that when Care Court can't take someone, the system does not stop there. SB ten sixteen strengthens Care Court by making it part of a true continuum of care, and not a dead end. With me today in support, I have Doctor. Aaron Meyer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California San Diego, and Anne Marie Counsell, founding partner and mental health policy advisor, with Quarter Turned Strategies.
Speaker 76
Good morning, Chair Umbert, members of the committee. Aaron Meyer, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California San Diego, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, proud sponsor of Senate Bill ten sixteen. So the CARE Act was designed to deliver treatment options to Californians with the most severe mental illnesses, according to the judicial council. Those at risk of homelessness, incarceration, and repeated psychiatric crisis, but early data shows that some of the very people it was meant to serve are still being left behind. In February 2025, LA County reported that 29 petitions were dismissed because the individual was deemed unlikely to benefit and in need of a higher level of care.
Speaker 33
Where are those 29 people now? In February 2026, San Diego County reported that 77 petitions were dismissed due to a lack of engagement or refusal of services. But after a court has already found a prima facie showing, that lack of engagement may reflect the illness itself. Where are those 77 people now? These are often the sickest individuals, people who are deteriorating and may be unable to survive safely in the community without greater support.
SB ten sixteen closes that gap. It allows petitioners to alert the court when care may not be enough and for a small number of people create a true continuum of care so the sickest receive more help, not less. The CARE Act already allows court ordered mental health evaluations when safety is at risk, but counties should not be able to avoid action simply because they have not reoperationalized an existing process. San Diego County, Riverside County, Humboldt County have all demonstrated that 5,200 can be used. SB ten sixteen makes clear that the absence of process cannot justify inaction.
We should all be using every available tool to prevent the most vulnerable Californians from continuing to fall through the cracks. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 34
Good morning, chair Emberg and members of the committee. My name is Anne Marie Counsell. In addition to being a mental health policy adviser, I'm a retired senior deputy city attorney from San Diego. During my twenty five years as a DCA, I served on two drug court collaborative teams, developed criminal diversion processes for defendants living with mental illness, and served as legal counsel for first responders who were seeking care for the mentally me, seeking mental health care for the most vulnerable. I was proud to help draft SB ten sixteen because these changes are grounded in firsthand experience.
Without access to mental health treatment, I saw people living with severe mental illness commit felonies and become victims of violent crime because no programs could reach them. The CARE Act was a welcome and necessary new step in California, but those with severe mental illness still fall through. The state's own data confirms it. Of the first 160 care dismissals, over fifty percent received no connection to mental health treatment. Emergency departments were never designed to be the sole entry point for people with chronic grave disability, but that is where these individualies individuals repeatedly end up when every other door is closed.
SB ten sixteen connects laws we already have. The voluntary care program remains the primary pathway, but those who cannot benefit from voluntary outreach alone would no longer be excluded. This bill is not about overriding a choice. It is about reaching someone who is too ill to make a safe one. I worked alongside first responders who spent years trying to get help for the same individuals.
I've seen families spend decades. Many of these individuals never received care. Some ended up in state prison. Some died on the street. But not because no one tried.
It was because there was no bridge. SB ten sixteen is that bridge. I'm here speaking to you today because of those we strive to help. But more importantly, I'm here for those we were unable to help.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. All right. Others in support of SB ten sixteen, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 36
Hello. My name is Allison Monroe. I'm with a group called Alameda County Families Advocating for the Seriously and Mental Ill. This is my daughter, Diana, who was an assistant for the seriously mentally ill for eight or ten years and died of a fentanyl overdose a couple years ago. Yes, we're
Speaker 1
I'm sorry for your loss, but I we've got a number of bills today, so Yeah. If you could give us your name, your affiliation
Speaker 24
Thank you. I'm Theresa Pasquini. I'm an Army member. I am a member of the California Grave Disability Workgroup, and California Ambassador for Treatment Advocacy Center and Danny's mom. Proud to support this bill.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 25
Elizabeth Kinohopper of the Sacramento region. I'm a care Family Care Act petitioner, experienced these gaps. Also chair of family advocates with with of individuals with and their families, who have serious mental illness who proudly endorse this bill. We ask for your support.
Speaker 27
I'm Alice Feller, and, I Let's see. Oh, yeah. I'm with NAMI, and I support this bill.
Speaker 6
Lauren Ritaliada, family member of the CARE Act working group for the at the state level, a member of NAMI Conacosta, and a mom. I support ten sixteen.
Speaker 26
Mary Ann Bernard, NAMI member, Faze Me, family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness member, former assistant attorney general representing mental hospitals in another state. I support this bill except for proposed section five two zero one b, which is an abomination and should be taken out of
Speaker 38
Katie Poloni, mom. I work for behavioral health in Alameda County. I'm a member of FASMI, families advocating for the seriously mentally ill, and NAMI, and I emphatically support this bill.
Speaker 39
I'm the family liaison at NAMI Contra Costa, and I've I support this bill ten sixteen. And I'm here representing the families I tried to help petition, but their family members were too sick to voluntarily engage.
Speaker 40
Allison Morance. I'm a mom. I'm a member of FASMI. I'm also a member of the working group for the CARE Act on data and transparency. Strongly believe in this bill.
Speaker 23
Good morning. Gladys Lopez, NAPANAMI, and a family member, and I support this bill.
Speaker 6
Lisa Schmidt with NAMI. Yes. We definitely need to bridge this gap. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB ten sixteen, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB ten sixteen, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 29
Thank you, chair members. Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. We haven't had an opportunity to review the recent amendments from the committee, but based on our understanding, we would still oppose this bill. We are here in opposition to SB ten sixteen, which would permit care courts to order respondents into involuntary treatment. The bill would allow care courts to subject respondents to an evaluation under the LPS Act.
These evaluations take place in designated facilities and can be delayed for up to three days. So this bill would allow a care court judge, not a clinician, to order someone into a locked facility and wait up to three days before they see a provider. Our system has better ways to address people in mental health crisis. We have mobile crisis teams where an individual will immediately see a provider who may provide crisis intervention services that prevent the need for involuntary hospitalization altogether. The legal mechanism that this bill expands is a mostly unused statutory relic from sixty years ago.
Speaker 81
These petitions are unused because we have more accurate and cost effective ways to determine whether someone needs to be taken in for involuntary treatment or for an evaluation. By creating a new pathway for involuntary treatment, this bill will increase the number of people placed on involuntary holds. CareCourt currently suffers from high costs and complexity and struggles to gain the buy in of the people that it's meant to serve. This bill will make all of those issues worse. SB ten sixteen adds an expensive, coercive, and convoluted layer to CareCourt that will drive up costs and further erode the rights and trust of the Californians that our system is supposed to help.
Speaker 1
Marty, thank you. Others opposed to SB ten sixteen, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 31
Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in respect for opposition. We appreciate the forthcoming amendments, but still hold concerns over making a voluntary process in Care Court involuntary, but look forward to continued conversations with the author and the sponsors. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Sarah Decatur, on behalf of the rural county representatives of California, the urban counties of California, and the California State Association of Counties, we're currently opposed reviewing the amendments, and look forward to continued dialogue to address our concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else opposed to SB ten sixteen? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments?
Yes. Yes. Senator Nieto.
Speaker 10
One quickly. I support, both this bill and the previous bill. Mental illness is a contributor to our significant homeless challenge, mental illness and and substance abuse, and anything that will get more people into treatment is a good thing. And both of these bills seek to do that.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Let me thank you again and and I suppose I'll stipulate to the comments that I made in the earlier bill that this is also an important improvement. One of the challenges in Care Court that we've experienced is this gap. And the bill, helps to fill that gap so that there are warm handoffs, so that there's a continuum of care. A couple comments to those that are here that have participated in CareCourt.
One of the challenges is that having lived experience in this space is that I I know families are desperate for something to help their family and those who are immediately impacted. But the entire family is impacted by mental illness. And it it is a huge challenge, a huge challenge. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to provide a structure so that we can have these folks who have schizophrenia, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, who sadly many people think that they can never become productive members of society. And that is not true.
If they receive proper treatment, they certainly can become productive members of society. And so that's what we're about. And that's what care court's about. So I appreciate I appreciate that, senator Blakespeare. And I appreciate all the families that are here.
And I appreciate the patience of the families who have loved ones who have schizophrenia or psychotic or excuse me bipolar with psychotic features. I appreciate their understanding and their patience. So with that, would you like to close?
Speaker 21
Yes, thank you. Well, I appreciate your comments, Chair, and I also appreciate your comments, Vice Chair. I just want to say thank you to the representatives from NAMI who came and are humanizing this, because as you said, families are desperate for the system to work better for their loved ones. And when we have a sizable percentage, as my witnesses said, who are falling out of care court because they're too severe and it's essentially just falling back into the streets or other situations that are not helping them, we really want there to be the warm handoff, as you said, and have a way for people to be connected to the care that they need, so which is ultimately compassionate and in the best interest of them and also of their families. And so we'd like to try to make those pathways more possible.
So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We are still a subcommittee. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion, and we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Cabaldon was there he is. Okay. Senator Cabaldon's here. I think he's next in order. Senator Cabaldon, file number six, s b thirteen forty four.
Speaker 70
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Continuing with the theme of making that bridge real, SB thirteen forty four is intended to help to assure that we make real the promises of Proposition one and our many, many commitments to invest in emergency shelters and interim housing, adult and senior care facilities, and in supportive housing. The legislature has already acted, to protect affordable housing from frivolous lawsuits that have no chance of succeeding. And existing law allows defendants in cases that are that are filed for that purpose to quickly challenge meritless lawsuits and to require plaintiffs to post a bond when their litigation risks are delaying construction.
Speaker 42
And they allow for the filing of a motion to strike, when there is no demonstrated probability of success by the plaintiff. That applies only to affordable housing today. This bill extends those same protections to priority care developments, including projects funded through the Community Care Expansion Program, the Behavioral Health Services Act, and the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act, including Homekey Plus. These are projects that serve our most vulnerable neighbors. They are essential to solving the crisis of folks living homeless on our streets, and they should not be easier to block than the affordable housing that is so closely tied to these programs.
So with me today as a witness is Jana Saniford with the Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs, for Attorney General Rob Bonta, sponsor of this legislation, And here to answer, questions are in technical assistance, Alex Fish, the special attorney assistant attorney general for housing. I would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and committee members. My name is Janice Staniford. I'm a deputy attorney general for AG Rob Bonta, and Alex Fish is here as a technical witness to help answer questions. On behalf of the AG, I wanna start by thanking senator Kobolden for authoring this important bill and you, chair Umburg, for our principal coauthoring.
The AG is committed to using the expertise of the Department of Justice and our Housing Justice team to advance housing access, affordability, and equity in California. The AG supports proven evidence based housing first policies that bring Californians inside. SB thirteen forty four would support that goal by deterring and more quickly resolving meritless lawsuit lawsuits that delay building housing interventions for California's most vulnerable populations. There are existing procedural tools that give courts the ability to strike a meritless claim and to impose a bond as security for costs and damages resulting from project delays from a meritless claim. These tools protect a limited class of affordable housing projects and the cities that approve them from meritless litigation.
Speaker 67
SB thirteen forty four would extend those protections to also apply to priority care developments, which are projects funded through the Community Care Expansion Program, the Behavioral Health Services Act, and the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act, including HomeKeep Plus. These programs fund emergency shelters, interim housing, adult and senior care facilities, and supportive housing, including more than $1,000,000,000 in housing investments for veterans facing behavioral health challenges. By extending these procedural tools to apply to priority care developments, SB thirteen forty four would protect projects that the state has prioritized by providing funding and streamlined ministerial approvals. The AG is proud to sponsor SB thirteen forty four to facilitate urgently needed residential facilities statewide that support California's most vulnerable populations, and we respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Next witness, please. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to me too testimony on s b thirteen forty four. If you're in support of s b thirteen forty four, please approach your microphone.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching. If you're opposed to SB thirteen forty four, now is a good time for you to come forward and testify. Seeing no one coming forward. Alright.
Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing no questions or comments, at the appropriate time, senator Kobolden, I expect a motion, and we'll take it up for a vote. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
and members. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Senator D'Rasso.
Thank you very much, Senator D'Rasso. Senator D'Rasso is going to be presenting for senator Menjivar. That's file number 14SB915.
Speaker 11
You, Mr. Chair. On behalf of Senator Mengevar, I'm presenting SB nine fifteen, the Care With Dignity Act. The senator will be taking the committee amendments. Do I need to read them off?
Speaker 11
Okay. There have been numerous reports of federal immigration agents interfering with medical decisions or being present in the same room as patients when under their custody. These are actions that have no place in health care and are a clear violation of patients' rights. SB nine fifteen closes the gap between existing law and practice by empowering healthcare provider entities with the tools to uphold the privacy, health and visitation rights of patients brought in under immigration custody. Just to share an example of the incidents, SB nine fifteen is attempting to stop from what happening.
The LA Times recently reported an instance at Harbor UCLA Medical Center where ICE agents brought the individual to the hospital with serious leg injuries after an encounter with the ICE agents earlier that day. The ICE agents shackled him to his bed for several days despite not being able to walk. The patient was unable to speak privately with doctors, violating his right to private communication with doctors. He was interrogated while in pain and under medication. The patient also did not have access to external communications as the hospital used pseudonyms, known as blackout policies, preventing both his family and legal counsel from being able to access him.
Speaker 16
This patient was monitored by federal agents for about a month and was not even charged. That is just one example as there are many cases that have come to light as we have heard from several providers and advocates that ICE is remaining in the patient room, or due to lack of guidance, and some hospitals are even deferring to ICE to guidance on what they can or cannot do with the patient. There needs to be a clear overarching guidance to ensure that a patient's right to privacy and their health care rights are maintained, not only when ICE agents try to enter hospitals, but also to address when individuals are in ICE custody. Testifying in support of this bill is Xuming Cheer, deputy director of immigrant and racial justice, and Francesco Sergi, emergency medicine resident physician in San Francisco.
Speaker 48
Good morning. My name is Doctor. Francesco Sergi, and I am an emergency medicine physician in San Francisco. As a doctor, I stand in strong support of SB nine fifteen. In the last several months, I have been involved in the care of several patients in immigration custody who were brought to our emergency department for medical care.
My ability to provide life saving care for these patients has been severely restricted by ICE's behavior. ICE officers have refused to step out of my patients' rooms during sensitive medical exams, and they've attempted to act as their surrogate decision makers. They have denied me the ability to call patients' families and refused to allow to connect my patients to legal counsel. They've even pressured me to discharge my patients to their custody without providing any information about the medical capabilities available at their facility. ICE has also instilled fear in our hospitals and kept us from doing our jobs.
I have personally experienced and witnessed other health care workers grappling with the consequences of protecting patients' rights, worrying that we might be threatened with legal recourse, lose our licenses, or be racially profiled by ICE agents. That fear harms patients and the clinicians trying to care for them. SB nine fifteen protects patients' rights, but it also addresses the real fears and challenges that providers face when interacting with ICE officers. This bill addresses the real situation where ICE refuses to comply, asking the health care entity to simply document this violation in the medical record. It further reduces the burden on providers by permitting a health care entity to appoint or designate representatives to interact with ICE.
Speaker 5
We understand the potential danger of confronting ICE, and these protections can help keep health care workers out of harm's way. SB nine fifteen supports health care workers in providing the same standard of care we already give every other patient and, in these uncertain times, is exactly what providers need to move forward. Thank you for your time, and I urge you to support SB-nine 15.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And there's a second witness in support. Welcome. You have up to two minutes.
Speaker 49
Good morning. Shimming Cheer with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're a proud cosponsor of SB nine one five because it protects patients' rights when they're brought in by ICE. Immigration detention in health care settings endangers patient rights, patient health, and the well-being of patient care teams. Since last October, I've been talking to health providers on a weekly basis about immigration agents bringing people to hospitals for medical care.
Many of them have shared concerns about immigration agents and hospitals disrupting the provision of care and about the lack of internal policies that prioritize the privacy and well-being of patients under ICE custody. In the one case that senator Darazzo mentioned, a car wash worker suffered serious injuries during a raid. While in the hospital, he was surveilled by immigration agents nonstop. They did not allow him to meet with doctors or attorneys in private, a clear violation of HIPAA rights as well as a right to have confidential conversations with legal counsel. It took the filing of a lawsuit for a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order requiring immigration officials to remove the guards watching over the patient, take off his handcuffs, leave him unrestrained.
Not every patient will have attorneys by their side to file a federal lawsuit nor should it take a law suit to assert long standing rights such as the right to privacy and to make independent health decisions. When armed immigration agents are present in hospitals and clinics, they create fear that undermines trust. It's critical that health care facilities empower staff to continue providing services without undue interference or fear. SB nine one five does this by designating representatives from its personnel management administration or legal counsel to implement the bill's provisions, including who will interact with immigration enforcement officers. The recent amendments to this bill protect both workers and health care provider entities from liability when they have attempted to carry out the provisions of the bill.
Speaker 97
We can't control what immigration agents do in response to being asked to disclose their identities or to step out of a patient room, But we can support the providers and health entities for protecting the rights of their patients and upholding their ethical and professional responsibilities. In addition, this bill helps to make sure that we're not discharging people into deadly immigration detention centers where the conditions of care are extremely poor and over 35 people have died in ICE custody last year. That's why over 70 health
Speaker 49
Thank you. That's why over 70 groups support this bill, and I urge you to vote eye on it.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for Me Too testimony in support. Just your name, your organization, and that you support the bill.
Speaker 22
Omar Altamimi, on behalf of CPEN, the California Pan Ethnic Health Network, a proud cosponsor, in support.
Speaker 44
Chloe Armulcia with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud cosponsor in support, also registering support for the Clean Car Wash Campaign and the California Community Foundation.
Speaker 44
Lan Le, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California, and also the ACLU, in support.
Speaker 50
Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Chidla, in support.
Speaker 54
Good morning. Matt Laje with SEIU California, supportive amended position.
Speaker 14
Alexis Deloro, worker rights director, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. We support the bill.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in line, this would be the opportunity, for primary witness in opposition. Welcome. You have up to two minutes.
Speaker 83
Thank you. Morning. Hopefully, won't take that long. Katherine Austin Scott with the California Hospital Association. We are in a pose unless amended position, as we are, and continue to remain concerned about putting health care workers in between DHS and Custom Border Patrol, patients and patients.
Speaker 55
So, we have been working with the committee, so thank you for the amendments to address many of our concerns, and the author and sponsors, to address both the liability concerns, as well as the concerns related to how we manage that interaction. So, obviously, completely appreciate the need for the bill, but also want to make sure that as we're managing this interaction, we're not escalating the situation that would then risk our patients and our workers. So thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would wish to to register opposition to this bill?
Speaker 56
Eric Dowdy with the California Dental Association. We were in oppose unless amended. The recent amendments regarding liability, were now neutral on the bill.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, I think I will return it to the broad membership of the committee that is here right now. And I know that the chair had worked with the author and that the amendments addressed many of the issues. He had recommended an I vote with those amendments. Let me give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chair. I know that there are concerns on both sides. The the good part is, even with our opposition, we all want the same thing, which is to protect anyone who goes in as a patient and to not be told what to do by an ICE agent. So I I appreciate the the work of the opposition to address this. And actually, we're trying to make sure that nothing is the situation is not escalated.
Those health care workers need guidance, and and that's the that's the real purpose of this bill. So I ask all of my colleagues who are here to protect the health care rights and the patient privacy of all patients regardless of their immigration status. Respectfully ask for your vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. As you well know, we're operating as a subcommittee and when we have a quorum, we will take up this bill for action.
Speaker 2
And we are going to move to your bill, which is file item 35, senator D'Arrazzo, unlawful detainer. Whenever you're ready, you're
Speaker 11
Okay. Thank you, mister chair. I wanna thank the committee for their hard work, and and I accept the committee amendments on page 14 of the committee analysis. SB twelve forty three provides a tenant with a defense against eviction for nonpayment of rent when the tenant's income has been impacted by immigration enforcement activities. With these amendments, the bill allows tenants specifically experiencing a detention related hardship to raise this affirmative defense, a ninety day stable eviction after the hardship ends, and allow landlords to request an evidentiary hearing where tenants must show a preponderance of evidence to prove the hardship.
Starting in January 2025, the federal government increased significantly increased immigration enforcement activities and deportations, terrorizing communities across this nation. With nearly 11,000,000 immigrants, the highest share of immigrants than any other state, California has been a primary target with over 10,000 people detained by ICE since the Trump administration took office. And I say citizens as well as non citizens alike. Behind these numbers are immigrant families facing emotional and severe financial hardship. Many have been forced to cope with the pain of seeing their loved ones detained while losing vital income and taking on additional out of pocket costs just to stay afloat.
This includes high legal expenses to defend a detained member, child care expenses. These costs add up quickly, pushing already vulnerable households further into financial distress and close to ending up on the streets. The impact doesn't stop at individual families. It extends into the broader economy. Los Angeles County report found that 82% of surveyed businesses experienced negative consequences, such as reduced staff, difficulties finding replacement workers, and reduced daily sales, impacting many, many more people than those directly facing the hardship.
These hardships on immigrant families increase the likelihood of eviction and will contribute towards homelessness. Many Californians already experience economic challenges paying their rent. Two thirds of undocumented workers qualify as rent burdened. With detention related hardships, these challenges are only worsening. These collateral consequences make it more difficult for immigrant families to get back on their feet.
This bill addresses this, issue by providing eviction protections for nonpayment of rent when a tenant household experiences a detention related hardship. With us today, we have Catherine Huang, staff attorney with Asian Americans Advancing Justice of Southern California and Monica Madrid, state policy advocate with the, CURLA. Tina Rosales Torres from the Western Center on Law and Poverty is here to help with technical questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Welcome to the committee. You have up to two minutes for your presentation.
Speaker 84
Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Catherine Huang. I'm a staff attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, also known as AJ SoCal, and we are a proud cosponsor of SB twelve forty three. AG SoCal is the nation's largest legal and civil rights organization for Asian Americans, native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.
Speaker 58
Undocumented AAPIs are well represented among the over 11,000 individuals we serve annually. Many of the people we assist are also tenants, where any interruption to a paycheck or increase in financial burdens can push them to the verge of eviction and homelessness. To make matters worse, the sudden and violent escalation of immigration enforcement is forcing tenants to choose between going to work and risking getting detained or staying home but jeopardizing their housing. One of our clients, mister l, spent over two months in detention and only a couple of weeks ago began to work began to return to work. Mister Elle and others will need community support and resources to heal from the injustices they've suffered.
With any client, the best way to deliver services is to ensure they have a home to return to. SB twelve forty three gives tenants the chance to stay housed as they simultaneously try to put their lives back together after they themselves or a loved one was detained or deported. This bill also recognizes the hardships that landlords, especially small mom and pop owners, may face when a tenant is unable to pay their rent. As such, s b twelve forty three does not infringe upon a landlord's ability to evict a tenant not impacted by immigration enforcement activities or to collect rent from a tenant who has been impacted by such activities. It simply has the landlord give an impacted tenant just enough time to get back on and pay their rent.
For these reasons, we urge you to vote yes on SB twelve forty three. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Monica Madrid, and I'm a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Chile. I'm here as a proud cosponsor of SB twelve forty three. Across California, we are witnessing something that no child should ever have to experience. Parents taken in early morning raid, workers detained on the way on their way to provide for their families, loved ones disappearing without warning.
Through CHIRLA's rapid response network in Los Angeles, we what started as just 200 volunteers has grown to over 1,800 community members responding to these incidents in real time because the need has become that urgent, and it's that constant. What we are seeing is not just enforcement, it's unraveling of entire families. Because because after a parent is taken, the crisis doesn't stop there. Rent is still due, bills still continue, and eviction notices follows. Children are left trying to understand where to pay where their parent went while also facing the very real possibility of losing their home.
That is trauma layered on trauma. SB twelve forty three is about stopping that second crisis because losing a parent to detention should not mean losing your home too. The bill provides a narrow and temporary protection, just enough time for families to stabilize, to seek support, and to hold on to the one thing that remains constant, their home. Because for a child, home is not just a place, it is safety. It is routine.
Speaker 38
It is a last sense of normalcy they have when everything else is being taken from them. We cannot control federal enforcement actions, but we can decide what happens next. We can decide whether a child already living through fear and separation is also forced into homelessness, whether or whether we step in even briefly to protect their stability and dignity. SB twelve forty three asks us to choose compassion, to choose stability, to choose children. And in moments like this, that choice matters.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any member of the public to do me too testimony in support of this bill, your name, your organization, and that you support the bill.
Speaker 23
Good morning, chair and member. Senator Rosales Torres with Western Center on Law and Poverty in proud support, also on behalf of public advocates. Thank you.
Speaker 23
chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power CA Action in support. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Good morning, Sophia Liu, on behalf of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in support.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support.
Speaker 53
Good morning, Sydney Fong. On behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Pacific Empowerment, API Force, proud cosponsor in support, as well as ACE, Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment, as well as VIT Voices.
Speaker 53
Hi. Nina Long, offering proxy support for OC Action, Tenants United Anaheim, and Resilience OC in support.
Speaker 59
Hello. Simone Lee with Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance in support.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Seeing no one else in support, this would be the opportunity for a primary witness to speak in opposition to this bill. You would have up to two minutes.
Speaker 59
Good morning, chair and senators. My name is Freddy Cantana representing the California Apartment Association and we are respectfully opposing SB twelve forty three. We appreciate the work of the chair and the author to prepare amendments shared in the analysis, we will continue to look at those amendments. As proposed, SB twelve forty three provides a tenant with affirmative defense against eviction for nonpayment of rent if the tenant's income was impacted by immigration enforcement activities. We are deeply sympathetic with the individuals being impacted by immigration enforcement activities.
Speaker 60
However, the legislation, as originally proposed, provides a 180 of protection after the conclusion of the immigration enforcement activity. This means the financial burden from these activities are passed along to housing providers. Many of our smaller independent property owners will immediately feel the effects, the impacts, and would struggle to pay their own mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance bills. We would prefer a state assistance program to provide dollars to these tenants to help them pay the rent instead of placing the burden on rental property owners. For these reasons, we respect the California Apartment Association respectfully opposes SB twelve forty three.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any me too opposition to this bill.
Speaker 61
Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association in opposition for reasons previously stated. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Robert Mucci, California Chamber of Commerce, echoing the concerns of the Apartment Association. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Good morning, Chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition and align our comments with the previous speaker. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, in opposition, then I'm gonna bring the matter back to the committee for questions or comments. Seeing none, let me just ask, I know that the chair had recommended aye with amendments. I didn't know if you wished to speak to any of the concerns that came up in the opposition or you want to do that in your close.
Speaker 11
The only thing I wanted to clarify, which I can do in in closing, is that the amendments changed the the stay from a hundred and eighty days to ninety days. So that is a significant change through this amendment. And frankly, just, you know, want to remind folks that there's a lot of a lot of hurt out there because of the raids, a lot of uncertainty because of the raids. And if we don't address this to prevent homelessness, people will end up on the street. These are not folks who have, you know, a savings account that could carry them over for months and months and months.
So let's just remember, we do not want more people to become homeless. That's a very, very important part of this bill, and this gives them a very, very short period to stabilize, which is much better for our communities to face rather than absorb the damage of violent enforcement. So with all due respect, I ask for a nay vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And let me just say that we do not have a quorum yet. And at such time as we do, we will take this bill up for a formal vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Then we are going to move. I see Senator Choi here as the next in line of on the file. I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
Speaker 38
We're doing just one we're just doing the one with the We're just doing one with the
Speaker 2
So he's deferring to you on one bill. We'd go back to him and then if nobody in front of you in line shows up, we'd go back to your other two. Well, that's about as clear as some of the bills we have in front of us today. Okay. Thank you.
Then in which of your three bills is it that you wish to take up?
Speaker 2
Okay. Then we we will move to item number 16, which is Senate Bill 13 o eight. Welcome Thank to the you.
Speaker 38
Thank you, mister chair. I'm pleased to present senate bill 13 o eight, which would allow all members and employees of the California state legislature to complete a course focused on The US and California constitution. When we, as members, take an oath of office, we commit ourselves to serving in the best interest of our communities and, most importantly, our constituents. This oath is not merely ceremonial. It's a binding promise to uphold the rule of law and act within the framework of our constitutional authority.
Unfortunately, when this promise of working within the scope of the law has been broken, it does us disservice to our constituents and does not uphold the integrity of the legislature. At its core, s p 13 o eight is about enforcing or reinforcing our commitment to responsive governance. This includes a strong understanding of both constitutions, which is essential for sound policy making. The California legislature already requires members and staff to participate in trainings on legislative ethics and harassment and discrimination prevention, as well as workplace safety. SB 13 o eight will build on this foundation by offering additional opportunity to deepen our understanding of the governing documents that guide every action we take.
A constitutional course would provide members and staff with a practical refresher on the separations of powers, individual rights, and the limits of government authority, which is incredibly important. My goal is to reward members and staff who participate in the course with public acknowledgment of the course completion as well as acknowledgment in their email signatures and on their respective websites if this bill moves forward today. Providing access to this kind of educational research supports better decision making and promotes a greater public trust in legislature. And I would like to add on that note that given the fact that we have so many members coming in, without a background in either political science or, or law, many many of us coming in from life experiences that have not exposed us to necessarily the the constitution. I think it's incredibly important that as we're coming in as a representative government body that we all have an opportunity to learn the basic foundations of these documents.
It is our responsibility to keep strengthening institutional integrity and ensuring our work reflects a clear understanding of the law. Here with me today is Chris McKelley, a law professor and longtime member of the capital community, to share his perspective on the importance of this educational requirement. And I also have doctor Mary Beth Moylan from the McGeorge Law who specializes in constitutional law.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Welcome to the committee, and each of you will have up to two minutes to present.
Speaker 40
Thank you. I'm not Chris. Mary Beth Moylan here. I'm a professor at McGeorge Law School for the last twenty six years, and I think Chris will go next. So thank you very much for hearing my thoughts on this.
My colleague Leslie Jacobs has also submitted a letter in support. Leslie is a constitutional law scholar and the Anthony Kennedy professor of law. My comments today in support of this will focus on the idea that as lawmakers and legislator legislators, particularly in this moment, there is a need for understanding of our United States constitution, our California constitution, and the intersection of those two founding documents. When any lawmaker comes into their position, they swear to uphold both of these foundational documents. And the idea that they would not have some training or some background that is specifically about those documents, feels absurd given that the role that they play is to uphold these documents and to pass our laws.
Speaker 77
Particularly in this moment where we have a weakening of the rule of law principles, particularly at the federal level, our lawmakers need to understand the contours of federalism and the extent of their role in a constitutional democracy. The California Constitution is detailed. It is much more complicated and complex than the federal constitution. Some of you may be familiar. I teach a course on the initiative process, and it is particularly important that California legislators understand the provisions relating to the initiative process and how they can go about amending or not amending, bills that are passed through the initiative process initially.
Speaker 40
So there's a great deal of information. I think this bill is, very, frankly, mild and limited in its requirement of what legislators would need to do. But it's very important that the legislative council provide some training all the
Speaker 2
The other witness has arrived on the scene. Welcome to the committee. You have up to two minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaylee, in a personal capacity, as I was last year on the Senator's, measure, I think that the effort here I it's hard to follow Professor Moylan on this, but I would, too, emphasize that issues such as, preemption and separation of powers and delegation of, regulatory authority and other topics that could be easily covered by attorneys at Ledge Council, because they do their own internal training for their lawyers there, are things that cut across all issues. They're not just limited to those members of the judiciary committee. It could be in health and education and public safety and a whole myriad.
And I think the way that the senator envisions this, as similar to your, ethics training every two year legislative session, This could be easily tacked on for those purposes, and I think it would be extremely valuable for legislators and staff in this building, also considering the number of bills, whether it's this year or laws, excuse me, this year or in the past that have been challenged repeatedly in the federal courts to have a a better grasp of these types of legal issues. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for any me too testimony in support of this bill, your name, your organization, and that you support the bill. Seeing no one, we will move to opposition. I don't know if there's a primary opposing witness here. I think it's a coincidence that she's walking up.
Is there any other opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring the matter back to the committee. Are there committee questions or comments? Seeing none, I will ask a couple of questions. The first one is the chair had asked that you, take an amendment that makes this voluntary.
And then it gave him if you didn't take that amendment, it gave him great concerns and he quite likely would not recommend the the bill. Is that an amendment you have considered taking or willing to take?
Speaker 38
Thank you for for the question. So it's not the reason I have concerns with the voluntary, it wasn't, this topic of discussion in last year presentation of the bill. This was something new that came up this particular year with, with senator with the chair, with wanting to this this class to be voluntary. But as my comments, to senator, to Umburg were were the fact that, first of all, it's not voluntary whether or not we as legislators take the oath. Right?
It's mandatory for us to be able to do that. And second, the other concern that I had with it was that if we were to make it voluntary, those folks that do not necessarily value or respect or see any purpose in taking this, this course would not actually take the course. So the very, very people that would be, imperative that take the course may not choose to take the course. And those of us that see a value and respect it and would like to know more about it and understand our roles as legislators, especially for those of us without a law degree or a political science background coming in in into this into this body, we thought it you know, we would actually take it. So that would those were my concerns expressed to him.
The other the other comment that I had was, you know, we could make it voluntary if, if we had a condition there that those that were willing to chair or vice chair a committee, those folks would actually be compelled to take the course because they would be in leadership positions. So we thought that that could actually be also a possibility to consider. None of those actually were were considered by the chair from what I understand because none of them were accepted. So we haven't really come up with a resolution on that on those particular but those were my concerns about making it just voluntarily without any teeth in that component because
Speaker 38
No. No. No. I I I those those are my basic points and the concerns and conversations that I have with the chair.
Speaker 2
I appreciate the advocacy for the bill. The the question was really whether you were going to take an amendment. And and I I'm gathering from that the answer is clearly no.
Speaker 38
Now we just find and and though it wasn't written, by the way, it was just something that we were supposed to submit. The the the the I think the statement was submit something for me that has a voluntary component in it.
Speaker 2
It's just really unfortunate that this bill was taken up when he's not here.
Speaker 2
He would articulate his position much better than I just did. But I wanted to make sure since that was his position that it was on the table. My other question, this relates to comments I made in the version to this bill that came up last year. That is even though this is not the fiscal committee and and and if this bill were to pass out of this committee, it would go to appropriations. Do you have an estimate of what the cost would be?
Speaker 38
I do not have an estimate, but I can't imagine being that that expensive. I don't know if I have anybody here that could possibly give an opinion on that, but I can we can try to figure that out for you
Speaker 2
and and bring that information. Let me remake the point that that I made last year. When I showed up in the legislature, which is amazingly almost twenty four years ago, I was named chair of a special committee on state mandates in the assembly. And there was one particular mandate that came exactly similar to this bill. It was that you had to teach six historic documents in American history in the state.
Some were obvious, the constitution, the declaration of independence. Some weren't obvious. I think it was Eisenhower's farewell address and and something else. What it led to was that any textbook that had a reference to those documents became part of a state mandate. And it led to millions of dollars of costs.
And what we did, ironically, was make that voluntary. And we made that voluntary because we would not have the millions of dollars of costs. I mean, they were even a clerk in school districts would count the number of pages that have those documents and then the salary of the clerk for counting the pages would be billed to the state as part of a mandate payment. I think that gives some validity to what the chair is trying to do here. Even though we are the policy committee and it will go to a fiscal committee, We can't help with what we do sort of create what the fiscal outlook will be when it gets to the fiscal committee.
I just wish he were here to be able to articulate more clearly his concerns in the back and forth. I felt obligated to articulate them in his absence. I think it if I have it right without you taking the voluntary amendment, he still opposes the bill. I I Senator, Weber Pearson.
Speaker 63
Thank you. I wanna thank the senator for, for bringing this bill forward. I do remember having conversations about this last year. I do still have significant concerns with this. I'm not sure that a one, two, three hour course every year, every other year, every four years is really going to produce the outlook that you're looking for.
When you talk about the fact that some of the bills that have been passed, that have been reviewed by legal scholars are then overturned by higher courts, that has to do with the fact that constitution is really based on one's interpretation. And we see that at a state level, we see that at a federal level. That's why you can have some that agree, some that dissent. It's based on years of their learning and understanding and practicing of the law. And I'm not sure that this course is going to change that as far as our understanding for those of us that are not that do not have a legal background.
And then my other question would be where do we stop? Because from my perspective, I think that that there needs to be more information that people have on health. It's frustrating the kind of bills that are at times with the bills that are suggested or brought forward because people don't have the background knowledge about how health policy works and how it's actually implemented on the ground level as I, as a physician, understand. So if we're going to do that, then someone would say, Well, what about education? Or what about public safety?
Or what about this? Or what about that? And so that is why in this room we have, you know, our ledge council. That's why we have committee staff that have years of experience in this area. And then, yes, some of them may be may end up being sued and and go to court and be overturned, but that is based on that particular judge's interpretation of the of the constitution.
And so I'm not I'm not sure that this bill would ultimately bring about any change in that area. And so for those reasons and and also for the fact that it's, you know, I guess I don't I don't know what happened with the conversations but, you know, there wasn't the amendment or whatever that was presented or taken. I unfortunately will not be able to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Any other committee I'll give you a chance in your close to respond to anything that that comes here. Any other questions or comments? Senator Niemou.
Speaker 10
Yes. Thank you very much, mister chair. Sorry I'm late. I had to present a bill elsewhere. But believe this is a good bill.
Speaker 23
You know, there is no educational responsibility or requirement for being a legislator. And so this is not to cast dispersions on any of my any of my colleagues, but are we trained in the operations of our government, our constitutional government, our separation of duties, our three co equal branch and separation of duties. I would say people who have graduated from our K-twelve system in recent years, in the last decade, perhaps more, that level of education is not even as great as it was when I was through the K-twelve system. So again, not to cast any dispersions, but just to make sure that we who practice lawmaking under our constitutional system, under our three co equal branches of governments representing our legislature, sometimes versus the executive branch, and recognizing that co equal status and the separation of duties, I think it's very important that we hold those concepts very dear in our execution of the legislative responsibility. And this sort of training would help all of us have an equal representation of that knowledge.
Speaker 2
a supporter of this bill. Thank you. Any other comments from the committee on this?
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogan. I appreciate your dedication to this mission and this concept. No doubt we'd all benefit from additional education in a number of different areas. I understand that that you and I have talked about it, I understand you're you're not gonna make it voluntary. Is that right?
Speaker 38
Well, as I mentioned earlier in your absence was the conversation that we had, which was we can make it volunteer, but it has to be has to have a little bit of a teeth in it. Otherwise, no one's gonna be compelled. And we talked about the fact that, those that value and understand the oath that we're taking, that we're we're compelled we're not we're not we're not optionally taking that oath as as legislators. Right? We are we're kind of obligated to take that oath in that governance.
And in, in in a conversation that we had, I mentioned the fact that the people that value the constitution, both The US and the California, are going to willingly take it. Right? Because we want to learn, we wanna be better at what we're doing. And those that do not are not going to want to take it. They're not gonna find a value in it.
So I so my thought was, as I mentioned to you in our private conversation, was that if we had a little bit of teeth in it such as, you know, if you were to be a chair or a vice chair of a committee, and you would be compelled to take the, the the course because then you you'd be in leadership position. So I would be completely okay with something like that, that would give it a little bit of teeth. But voluntary, you know, the oath is not voluntary. It's mandatory. So that's that that was my conversation.
That's what I mentioned to to senator or to the chair at the time, senator Laird, with the fact that I'm okay with voluntary if you're going into leadership than making it mandatory?
Speaker 1
So I have strong views on the constitution. I would expect that you probably have strong views too. I I believe the constitution or the penumbra of a number of amendments protect a woman's right to choose. You you may not agree with me. I I believe that there are certain other elements of the constitution, the second amendment with respect to the right to bear arms.
I believe that that that doesn't entitle you to an unfettered right to to bear arms. I believe that, for example, that the clause in the constitution that that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, I think that there are a number of different interpretations of that. But I also believe that my point of view and and in a class, for example, with respect to constitution is not gonna change your point of view on a number of these issues, whether it's the second amendment, whether it's the fourth amendment. And that the issues that we would have to basically both discuss and arrive at some common understanding are such that that we're not gonna change our we're just simply not gonna change our values. And so while we can have a class to make sure that we don't quarter soldiers, because that's also proven in the constitution, we're probably not gonna disagree on on the quartering of of soldiers in our homes.
But anything that is of consequence that we actually have to decide here, I think that that all of us bring certain values and views with respect to constitution and that the that that this mandatory class would not appreciably, basically change that. So I understand that you and I disagree and and unfortunately, I'm not gonna be able to support it. But other other questions or comments? Senator Laird, you're currently hearing, so I'll leave it back to you.
Speaker 2
Well, if there are no other questions or comments, this would be your opportunity to close. If I may. Oh, I'm sorry. There is one.
Speaker 10
Senator Niello. Just with regard to the, opinion of the chair in waiting, there is a difference between interpretive values of the core of the of the constitution and our form of government and the actual framework. And what the senator is talking about is the framework. Then once we get the framework, we can fight all we want about the interpretation of of our values. But understanding the framework is very important.
Yes.
Speaker 2
Let me just give anybody else the opportunity if they would like to make any comments or questions.
Speaker 1
Seeing none think we've this this issue's been been kicked enough. So okay. Thank you.
Speaker 38
you. And so I think first of all, I think I wanna thank senator Nilo for actually making that remark. We had the same conversation last year as far as interpretation versus the framework. This is a coursework on framework. It's never been intended to be partisan in any nature at all, and I'm gonna reiterate the fact that it's a representative government.
We have a body of representatives from a variety of life experiences, many of us who have not been exposed or read or versed in the constitution. And I think when you are being elected in in a representative body, such as we what we do here in in California, we're swearing an oath. We should know what that framework should be. And as far as, you know, where does it stop, well, we're not swearing an oath to uphold the medical board or the medical medicine space or field. We're not swearing an oath to do that, ma'am.
But we are swearing a note to uphold these two documents. And we should understand that framework, and we should have the ability to teach. I'm gonna, I'm gonna reiterate, which I thought was in a great, great, letter. The letter of support from, chancellor and dean, David Feigman, from, the William B. Lockhart Professor of Law and John F.
Speaker 64
DeGardy Distinguished Professor of Law, from the University of California College of Law of San Francisco, your alma mater, in which he said, the University of California College of Law is pleased to support senate bill 13 o eight, which is would provide the legislators and legislative staff with a mandatory course on the provisions of The US and California Constitutions. Go down to fully uphold the responsibilities describing the oath of office, all members and employees of the legislature should be fully informed of the provisions of both constitutions that they have sworn to abide by within their legislative duties. And they go on to reference you as a distinguished alumni of the UC Law of San Francisco. I just thought I'd put that on record because I think it's very important. But from that, we have letters of a variety of professors from Berkeley of Law, from all all different law schools on, throughout the state of California, really recognizing the importance of understanding that framework.
Speaker 38
It is not intended to be partisan in whatsoever, but it would help many of us coming into this field to understand our duties. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And as I have repeatedly said and about to be chair again, we'll say again, we do not have a quorum. And when we do have a quorum, we will take up the bills for action that we have heard. So that completes this item. And with great pleasure, I'm going to give the gavel back to the chair.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and the committee members. I'm here to present the SB thirteen ten, which improves information sharing between the jury commissioners, local election officials, and the secretary of state for the purpose of, ensuring up to date and accurate voter information. Free and fair elections depend on accurate voter registration information.
Currently, information provided that during jury during jury eligibility screening is not consistently shared with the election officials even if they imply a person may be ill eligible to vote. SB thirteen ten establishes a mechanism that requires jury commissioners to to provide information to the secretary of state and the county elections officials about the prospective jurors who state that that they are not qualified for jury service when their reasons would re include, make them, they are ineligible to vote, such as non citizen or non, not living in in the district. We've also been working with the opponents of the bill to address their concerns. A few weeks ago, disability rights cal California sent an opposed letter where they expressed concern that this bill may lead to people on a conservative conservatorship who are ineligible to serve on juries, but still are allowed to vote to accidentally have their voter registration canceled. While I don't believe this s b thirteen ten will lead to unfair cancellations, I narrowed its scope to ensure that the only information shared would be if a juror attest that they aren't they are not a US citizen or if a juror attest that they they are not they are not living or domiciled in the relevant jurisdiction.
Speaker 88
I also wanna strongly emphasize that SB thirteen ten does not use jury information as the sole basis for the disqualification. It simply enhances information sharing so the elections officials will have the more information to conduct to conduct their own inquiry before making a final determination on photo registration. SB thirteen ten recently passed unanimously out of the senate elections and the constitutional amendments committee where two of the now two members of this committee, including the chair, voted in favor favor of it. Testifying in support of this bill is Nicole Woderman, who represents, Orange County, the sponsor of SB thirteen ten.
Speaker 44
Thank you. Mister chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on s b thirteen ten. At its core, s b thirteen ten addresses a real gap. Today, individuals can attest under penalty of perjury that they are not eligible for jury service for reasons that would also make them ineligible to vote, and that information goes nowhere. That disconnect makes it harder for elections officials to fulfill their legal obligations to maintain accurate voter rolls.
Speaker 35
First, this bill has been narrowed to focus only on the most objective and administrable criteria, citizenship and residency. These are already core eligibility requirements for voting, and they are far less subjective than other jury disqualifiers. Second, on the risk of erroneous removals, s b thirteen ten already requires notice and an opportunity to respond before cancellation. Elections officials must independently verify eligibility using existing processes before any action is taken. This mirrors current law and builds on existing protections.
Speaker 44
On the reliability of jury questionnaire data, we recognize that self attestation is not perfect. This bill does not treat it as definitive. It simply ensures that when someone attests under penalty of perjury to facts like noncitizenship or living in another county, that information is not ignored. Today, there is no mechanism to flag that inconsistency, which undermines the state's responsibility to maintain accurate voter rolls. On administrative burden and implementation, the solution is to leverage existing infrastructure.
There's already a communication framework between courts and the secretary of state in other contexts, and the bill can be structured to build on that system rather than create a new one. Finally, on the claims of disenfranchisement, this bill does not remove voters from the rolls based on a single data point. It initiates a process that includes notice, verification, and multiple opportunities for the voter to confirm eligibility.
Speaker 1
Yes, okay. Thank you. Others in support of SB thirteen ten, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach Oh, there we go.
Speaker 1
No? Okay. If you're opposed to s b thirteen ten, now's a good time to come forward.
Speaker 27
Good morning, chair members. I'm Dora Rose, deputy director with the League of Women Voters of California. Here in in respectful but very strong opposition to s b thirteen ten. You know, from Assembly Member DeMeo's voter ID campaign to the Riverside Sheriff's seizure of ballots, we're being told that noncitizen voting requires new enforcement tools, but a vast body of evidence shows that the problem is a fiction. It's a product simply of election denialism.
Speaker 2
SB thirteen ten appears to be born of the same fever dream. It's sold as more information for elections officials to help clean up voter rolls, but what it really does is open a new path to cancel a voter registration based on a source that wasn't designed for election administration. You know, a juror affidavit captures a single moment in time. Someone may truthfully check not a citizen, naturalize weeks later, and lawfully register. And add to that the matching errors and and the jury forms that aren't required to be translated into the languages the way voting materials are translated, And it really becomes a pipeline for bad data and for wrongfully canceling eligible voters, hitting limited English proficient voters and naturalized citizens the hardest.
Speaker 27
And we have the highest number of naturalized citizens in California of any state. Elsewhere in our elections code, before any kind of adverse action, we first require a verified match against the statewide voter database. Right? Then we notice the voters in in the voters preferred language. And a clear attestation based response is what is is what is required.
SB thirteen ten does none of these things. Requires none of these things. It inactivates the registration first. Right? So that the voter is off the active rolls and will not be mailed a ballot during the response window.
Then it requires a voter to demonstrate demonstrate eligibility Thank
Speaker 44
Morning. I'm Britney Stonesipher with California Common Cause, an organization deeply committed to ensuring that our democracy is fair and representative. Accurate list maintenance is an essential part of election administration. At the same time, overzealous cancellation using faulty data inevitably results in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Studies have repeatedly shown that mistaken voter purges are most likely to harm underrepresented communities, particularly people of color, those with limited English proficiency, disabilities, or lower incomes.
Speaker 65
In recent years, this legislature, with support of both elections officials and advocates, has dramatically improved our list maintenance systems. Before these reforms, thousands of eligible voters were canceled because courts sent overinclusive lists of criminal convictions or mental incapacity determinations to local election elections officials. Now, SB thirteen ten threatens to reverse this progress by introducing an unreliable and in irrelevant source for canceling voters. Juror affidavits are not designed to capture information regarding voter eligibility, and they aren't translated into the languages that election materials are. They can reflect mistakes, stale citizenship information, or incorrect eligibility answers given to escape jury duty.
The bill would also impose significant new responsibilities, costs, and litigation risks on courts. Already overburdened commissioners would have to filter and transmit data from about 1,000,000 affidavits each year with any error resulting in potential disenfranchisement of an eligible California voter. We should not be reversing the progress that this legislature has made in protecting voting rights and building one of the most accurate and fair registration systems in the country. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in opposition to SB thirteen ten, please approach your microphone. All right.
Speaker 27
I have the proxy of both the Asian Law Caucus and ACLU California action in strong opposition.
Speaker 1
Arnie, thank you very much. Others in opposition? Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? I have some.
Senator DeRasso, you have some?
Speaker 11
I just just the comments that I'm very troubled by the bill. I I the the bill would require com jury commissioners to make determinations about someone's citizenship, about their legal right to vote, and share that information with election officials without privacy protections, without a way for that person to contest the determination. It would remove eligible voters from voting rolls without an appeals process, disenfranchising Californians. This bill is premised on the narrative, that, people, you know, undocumented people are just registering to vote left and right. There's been there's been no evidence presented that there is even a problem.
The narrative that non citizen immigrants are voting in elections has been a talking point in recent elections. This is not about protecting the right to vote. This is about making it more difficult for people to vote. And I I'm just, you know, I'm disappointed that this would be presented. I understand it's been presented many, many times over the over the years.
But this is this is this false premise is what was used to try to overturn the capital in in 2021. This false premise that Paul's assertions of of voter fraud. So I I strongly disagree, and I'm saddened, senator, because you and I worked very closely on so many issues. Saddened that this issue has been brought up here again. So I definitely will vote against.
Speaker 1
Other comments, questions? Seeing no other comments or questions. Thank you, senator Choi. Just a few questions. Judicial council weighed in on the bill?
Speaker 1
No. No. The the California judicial council that's chaired by the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, They they take positions on bills. Do you know if they've taken a position
Speaker 9
Right right now, the details of that nature, how to inform from a jury service director to the elections commission is undefined. However, there are so many ways. Right now, we have so many electronic methods. I think I would assume that will be the most efficient way. But let me clarify some of the opponents' points that have been made, including senator Druso.
This the bill is not to intimidate, not to cancel any legitimate borders. The if you go to a court as a upon the sermon of the as a juror, there are number of questions the attorneys will will ask, and they need to state correctly and some information. The jurors, when they are called upon, they are not necessarily all qualified. That's the reason they screen. And among many other reasons, this bill is focusing only two specific areas.
If the juror candidate states, sir, I'm not qualified because I'm not a citizen. That's number one. And so does the voter registration qualification is you gotta be citizen. And the person directly confesses he or she is not a not a citizen. Number two is that, sir, I'm not resident of this county, and that is directly related to the register of voters database.
When the person is out of state, out of the district or county, the person has to register, in the county of residence. So this critical to information is has nothing to do with the minority, voter intimidation, language requirements, everything else, the unreliability, you know, the voting individual voting rights. That's as long as you believe in the clean voter base now voter database that our county voter registrars have to maintain. Many that does a voter file is a very dynamic, has to be maintained. Some people die.
Some people move away. Some people are wrongfully registered. So that was intent was not to find those people. But the self declaration under the oath of their statement that they are not lying to the judge. And so please disqualify me because I'm I'm not a citizen.
But the self proclaiming, what else is the better proof than the self declaration, I'm not a citizen. We are not asking for any documentation at that time. There's a self confessing. So clean voter race is a basis of of our, voting system and the democracy. So, therefore, I, don't wanna relate this particular bill to other the accusing accusing elements as, as if for voter intimidation or threatening, or suppressing.
Nothing to do with that. So
Speaker 1
is has the presiding judge in Orange County Superior Court advocated for this bill? Do you know?
Speaker 1
Yeah. The answer. Is the court have the courts reported this as an issue?
Speaker 1
And in terms of of those who are not eligible to vote, voting in Orange County, has that been been an issue in the last three or four elections?
Speaker 1
A couple of issues that you do do you one of the things that I encourage is that when people report rumors of folks who are not eligible to vote voting, that they immediately report that to the authorities so it can be investigated. So far as you know, how many investigations have revealed that someone has illegally voted in Orange County in the last ten years?
Speaker 1
So two there's been two individuals who voted who were not qualified to vote so far as you know?
Speaker 1
Right. Do you have any sense of what the administrative burden would be on the courts to actually engage in this process?
Speaker 44
It would depend upon whether they utilize the conservatorship method they already use or if they create something new.
Speaker 1
K. Well, the bill, I think, mandates that they create something new in terms of notice and that kind of thing. Is that your understanding?
Speaker 1
Okay. So I look at I'm gonna quote Ralph Waldo Emerson because as you referenced, this this bill actually did get out of elections, and I now regrettably voted for it that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. So I I don't want to be accused of having a little mind again. So I'm not gonna be supportive. I I am concerned.
I am concerned about the, in my view, sort of the myth, the canard that there are numbers of folks who are voting who aren't eligible to vote. I just as was just illustrated, there's been two in the last ten years so far as as the county knows. And so I think the administrative burden that this places on someone, whether it's the registrar, whether it's the courts or whomever, is such that this is again a solution in search of a problem. I am concerned that if somebody gets noticed that somehow that they're gonna be removed from roles, that they don't respond and they're still eligible, or that they don't get the notice and and they don't take the opportunity to to combat. So for those reasons, I'm I'm not gonna be able to support the bill today.
I think at the point in time, my guess is that somebody's gonna make a motion when when we actually are in a full committee. But at this point, would you like to close?
Speaker 9
Yeah. Before I ask for your I vote to respond to your points. As you know, how many cases do you know that there are fraudulent voting by the unqualified voters? The problem is right now, as far as I know, that kind of a investigational audit is has not been conducted at all. And the several laws, to my knowledge, is prohibiting and and and trying to block that kind of activities.
So so without the proper audit or investigation, you you will not know. This bill is simply asking you, do you believe in a clean voter database is necessary and essential? And then as I as I stated, this is a daily occurrence of the people who also are moving out or dying and whatever is in that they they are not qualified. But this source is directly call correlated the jury duty disqualification process process among many other reasons. So there are two key points that I'm emphasizing.
I'm I'm not sure George, I'm not qualified because I'm not a citizen. If the person states that, what else evidence do you need? So that only case. Sir, I'm not living in the county. That's only two points I'm I'm I'm talking about.
And the voter registration, voter qualification to vote in that county directly court call list to this point. So are you a citizen, or or do you live in in in in the county? So, when you believe in clean voter database is essential for the foundation of the fair election, then no one should be able to no oppose to this idea. So I respectfully ask for your effort.
Speaker 1
Again, I suspect that there will be a motion at such time as we are full committee, and then we'll there'll be a vote. So thank you very much. We're gonna be adjourned till 01:30, thirteen thirty, and then we'll reconvene. Thank you. Vote for that.
Speaker 1
Alright. Senate Judiciary Committee is back in session. I see senator Cortese here. Senator Cortese, you have two bills, whichever you would choose to take up first. What's your pleasure?
Speaker 46
Thank you, Chair, and members as they come in. I appreciate going with SB fourteen twenty five first because of witness availability. Sure. And by the time we get to the next one, should have everyone here for that one.
Speaker 1
All right. Let's start with file item number 11, SB fourteen twenty five by Senator Cortese. Senator Cortese, floor is yours.
Speaker 46
All right. Again, good afternoon. I'm pleased to present SB fourteen twenty five. As just about everybody knows, California is building the nation's first two twenty mile an hour fully electrified high speed rail system, and there's going to be massive development potential along the 500 mile corridor. While the authority is charged with managing this land, it lacks the legal authority to regulate encroachments that may delay the building operation or maintenance of the project.
SB fourteen twenty five will facilitate timely construction by establishing a permitting program for new encroachments, one that is consistent with the functions and operations of the project's right of way. To be clear, the bill does not impact or replace existing agreements. It doesn't replace existing agreements for utility relocation identified during the project's scoping process. It simply applies to new or expanding encroachments. A codified permit process will provide the authority of the tools necessary to work more effectively with local property owners, businesses, and public entities to bolster the surrounding communities and expand along the corridor.
With us today in support is Robert Persol, the California political director of U. S. High speed rail. And at the appropriate time, I would ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 66
You. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Robert Pearsall. I'm the California political director for U. S.
High Speed Rail. We are the proud sponsor of Senate Bill fourteen twenty five. A coalition of over 50 leading unions, public agencies, and companies, U. High Speed Rail is co chaired by former U. S.
DOT Secretaries Ray LaHood and Anthony Fox. We work with our members and, of course, allied members of the progressive and environmental groups to advocate for world class high speed rail projects across The U. S. Senate Bill fourteen twenty five will establish a permit program administered by the authority for encroachments on its rights of way. This measure will allow the authority to accommodate utilities that are trying to expand their businesses in the Central Valley.
Right now, those businesses and utilities, they cannot access the rights of way because there simply is no process. While the authority is charged with managing these lands, it lacks the legal authority to regulate the encroachments and interfere with high might interfere with high speed rail construction and operations. Common encroachments include utility and broadband lines, equalizer pipes, sewage drainage, vegetation management, and all of which, as you know, are critical in the region where the project is developing. It's vital that the authority be able to protect its infrastructure from encroachments that may interfere or delay the construction, operation, or maintenance of the high speed rail project. Without statutory authority, the project will continue to experience encroachments and barriers to land development.
A clear permitting process will help ensure that the authority can protect the project's land, facilities, and rights of way while working more effectively with local property owners and businesses and limiting unnecessary delays. For these reasons, US High Speed Rail, supports fourteen twenty five and requests your I vote on this important measure. We are thankful for the senator authoring this bill, and I'm happy to take questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Next witness, please. Another primary witness in support of s b fourteen twenty five seeing no one approaching. If you're a me too, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 67
senator, I have not. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support? Please approach, seeing no one else approaching. If you're opposed to SB fourteen twenty five, now is your opportunity.
Speaker 78
Good afternoon, mister chair members. Brian White. On behalf of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, we must respectfully take and oppose unless amended position on s b fourteen twenty five as currently written. The bill would grant the California High Speed Rail Authority broad new powers to administer an encroachment permit while also imposing criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized activities within the authorities right away. This could ultimately shift liability and increase cost for LAWP's ratepayers and result in significant relocation and or delays of needed infrastructure that the LA department needs to work on itself.
Speaker 68
As the nation's largest public only utility that maintains and operates water and electric infrastructure for 4,000,000 residents, we support the state's clean energy and transportation goals. And we understand that this bill is trying to get at the issues to in to protect the high speed rail corridor and its safety. However, LAWP is highly concerned that this bill would threaten the integrity of its existing infrastructure, and that must be maintained on a twenty four seven basis. A lot of this infrastructure was built before the high speed rail was even enacted over a hundred years ago, that LA department has maintained. So we appreciate the initial discussions, and acknowledgment from the author in in the high speed rail about addressing new crossings and injuries.
We need to figure out what that exactly means. But for now, the bill should expressly in our opinion, the bill should expressly protect existing utility facilities and property rights for which LEWP has ownership of. We don't want this to become a a situation where we have revocable encroachment permits for easements and rights of way that we already have. So to that end to that end, we'll be asking for amendments, to protect utilities' existing property rights, particularly excluding those for routine maintenance and emergency repairs. Those are things that we just can't, take light of, particularly since there are civil penalties in the bill that could result in $5,000 per day, for unpermitted encroachment.
So we look forward to working with the author. We'll we'll continue the discussions, hope we can reach a resolution.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Keira Ross, on behalf of the City of Burbank. I would appreciate the ongoing conversations with the author and the sponsor remain in the post position.
Speaker 22
Apologies, Mr. Chair. Max Perrin, behalf of the California Police Chief Association, we are in support of the bill. Couldn't run up here in time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee members.
Senator D'Araso.
Speaker 11
Yes. Just to to the author. You just heard from the representative of LADWP. I assume that there'll be more conversations about that, but if there's anything you wanted now or just to really emphasize, you know, obviously, the impact that LADWP has as the largest municipal utility. So I appreciate either now or just make sure we address those issues.
Speaker 46
Yeah. Let me just say I appreciate their well articulated letter as to their concerns. You've gone through and documented where the bill and existing statute, aside from the bill, protects their easements. Of course, you can't come in and overlay their easements. It's It's almost the opposite situation.
And reality is that high speed rail comes across one of their easements, they're going to have to stop and negotiate where they go next. So I think Los Angeles Department of Power would have to be the one offering an encroachment permit at that point for folks to come in. But we will continue and we'll continue to work with the Legis Council to make sure that those are the realities. I think that's, in some sense, what the opposition is saying. We need to make sure that the language is there and is correct to make sure that decades old easements are protected, that our right to come in under emergency situations for maintenance or etcetera is immediate.
We think we've handled it, but we'll sit down with them and we'll make sure that we've handled it.
Speaker 1
Seeing no other questions or comments, Senator Cortese, at the appropriate time, I assume there'll be a motion. I will vote aye. Thank Would you like to close?
Speaker 46
I very much appreciate your support and the committee's cooperation with the bill and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to take up file number 10, SB twelve forty six?
Speaker 46
Yes, thank you. So I appreciate the opportunity to present SB twelve forty six this afternoon. It will establish stronger remote operation standards and emergency response protocols for autonomous vehicle operators. Autonomous vehicles, as, again, most of us know, are rapidly expanding operations in California. Though Waymo leads the industry with 3,000 deployed vehicles, we know that 30 more companies are going through the DMV permitting process to enter the market.
Many of those, as in my role here in the Senate, I've had the opportunity to talk to over time. Unfortunately, reports of AVs obstructing traffic, impeding first responders, and driving through active law enforcement activities have, at times, continued to grow. While human drivers can react to dynamic situations in real time, AVs often require input from remote operators. So there are human beings involved. When this remote assistance gets delayed, AVs end up freezing in intersections, jamming traffic, and blocking emergency responders.
We've, of course, seen that happen. It's our public sector workers our first responders, firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement who have to step in despite the strain it puts on our public resources. But the important thing is we want them to be able to step in and to step in urgently. To standardize these remote operations, SB1246 requires remote drivers and assistants to be based in The United States and hold a valid California driver's license, meaning it's important for them, if they're going to be remote operators, to be well versed and certified in the rules of the road. SB1246 also implements a ratio of one employee to every three vehicles.
Speaker 71
Our goal is to ensure AV companies have the actual capacity to respond immediately to emergencies like the emergency we had in San Francisco last December, the power outage which shut things down and created a situation I think most are familiar with, with regard to AVs not moving. Furthermore, SB1246 gives our first responders the tools and assistance they need. Under this bill, a trained autonomous vehicle worker must arrive to assist first responders on the scene within ten minutes. SB1246 also requires every autonomous vehicle to include a manual override system. Under this bill, these override systems must be approved by the California Highway Patrol In collaboration with the state fire marshal, all autonomous companies must provide proper uniform and standardized training.
Speaker 46
Finally, in addition to mandating monthly reporting on immobilizations and response times, SB twelve forty six establishes penalties that go back to local jurisdictions for vehicles that block traffic or interfere with emergency responses. I appreciate the suggestion in the committee analysis to clarify the penalties in this bill. Our goal is to ensure that local governments, whose local streets and roads are the testing grounds for AV operations, can enforce the provisions of this bill, just like other traffic infractions or parking violations. I'm committed to clarifying how they might do so at a later point in the process, and I do think that will be imperative to the success of the bill. We've had multiple conversations with industry stakeholders and AV companies to hear their input and concerns.
I've personally been in those conversations. I understand they have concerns about parts of this bill, including the ten minute response time requirement. We haven't come to a final agreement yet, we have a common goal here to keep our roads safe. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have the opportunity. And with us here today in support, we have Matt Lage, with our sponsor, SEIU California, Megan Subers from the California Professional Firefighters.
Speaker 54
Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you very much. Matt Lage with SEIU California. I'd like to thank our author for carrying this really important bill, for SEIU. We represent more than 750,000 workers across the state and working families that are all impacted by the potential expansion of autonomous vehicles.
It's something that we want to make sure that there's appropriate guardrails to protect the public safety, and we think that this effort, takes a step forward. I appreciate the conversation with the opposition and look forward to continuing those conversations. Where I do think we have the same goal is making sure that these vehicles work for the public safety and they're not asking first responders and, the cities and local governments to be roadside assistance for those companies. We're making sure that we're setting some basic standards, make sure there's some response time, and being able to move the car, if they're in a in the way like they were during some recent emergencies. Unfortunately, as the new stories continue to pop up, we think that there needs to be additional, guardrails around the deployment of autonomous vehicles that are happening right now.
Speaker 10
Ultimately, we think that, the question is whether or not we, make sure that, we can move a car out of the way, that there is a response, a timely response, so that fire and police and parking control officers are not the ones responsible for doing that. And so, on behalf of the workers and the communities that they serve, we urge your I vote, at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Others in support, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 23
Ms. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, I'm pleased to support this bill. As you've likely heard me and my members say previously, we think it's important that we have clear safety protocols and requirements on AV operators in California like those contained in this bill.
Speaker 102
The analysis does a good job of noting some of the incidents that have occurred involving AVs interfering with emergency response activities. And the thing I hear most from my members is that there needs to be a mechanism for them to access the vehicle in a manner that allows them to disable the vehicle if it's not already disabled or move it if absolutely necessary. My San Francisco local noted recently in a public hearing that ever since San Francisco became California's laboratory for autonomous vehicles, the San Francisco fire department's command staff and labor reps have asked AV companies for a public safety manual override option that would allow a peace officer, firefighter, EMS personnel to move an immobilized AV without the need to contact a remote operator. They hoped the companies might, agree to this voluntarily, but we haven't had that happen yet. Instead, companies have encouraged first responders to contact a hotline to communicate with remote operators to move vehicles.
Speaker 23
In December 2025, I think we're all aware of the power outage in the city that left vehicles stranded in the middle of the street, for a a long time. The hotline that was supposed to be a resource in exactly those situations was neither quick nor responsive. The city reported that emergency dispatchers made a total of 31 calls to the hotline and were placed on hold for long stretches. One dispatcher reported holding for fifty three minutes. S b 20, 1246 would ensure that in the event of an emergency, first responders can get the immediate response and attention needed.
And for those reasons, we support the bill today. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Others in support, s b twelve forty six, please approach my name, affiliation, and position.
Speaker 69
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Robert Harel, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California in support.
Speaker 30
Chair and members, Carlin Shelby on behalf of the City of Palo Alto in support. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Chair members, Max Perier on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in support.
Speaker 70
Chair members, Elmer Lazarda with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Rosemary Shaham, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety and Support. And we just want to point out, it's in the analysis, but also the Center for Auto Safety, Kids and Car Safety, and the National Security in support. Mr.
Speaker 39
Ms. Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Now, if you're opposed to SB twelve forty six, please approach.
Speaker 30
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Sarah Boot, on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, in opposition. SB twelve forty six imposes conflicting and unreasonable mandates on AV operations while creating a decentralized local enforcement regime. California already has an extensive AV framework, and lawmakers and regulators have recently adopted significant updates that address many of the concerns raised here today.
Beginning on July 1, AV companies must continuously monitor each AV and answer phone calls or a two way radio call from first responders within thirty seconds, hire remote operators who can stop or move AVs as directed or who can enable first responders to do so, and clear or avoid emergency areas within two minutes of a geofencing alert from law enforcement. If companies fail to comply, first responders can issue notices that'll go to the DMV, which can then suspend, revoke or severely restrict their permits. Despite this, although cities and counties already can cite AVs like any other vehicle, SB twelve forty six adds a new layer of local enforcement onto an area that's already complex in a statewide system. The DMV has the expertise to evaluate these technical requirements and apply them uniformly. Allowing each city and county to impose their own penalties risks a patchwork where the same conduct is treated differently in different jurisdictions.
We should not layer on a second overlapping system before the first one's even implemented, especially after companies spent the last, two years building compliance for this July implementation date. A better approach would be to allow the new laws to take effect in July, evaluate them, address any gaps. Finally, SB twelve forty six pairs a three strikes throughout rule, with rigid prescriptive mandates even where the compliance is unrealistic, such as with, a requirement to arrive at the scene within ten minutes in the state of California. The bill is not framed as a ban, but it could act like one, shutting down operations based on these inflexible rules rather than the public safety outcomes. Although we we do appreciate the outreach by the author's office and by the sponsors to work on this bill, at this time, we do respectfully ask for no votes.
Speaker 1
Thank very much. All right. Anyone else? Please queue up if you're opposed to SB twelve forty six.
Speaker 61
Chair Umburger and members of the committee, my name is Chris Childs, I am here to express my opposition to Senate Bill twelve forty six. I am a native Californian and a retired assistant commissioner with the California Highway Patrol. During nearly twenty eight years with the CHP, I spent the entirety of my career in pursuit of enhanced traffic safety. As an assistant chief alongside my counterparts at the DMV, I oversaw CHP regulatory responsibilities toward the autonomous vehicle industry. My team and I dove deep on AV issues on behalf of the people of the state.
We personally visited AV companies across California and developed a strong understanding of how these vehicles support traffic safety on California roads. Based on the many existing requirements for first responder interactions under California's existing AV laws and regulations, I know we all share the goal of giving first responders effective tools to respond to activities involving AVs. However, this bill does not achieve that goal. Instead, it would create requirements that are out of touch with reality. Requiring local AV technicians to be present on a scene within ten minutes is simply not possible given California's urban conditions and long stretches of highway between exits.
Speaker 65
As a tenured member of law enforcement, I have responded to hundreds, if not thousands, of emergency calls rolling code three. Even with the benefits of lights, sirens, and the ability to drive much faster than other vehicles, I found that my response times were often longer than ten minutes. Requiring commercial AVs to be equipped with manual override control systems for first responders is also not necessary as this approach puts first responder safety in jeopardy. The safest procedure is often for vehicles to remain where they are and to be towed with specialized equipment by highly trained recovery operators. Never in my twenty eight years of service did I move a big rig truck or witness a fellow first responder move one.
Speaker 61
AV companies have a vested interest in working closely with first responders, and they have been doing so for many, many years. I know they take this role seriously because I have worked with them as a regulator on behalf of the people of the state. Creating arbitrary regulations before new and significant requirements go into effect in a few short months will create confusion and will not make our roads safer. For these reasons, I urge the committee to vote no on SB twelve forty six.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Commissioner. Others who oppose SB twelve forty six, please approach your microphone.
Speaker 64
Ms. Mr. Chair and members, Camille Wagner, on behalf of WeMo, we are in an oppose unless amended position. We appreciate the conversations, as the author stated, with himself and the staff and sponsors of the bill, and look forward to those
Speaker 28
Chair members Alicia Priego, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 20
Thank you. Chair members, Robert Boykin with TechNet, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 72
Chair and members, Monica Salas with Bay Area Council I mean, yes, Bay Area Council, and we respectfully oppose.
Speaker 47
Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
Marty, thank you very much. If you're opposed, now is your time. SB twelve forty six.
Speaker 7
John McHale, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back committee members. Senator Laird.
Speaker 2
I have a question. And you mentioned during your statement, senator Cortese, that maybe you might be looking at the ten minute response time. What's the status of that? There were a couple of things here that seemed like I wasn't sure that they were right on the ground. This is one.
I just know, being a connoisseur of California highways, that there are certain places that you couldn't get to in ten minutes. Also, the opposition said there were highways that went 60 miles without an exit and I'm just not aware of where there would be one of those in California. Just every place I've been, that just doesn't seem to exist. So I thought on this one I would give you the opportunity to say what you're thinking and what you might consider over time.
Speaker 46
Oh, you very much for the question. The ten minutes put in as a fixed number like that, I think probably needs to be worked on so that there's tolerance for some of the things that you brought up. That's as you know, as a as a former mayor, as a former local official, police and fire response times, EMT response times are all regulated that way. It doesn't mean every single time they're going to get there in eight point five minutes, but we set a standard. And if they don't comply with that standard over time, there's got to be some consequences because these are life and death issues.
No one's saying that a Waymo or whatever any of these other 29 companies put on the road is inherently unsafe. It may be that's completely outside of their fault and their liability that's a human driver hits the vehicle. But these vehicles right now are not think most people don't realize this. So I'm pointing out, you may know this, but they don't route even with a an electronic system like a an all star system or satellite system or any other system. Even through their through their remote operators, they do not route through dispatch.
So testimony in a prior committee was very clear during an informational hearing that what what basically is happening to first responders is they may get a may get an opportunity at the scene or partway to the scene while they're eating up their response time. Hey, one of the vehicles is an AV. That's late to be finding that out and then to be communicating with a remote operator. So for now, we're trying to sync those up. And I think we need to do more work.
The response I feel the response we've gotten so far in offering to figure out, you know, how to provide some flex in there so it works is we think well, you heard you I think you heard what the opposition testimony said. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but basically the rules are good enough as they are. And I think the concern there is if you don't want override and you also don't want dispatch, then you're basically operating outside the entire emergency response system. Somebody doesn't know when the heck the crash occurred and that it involves an AV and then when they get there, even even in that scenario, when they get there and they do figure it out, they can't touch the damn thing.
Speaker 87
I think the thing is is the jurisdiction usually for this committee is on the penalties, which is why things come to judiciary. So if there is a recognition that ten minutes might not be realistic in certain areas just because of traffic, I recall being in the assembly and the speaker saying please go to LA once a month and then my scheduler thought oh this is in the 900 Block Of Santa Monica Boulevard and this is in the 8000 Block Of Santa Monica Boulevard. They might be right next to each other. That's not a ten minute response. So my question to you, just to close it out, is part of your equation looking at the penalties if it turns out that ten minutes is not realistic?
Speaker 46
Yes. I mean, that's all got to be tied together and it's got to be realistic and fair. And I do think it again, we're not we don't need to reinvent the wheel. I think we can look at public sector response protocols and how those contracts are worked out. For example, to city and counties or city and counties and ambulance companies, this isn't an area that is new and fresh.
It's something that's been going on. It's just that autonomous vehicles are the only vehicles, you know, the only folks out on the road that aren't in that scheme right now because of the fact that they're essentially solely regulated, you know, by DMV and CPUC. So this bill is trying to come in and say, look, we need to have that figured out, but it needs to be and it needs to be accountable. And and we're willing to look at different ways to
Speaker 2
do But for me, and when we hopefully, in my natural life, we have a quorum here and start making motions and votes. But I intend to support this, but at the same time, because I think you're addressing a genuine issue here with this bill. I just hope that you will continue to work to try to refine some of those things so they're not unintended consequences. Yes,
Speaker 46
senator. And I should have said right away, I'm committed to doing that. And you have my word on that. And We've started, we just need to try to finish that negotiation.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Lehrer, we wish you a long natural life, but still in all, we're hopeful that members of the committee will show here promptly so we can establish a quorum. Senator Cortese, would you like to close?
Speaker 46
I'm just going to respectfully ask for your I vote and thank you very much. We do very much appreciate the committee staff's help working through this.
Speaker 1
You join me in wishing Senator Laird a long natural life as well. All right. Okay. All right. In the proper time think don't want
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Senator Ashby. Yeah. Senator Ashby, this is out of order, but I understand you have some witness challenges.
Speaker 30
We do. Thank you. I I owe my firstborn to senator Gonzales now. We row shambled over it. But I will be as quick as I can, see if I can help the committee get back on.
Plus, I'm here. So if one other member comes, we can have a quorum. Alright. I'll move fast. Alright.
Okay, chair? Yes. Okay. I'm here to present s b ten fifty. This is the advertisement integrity act, and I'd like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments.
Thank the staff for their exceptional help as always. This bill requires advertisements using AI generated performers to include a disclosure if the performer is synthetic. Advancements in artificial intelligence have led to the creation of synthetic performers. These synthetics are human like digital figures that convincingly appear, speak, move, and act like real people, but are not. The use of synthetics in advertisements not only misleads consumers into believing that a real person is endorsing or demonstrating a product or service, but also threatens California's creative workforce.
Without a disclosure requirement, the risk of consumer deception increases, while at the same time severely jeopardizing opportunities for real actors and actresses. With the evolution of AI and its impact on commercial media, we must ensure that our advertising laws are updated and protect both workers and consumers as new technology continues to advance. SB ten fifty does this by requiring disclosures when a synthetic person is depicted in an advertisement. This bill is sponsored by SAG AFTRA and supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, Music Artists Coalition, Tech Equity, and the National AI Youth Council among other entities. With me to testify today are two wonderful humans who have waited all day.
I appreciate their patience. Thank you so much, and have flights. First up, actress and member of SAG AFTRA's national board and Los Angeles board, Jerry Ryan. And after her, Shane Guzman representing SAG AFTRA and the Teamsters.
Speaker 73
Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the senate judiciary. I am Jerry Ryan. I am a human mom and a human actor.
One of my most well known roles, which was introduced in the series Star Trek Voyager, I played Seven of Nine, who was a human who was captured and forced to become a Borg drone when she was six years old. You're very cute. In the Star Trek universe, the Borg are a species who attain power by absorbing individuals' experiences, technology and knowledge into their hive mind. Do we see any similarities to the agendas of the AI tech companies here? Among the things the Borg says over and over again is, We will add your biological and distinctiveness to our own.
And resistance is futile. For all of us now living in the age of deepfakes and hyper realistic digital clones, it seems like my fellow humans are told time and again, resistance against an AI dominated future is futile. Does this mean, as parents, we should just accept that our children will grow up in a world where products and ideologies are sold to them by these nonhuman but very human looking digital puppets? These synthetic humanoids that can be made to do or say anything a company wants them to say or do? Look, a human voice and a human face are
Speaker 85
most powerful tools of influence available to advertisers. Performers like myself put a lot of thought into whether or not we will agree to be a spokesman for a product or a cause, because after all, our real life reputations are on the line. Synthetic performers have no reputations to uphold, nor consequences that they'll have to face if they promote products or messages that are harmful. Because of this, advertisements with synthetic performers need to have disclaimers. It's only fair.
Speaker 73
It's only right. And the future of our communities, our health, our national security, and our humanity is on the line. Protecting these things is not futile. It should be the gold of all Californians. So thank you, Senator Ashby, for your leadership in introducing Senate Bill ten fifty, the AI Advertisement Integrity Act, an essential step needed to maintain transparency in advertising and prioritize humanity in the age of innovation.
Speaker 71
Chair, members of the committee, Shane Guzman, on behalf of SAG AFTRA, also on behalf of Teamsters California, in support of the bill, I won't belabor your time because Ms. Ryan said it best. I just want to say that I'd like to thank your committee and your committee staff for working with us. The amendments really go a long way towards, I think, bringing us together with some of the opponents. And happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
You. Marty, thank you very much. Others in support of SB ten fifty, please approach your microphone.
Speaker 74
Good afternoon. Crystal Strait on behalf of the Music Artist Coalition and Common Sense Media in support. Thank you.
Speaker 70
Thank you, Chairmembers. Omar Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Speaker 1
Anyone else in support? Seeing no one, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB ten fifty, please approach the microphone. Whoever gets there first, go ahead.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, Chairmembers. My name is Robert Wickham with Tacnet, here today to respectfully oppose SB ten fifty unless it is amended. I would like to note that my comments today are to the bill and pray and not to the forthcoming amendment. We appreciate the author's goal of promoting transparency and agree consumers should not be misled. Our concerns are about ensuring the bill is targeted, workable, and aligned with existing law.
The definition of synthetic reformer is very broad and could capture routine tools like CGI and standard editing. That would require disclosures even when there's no realistic risk of consumer confusion, leading to over labeling. And when everything is labeled, disclosures can become less meaningful. AB sorry, SB ten fifty requires disclosure regardless of whether a reasonable consumer might be misled. That departs from longstanding advertising law and risks regulating clearly fictional or incidental content.
A materially standard, would improve focus on disclosures that matter most. Finally, enforcement through unfair competition law and false advertising law creates a litigation for a system with no cure period or safe harbor. Even good faith actors could face liability for technical issues. That could create uncertainty without improving consumer protection. We thank the author and her office for their time and commitment to this issue and look forward, to working with her office and this committee as the bill moves forward today.
And I swear to God I wrote this down before she's mentioned it, but at the end of the day, we should agree the board are the real threat here. Thank you for your time today.
Speaker 15
It's a very high bar, and I should know better. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Melissa Pattack. I'm here on behalf of the Motion Picture Association. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today and for the very productive meetings we've had with the author's staff and with the committee staff.
We appreciate the amendments that are being suggested by the committee and that the author is accepting the amendments. These amendments do align with many of the requested amendments MPA had submitted. We just have a couple of, we think, small issues still outstanding. First, the private right of action. We're concerned that this is an invitation to litigation against companies that are perceived as deep pocketed.
Speaker 58
This is especially true because the bill doesn't currently require a showing of consumer harm for there to be a violation, and that is connected to the other issue we've raised around requiring that deception be an element of this bill. We note that limits on commercial speech, which this bill is, must not be more extensive than necessary to prevent deception of the consumer in order to withstand a First Amendment analysis. We agree, for example, where a synthetic performer offers a testimonial about a good or service or claims to be a trained or licensed professional, a viewer could be deceived and harmed. But not all uses of synthetic performers would necessarily result in deception. We look forward to continuing to talk with the author and the sponsor about the element of deception and the private right of action, and we thank you for your time.
Speaker 74
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Naomi Pajero, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, we would align our comments with TechNet in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Robin Muthrie, California Chamber of Commerce, align our comments with TechNet and MPAA. Thank you.
Speaker 1
You very much. Alright. Anyone else? Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring back the committee for questions, comments, questions or comments. What yes.
Senator Nieto. Oh, I'm sorry. Sen no. Okay. Senator Nieto.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chair. The what are the details behind the ability of a private right of action in this bill that was mentioned?
Speaker 10
Does it does it authorize any specific individual or group to to file an action? Or and does it and she indicated that no harm has to be alleged as part of the of as part of the action?
Speaker 30
Yeah. So, senator, I can I'm happy to provide for you, like, clear analysis, but I I wouldn't agree with the premise of the stated opposition in its entirety would be the best way that I think I could answer that from from this microphone as I stand here. The other thing I can say to you is, we've shown an pretty exceptional willingness to work with opposition. We'll continue to do so. I think there are some nuances missing in some of the legal terms that are being used in today's discussion.
I don't know if the chair wants to speak to that as
Speaker 1
well. Well, just a question of the opposition or the proponents. I understand that the enforcement mechanism is through the seventeen two hundred unfair UCL, unfair competition. And if it's through seventeen two hundred, I think as a predicate, you need to show harm. I may be wrong.
I guess I'll ask mister Gusman first and then Ms. Pitek.
Speaker 71
Yes, that is correct, Senator. You have to show harm to carry a 1,700 action.
Speaker 15
So we're not as sure. We would like it stated in the bill. Mean, we think the bill is a little bit too heavily focused on providing a remedy merely for the use of technology, a new technology. We would like to see that connected up to deception and harm to the consumer. We think there needs to be a more more direct link and stated in the bill.
Speaker 1
We will Alright. It needs to be, I suppose stated in bold or underlined that this the enforcement's through the seventeen two hundred mechanism, it there needs to be some harm demonstrated in order to have a cause of action under seventeen two hundred. So okay.
Speaker 10
That's that's good news, helpful. There are private rights of action and there are private rights of action. Right. When they authorize an individual that is involved in an alleged violation of a regulation and and or if if harm needs to be alleged, that's a private right of action that generally I can support. But when it's much more general and where where anybody can allege a violation of a regulation, allege whether there's any harm or not.
That's where I sort of fall out on on PRA. So that's why I asked for
Speaker 30
the clarification. Senator, I would love to get you additional information, maybe even have you meet with the sponsors. And if if it if and would love to have your support today, but if you change your mind when we get to the floor, I would understand. I think this will satisfy your position.
Speaker 10
Well, I I know if you say you're gonna be working with them, I know you're gonna be working So with I will support the bill today. I'll just articulate one more thing that I'm always concerned about regulations in this space very generally, and that is we can only enforce the regulations we pass to the extent that we can get our hands on, the individual or the entity that is, that is supposedly being regulated. If there is a platform or if issues are generated from a platform that's outside of California or even outside the country, that's where we're helpless in our attempt to regulate artificial intelligence, Internet things generally. Again, I'm I'm gonna sport the bill. I'm just stating a concern I have with regulations in this larger space generally.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Niello. Senator Weber Pearson, did you want to did you have a comment?
Speaker 63
Thank you, chair. I did have a question about the PRA, so I'm glad that that was cleared up. And the opposition had mentioned something around the issue of deceptive practices and harm to consumers and alluded to, like, if someone does a commercial and is a false physician and someone takes a medication and, you know, that consumer is harmed. I look at this in a different light, and I don't and so I just don't want you to forget that during negotiations. Sure.
Yes, if you have a false person, you know, being the spokesperson for something, you know, the consumer may be harmed, but also that individual could be harmed, as was stated, their reputation. And so in in this situation, I look at it for both the person that's watching but also for the person whose identity is being used without their consent, actual harm to them and their reputation and potentially future job ability. So really wanna remind you that it kind of goes both ways. And in this particular situation, wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward and would love to be a coauthor and would move it at the appropriate time whenever we get a quorum.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?
Speaker 30
Yeah. Thank you, senators. The only thing I'll add, to my close here is that, to senator Nilo's point, this bill is modeled after one in New York. I think this is a standard California taking the lead moment. I would anticipate that most people will feel the way that we do, and some version of this bill will be passed across the country.
At least, I hope so. Other I think we can all agree we would much rather see, miss Ryan on the TV than some synthetic version of miss Ryan. So at the correct and appropriate time, I will ask this committee for their aye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you very much. Alright. And I see senator Gonzales here. Yes.
Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator senator Gonzales would be next up. Yes. Okay.
Senator Gonzales. We're rolling.
Speaker 51
Thank you, mister chair and members. I am here today to present my bill, which is a a bill that is in collaboration you can come up with me or you can stay there. In collaboration with our incredible doctor Weber Pearson and our LGBTQ caucus chair as well as our API caucus chair who presented in the last committee with me. It's SB nine nine eight. It defines the roles and responsibility of five discrimination prevention coordinators housed in the newly created office of civil rights of the government, at GovOps.
And last year, just as a reminder, the legislature passed SB 48, establishing four discrimination prevention coordinators, and SB nine ninety eight just fulfills our commitment to follow-up on that legislation, clarifying coordinator roles, adding a new coordinator focused on disability discrimination, and ensuring that positions have the tools to do their jobs effectively. It strengthens that foundation by equipping educators with restorative justice practices, cultural competency, training, and providing tailor tailored student services. With me to testify in support, I do have doctor Weber Pearson, but I also have Conrad Crump for the senior policy advocate from disability rights California, as well as John Garcia, director of youth and family programs from the Sacramento LGBT Center. But I will turn it to Doctor. Wilbur Pearson.
Speaker 63
Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Good afternoon, chair and members. I stand here as the principal coauthor of Senate Bill nine ninety eight and as chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus. SB nine ninety eight represents an important step forward to ensuring that our education system is not only functional, but truly equitable for every student we serve. I wanna be very clear when we talk about equity in education.
We must be intentional about naming who is most impacted. SB nine nine eight recognizes that targeted coordinators are essential to ensure accountability and cultural responsive support because without dedicated individuals focused on the unique barriers facing our students, these disparities will continue to be overlooked rather than meaningfully addressed. That is why the role of these discrimination prevention coordinators is so critical. These coordinators are not just administrative positions they are a direct response to lived experiences of students who are often not seen and not heard. SB nine ninety eight is about more than improving systems.
It is about correcting inequities that we have allowed to persist for far too long. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. My name is Conrad Crump and I'm a senior policy advocate with Disability Rights California. And I'm here to urge your strong support of s b nine nine eight. Every week in my work, I sit down with attorneys reviewing discrimination cases from across California.
And week after week, the same pattern shows up. We see a disabled student being suspended at rates far higher than their peers. We see a student being denied accommodations who also faces harassment based on their race or ethnicity, or a student who may have advocated for themselves, and now they're being punished for it. Now these are not isolated cases. This is the caseload.
And it's almost never just one thing. In 2025, well over half of all education equity complaints filed with the California Department of Education span two or more protected categories, disability and race, disability and gender. This is one of the many civil rights issues of our time and where students experience compounded harm and receive a fragmented response. SB nine nine eight fixes that. A dedicated disability discrimination prevention coordinator working in coordination with counterparts for race, gender, and LGBTQ plus students creates the intersectional infrastructure our students very desperately need.
Speaker 12
And making these civil service positions rather than political appointments ensures the coordinators stay accountable to students and not to whoever is in power. At the end of the day, the day's gotta end. And we know discrimination is intersectional, and as such, our response must be two. For this, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 76
Good afternoon. My name is Jean Garcia. I'm the director of youth and family programs at the Sacramento LGBT Community Center. In a previous life, I worked in education for sixteen years, seven of which was a English was as an English middle school teacher. It is essential to have dedicated staff available to prevent discrimination from occurring while also promptly addressing these issues as they happen.
Emotional and physical safety are vital to young people's ability to learn and grow, and I believe SB nine ninety eight is a massive step towards supporting student development. All staff at school sites should have access to guidance and clear direction on how to prevent and address discrimination in their classroom and their site as a whole. When staff are not thoroughly trained, supported, and prepared to address these situations, we see a variety of unfortunate side effects. Students may skip school to avoid peers altogether. In the twenty twenty four, twenty five school year, while non chronically absentee students missed an average of seven days of school year, non binary students on average missed over nineteen days of school.
Families may come to the conclusion that school staff at their current site do not intend to support their student and may either transfer their child to another school site or withdraw from the the public education system altogether. Then we see the most extreme consequences. In 2020, the suicide rate for young people in the black community was nearly twice the rate of their peers. For LGBTQ plus students, high school students, seventy five percent of young people reported feeling sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row. While school should be a place for students to learn and grow, our most vulnerable student populations cannot do that when they face discrimination on a daily basis.
Speaker 22
Students cannot and will not see academic success if they're solely focused on their survival or escaping a hostile environment. The most effective way to support all students is to set expectations for every school environment and follow-up with ongoing and intentional effort to ensure compliance to these policies. By clearly defining the responsibilities of the coordinators established in SB nine ninety eight, the state can be proactive in preventing discrimination against Thank Mr. Rather than course correcting after that harm has already been done. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Others in support of SB nine ninety eight, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.
Speaker 51
Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Mengali Zagal with Green Brick Chorig on behalf of the quality Californian support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right, anyone else? Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else in support, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB nine ninety eight, please approach the microphone.
Seeing no one approaching the microphone, we're gonna bring it back here to the committee for questions by oh, I'm sorry. Are you opposed?
Speaker 16
Not opposed, but I apologize. I thought the, woman who just went to the dais was, about to speak. My name is Mario Guerrero. I'm government relations director with the California Faculty Association, and we're support if amended. We want to thank the senator and the coauthors.
They've heard, you know, this concern before.
Speaker 16
Thank you. But we are concerned with the appointment and the politicization of those appointments.
Speaker 57
Tiffany White with SEIU California. Just echo the comments of my colleagues, support if amended. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, going once, going twice, all right. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members.
Senator Niello.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Existing law pretty much already addresses generally, including specifying, specifics, and and I support that. The existing law states that no person shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race, race or ethnicity, religion, etcetera, several of them. This would imply that with regard to the deputy coordinators here that there's something fundamentally different about each of those from each other as well as the others specified.
Can you explain how that would be?
Speaker 29
I would just say that, you know, based on the the witnesses who so articulately had mentioned that the statistics, it's just the data unfortunately says that there are black students that are seeing suicide rates higher than any other student. There are anti hate, you know, target targeted towards API students and LGBTQ students and Latino students. I mean, this is just the data that we've seen so far. I would say at my child's school, we have an LGBTQ coordinator who I think has done incredibly well to ensure that LGBTQ students feel supported. And I think that's what we're asking for here.
Speaker 51
We did this last year, as it pertains to anti Semitism to ensure that Jewish Jewish students also felt safe and had an environment that was, you know, ensuring that they were focused on academics versus all the the hatred. We're asking for the same, application application with with all all these these other, other coordinators coordinators in in this this bill. Bill.
Speaker 10
But if there were enough people to whom complaints can be placed, could that entire staff of people handle each of those complaints as well as another? Or to state it another way, if the deputy coordinator of anti black racism somehow was extremely busy and a person, a Latino came in with a with a or another black person came in and the and the Latino deputy coordinator had capacity, could that Latino coordinator handle the discrimination of the anti black coordinator equally as well?
Speaker 63
one, even though it states that discrimination should not happen, I think all of us know that it does happen. And anyone that doesn't believe that clearly has their head in
Speaker 63
I also think that most of us would state or should state that those who have lived experiences, historical context, may be able to relate and help navigate and teach the experience that one may be having. I am a member of the African American community, the black community. I understand our experience. I may not understand the experience as much from someone who is from the Latino community or the LGBTQ plus community because I am not members of those communities. And so could one of the coordinators, other coordinators step in potentially?
Could they do as good of a job as someone with that lived experience? Probably not. Which is why we have specifically laid out for those who have the highest rates of discrimination in this state, specific coordinators, for people who understand and have those lived experiences and focus on that particular group, just like we did for the anti Semitism coordinator last year.
Speaker 1
All righty. Thank you very much. Other comments, questions? Senator D'Araso?
Speaker 11
Yeah. Just a just a quick comment. I wanna thank you both for taking charge and leading this. A lot of ups and downs and a lot of misunderstandings, lot of all sorts of things that get in the way when you're trying to trailblaze and create something new. But you know in your heart that you really just have to keep at it.
So I just want to thank you very much, the two of you, your leadership in moving this forward.
Speaker 1
All righty. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, all right. Would you like to close?
Speaker 51
No, we just thank our witnesses, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Crump, and we respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you both. All right. Appropriate time. Assume there'll be a motion and a vote.
Thanks. Alright. I see I think next on the dock would be senator Padilla.
Speaker 69
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to take up I have three bills. The committee, I'd like to take them in the following order because I have witnesses who have to catch a plane with your permission.
Speaker 1
SB file number 20 followed by file number 19 followed by file number 18. Is that what you're thinking?
Speaker 69
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Members, I want to begin by thanking you and the staff for their collaboration. We will be accepting committee amends. This bill gives children who were monetized online the ability to delete content from when they were a minor, allowing them to control their image and privacy.
Two years ago, I introduced SB seven sixty four, which created financial protections for child influencers in line with the Kugen Act of nearly a century ago. The bill was a key step for adapting laws to the modern economy, and SB twelve forty seven is a continuation of that work creating privacy protections for children of vloggers who often had vulnerable moments in their lives documented for content which was later monetized and exposed, sometimes, to millions of viewers. This bill gives children who were monetized the ability to delete content at their request from when they were a minor. Children of family influencers may not have a choice in participating in videos or documentation of their lives, which are then available for public consumption. And more child influencers have spoken up about the difficulties of growing up in the public light, with some experiencing stalking and threats due to public imaging.
A New York Times investigation found that many children of these children posted online drew audiences of adults seeking explicit content. And parents continued posting their child because more followers often meant more lucrative deals. Allison Stoner, a champion of this bill, experienced stalking and identity theft as a child performer and states that these sorts of threats are the norm. And with the rise of AI tools, these images are now used for child sexual abuse material. The parents and companies profit.
Sometimes the youth pays the price. Similar legislation has been proposed and passed in other states, such as Utah, where Sherry Frankie, daughter of Ruby Frankie, a family vlogger, was convicted of child abuse championed a similar bill after her and her siblings grew up with their lives documented in this adverse way online. This bill would give them back control of their images when they turn 18, and allow child influencers to have control over their public image, their ability to remove content from when they were minors. With me today, I have Jillian Claire, a former child entertainer and SAG AFTRA LA local board member.
Speaker 86
My name is Jillian Claire. I serve on the SAG AFTRA Los Angeles Local Board, and I am the national chair of the Young Performers Committee, as well as the Los Angeles co chair of the Young Performers Committee. I'm speaking today from my own personal opinions and not for the union. I began working professionally as an actor at the age of seven and joined the union when I was eight. I grew up in this industry, and even in a time before social media was as pervasive as it is today, I experienced firsthand the risks that come with children being visible in public facing content.
Speaker 78
As a child, I received mail from adult men across the country. As a teenager, my appearance became a topic of discussion on Internet forums, conversations I had no control over, no say in, and no way to remove. And that was before the rise of today's social media landscape. What we're seeing now is that same dynamic only amplified at an unprecedented scale. Children are being turned into content across platforms, often by adults in their lives, and in many cases, those adults are profiting, but the child is the one who carries long term consequences.
They lose control over their image, their privacy, and can become targets for harassment, exploitation, and predation without ever having meaningfully consented. And now with the rapid advancement of AI, the risks are even greater. Content created of a child today doesn't just live online. It can be manipulated, replicated, and reused in ways we are only beginning to understand. A child's likeness, voice, and identity can be altered or repurposed indefinitely without their knowledge or consent.
And while union protections exist for children working in traditional entertainment, millions of young people creating content online are completely unprotected. They deserve safeguards and agency. SB twelve forty seven gives former child influencers the right, once they reach adulthood, to reclaim control over their digital president presence. This is about accountability, consent, and ensuring that a childhood lived online does not become a permanent and unchangeable record or a digital asset that follows someone for the rest of their life. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Very timely. Alright. Others in support, SB twelve forty seven. Seeing no one approaching, that's time now for me too testimony on SB twelve forty seven.
If you're in support of SB twelve forty seven, please approach your microphone, seeing no one approaching. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB twelve forty seven, please approach microphone. Going once, going twice, seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments. Questions, comments?
Senator Niello.
Speaker 10
Quick question. The private right of action is specifically for the individual that wants to be removed, correct?
Speaker 1
Other yes. Other questions, comments? Seeing none. All right. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Okay. Will do. Thank you. Next, let's turn to file item number 19, SB eleven nineteen.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much again, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to present. I want to begin by thanking the committee for working with us, and that we will be accepting amends. Some of the amends are moved over from privacy and are being taken up here.
Chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini become common tools for users to utilize as AI assistants. But a growing number of consumers are utilizing AI chatbot tools for companionship. Growing anecdotal and empirical evidence has illustrated that dangerous possibilities of chatbot interactions and how their design can be unsuitable for vulnerable users, in particular children. Research has shown that children are more likely to view AI chatbots as quasi human, and thus trust them more than some of their peers, and certainly adults. When an interaction between children and chatbots goes wrong, it can go very, very wrong.
An investigation by Common Sense Media and Stanford University's BrainStorm Lab for Mental Health found that safeguards in place for the chatbots they tested were unable to adequately prevent the technology from encouraging harmful behaviors, providing inappropriate content, and exacerbating mental health conditions of minors. There have been, as you know, many several high profile cases that have shown us how these interactions can be tragic. In one example, teenager Adam Rain ended his life after a prolonged interaction with CHAT GPT. What started out as a study tool ultimately became Adam's closest companion. When Adam turned suicidal, CHAT GPT offered validation and encouraged exploration of his suicidal thoughts.
That chatbot, according to the complaint filed later by his grieving parents, proved that it mentioned suicide 1275 times, six times more than Adam himself. I was recently joined with the presentation of this bill in privacy by Adam's mother, whose courage in this matter has been beyond words. Last year, I authored the first in the nation legislation SB two forty three, an important first step for ensuring safety of users while interacting with chatbots. But more work remains to be done. This year, I have joined efforts with Assemblywoman Wicks and Assembly member Bauer Cahan to introduce SB eleven nineteen, this bill, and AB twenty twenty three, the bill in the Assembly, which mirrors exactly this measure.
These bills seek to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to address the risk of prolonged chatbot interactions by children. The bills would regulate and would require, excuse me, an annual risk assessment, along with the establishment of measures to prevent suicidal ideation, syncopancy, and the isolation, including a crisis response protocol providing additional guardrails in the form of default settings for children parental controls noticing requirements and time limits on interactions prohibitions on advertising and the selling, sharing, and usage of children's private information and ensuring a robust oversight and enforcement framework, including through a public incident reporting mechanism, third party audits, the development of auditing standards by the Attorney General, and the inclusion of a private right of action. We have seen the consequences of an action and we must act now. With me today to testify is Jay from the Transparency Coalition, and Nicole Rocha with Children Now.
Speaker 14
Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is J. J. Sema, and I'm testifying today in support of Senate Bill eleven nineteen as the co founder of Transparency Coalition. We're an independent nonprofit which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in generative AI.
Speaker 90
We had the privilege of working with, the senator on SB two forty three last year and have been working on advancing chatbot safety legislation in, 10 plus states this year, including laws that passed in Washington and Oregon. As the senator pointed out, we're entering an era where companion chatbots are being marketed to children as friends, tutors, and even emotional supports. Unlike a standard search engine, these AI systems are designed to build rapport and influence. Without oversight, these tools can expose minors to inappropriate content, manipulate their emotions, or collect sensitive personal data without adequate safeguards. Currently, there is no standardized requirement for these companies to prove their products are safe for a child's developing mind before or after they hit the market.
Speaker 14
Senate Bill eleven nineteen changes that by requiring operators to submit to independent safety audits. It demands transparency requiring that these audit reports be submitted to the AG to ensure compliance. Crucially, this bill provides a path for accountability, authorizing civil actions if a child suffers actual harm due to a violation. California has always led the nation in consumer and digital protections. With the rapid innovation of AI into childhood, we cannot afford to wait for more tragedy to occur before we act.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 79
Thank you, chair and members. I am Nicole Rocha here on behalf of Children Now. Children Now takes a whole child approach to improving the lives of California kids and works across health, education, early childhood, and foster care to ensure all kids have the supports they need to survive. After many years of fighting for legislation to keep kids safe on social media, youth and families finally have the wind in their sails. Over the past month, we have seen historic verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars with juries finding that social media intentionally addicted children.
Last year, senator Padilla passed a first in the country bill to regulate how companion AI interacts with children and created fundamental safeguards. And while these are historic wins, the work is far from over. If the legislature does not take timely action, we could once again be dealing with a social media type situation and the aftermath of decades of harm to kids that could have been prevented. SB one one nine one one one nine is a comprehensive measure that covers companion AI from start to finish, ensuring that every step of children's healthy development is considered. It requires operators of companion AI to perform safety audits and mitigate identified harms.
Operators must also publish a child safety policy and implement a crisis response protocol. For children now, the most meaningful part
Speaker 100
the form of default settings for child users. Default settings place no additional onus on parents to activate safeguards for their children, but allow parents to opt out of these settings should they choose. SB eleven nineteen requires that chatbots are defaulted to no persistent conversational memory. They must operate in ephemeral mode, which will limit the manipulation, attachment, and addiction chatbots from chatbots that we have seen in recent years. Chatbots are not allowed to send push notifications to children during school hours or when kids are asleep.
Speaker 79
And also, the bill would include default limit for chat set at one hour and a max daily time per platform is set to two hours. In the interest of time, I will end my testimony there. I'm happy to answer any questions and we respectfully urge your I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Now, let's turn to the opposition. Since there's no more support, opposition. Professor.
Speaker 8
Mr. Chairman, Chris McAiley here, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully oppose unless amended. We appreciate the, authors and the staff's engagement, as well as your committee on this measure. While we share some of the broad goals that have been enumerated by the Senator, our concern is focused on the enforcement mechanism.
Our first concern is with some of the ambiguous and broad terms. For example, the definition of covered harm in 02/2010 is pretty it's highly subjective from our standpoint. If you look at the standard, in the bill, it is approximately caused, which, of course, is a negligent standard. The second point is that we're concerned with the PRA, the private right of action, in twenty two-six sixteen. We don't think that a new cause of action here is appropriate or necessary, and we have significant concern with the potential of punitive damages being sought.
Of course, we remain committed to work with the author and your staff on further amendments to the bill, but at this time, we are respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Robert Poitkin with TechNet. In respect of the opposition to SB119, unless it is amended, we want to start by recognizing that we share the author's goal of protecting children from harmful interactions with AI, and the concerns raised are valid, and the industry is actively working to address them. However, we have four primary concerns with how the bill is structured. First, timing and overlap.
SB two forty three was just enacted this year, and companies are still in the process of building compliance systems. SB eleven nineteen creates overlapping, in some cases, conflicting requirements for the same issues, such as disclosure and crisis response protocols. Moving forward, before we understand how SB two forty three is working, risks creating confusion and undermining compliance. Second, the bill relies on broad and highly subjective standards. Key terms like excessively sycophantic or emotional harm are difficult to define and even harder to operationalize consistently across different products.
Speaker 51
When standards are unclear, companies cannot confidently design systems to comply, and that ambiguity can ultimately reduce, not improve safety. Third, the bill can be overly prescriptive in how products must be designed. It mess it mandates specific times, design features, and system behaviors across a across a wide range of AI tools, but these tools vary considerably from companionship products to general purpose assistance used for schoolwork, a one size fits all approach risk limiting beneficial uses without effectively targeting the highest risk scenarios. Finally, we are concerned about the enforcement structure. The bill creates multiple overlapping enforcement pathways, including private right of action, which increase the risk of duplicative and inconsistent litigation.
Speaker 20
With that said, we believe there is a path forward and that with targeted amendments, particularly around harmonization with two forty three, SB two forty three, to be clear, clearer definitions and a more flexible risk based framework, the bill will be better aligned with its stated objectives. We look forward to continuing to work with the author, this committee, and other stakeholders as the bill moves forward today. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 74
Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Naomi Pajaran on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 47
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Moutroupe for the California Chamber of Commerce echoing the concerns of, CJAC and TechNet. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Let's bring it back to committee for questions. There are no questions. There are no comments.
Senator Padilla, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. Now turning to your final bill, SB eight seventy six, file number 18.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm pleased to present. I'd like to thank the committee staff for their work and express my appreciation, ongoing appreciation for the broad swath of stakeholders we're engaging on this bill. When I introduced this bill, I did so with the intention to have a broad conversation about insurance availability and affordability, and certainly to address claims reform.
This bill represents a broad measure design from experiences of 14 destructive wildfires that burned throughout our state, in particular including in my region and in Los Angeles County last year. Out of the pain and suffering of thousands of people and the increasing propensity of severe wildfires, one thing that has become clear, decades old insurance laws and practices that govern our claims process have not kept pace. A year on, wildfire survivors have continued to report ongoing problems with accessing their insurance benefits without delay, denials, and miscommunications from insurance companies at the top of the list of their consumer problems. The number of complaints filed with the Department of Insurance since January 2025 has risen sharply. We attempt to take lessons learned from these experiences to reform the claims process by cutting red tape, improving payouts, and ending delays.
Speaker 40
As the chair of the committee on insurance, I'm committed to balancing the need for affordability and availability to ensure these policies keep pace with the needs of Californians with the need to make them workable. I have engaged a broad group of stakeholders and have been sensitive and will continue to be sensitive to the cost implications for all Californians. Along with amending the bill in the Senate Insurance Committee to remove the offer of guaranteed replacement cost, there remains a number of concerns for stakeholders and we remain committed to working on issues like the mandatory additional 50% extended replacement cost and doubling the amount of additional living expense coverage after a disaster. At the same time, working with stakeholders to address issues of adjust or delays and restitution, which has been reviewed by this committee for policyholders, critical areas of concern for survivors. It's a comprehensive piece of legislation, attempts to fill critical gaps that we learn from the wildfires in Los Angeles, protect homeowners and families, their most vulnerable moment, and we remain committed to continuing to address the complexity and the complex number of issues that remain.
Speaker 69
With me here to testify today is Josephine Figueroa, the Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director at the California Department of Insurance.
Speaker 36
Afternoon, chair Hamburg and members of the committee. Josephine Figueroa, deputy commissioner and legislative director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara. With me today is Heather Hoesery, deputy general counsel for the department, to answer any questions you may have. I want to first thank senator Padilla for offering this important consumer protection measure. SB eight seven six is about making disaster recovery faster, cleaner, and more fair for families who have already lost everything.
California's wildfire reality is now year round. Fires are larger, faster, and more destructive than ever. 2019 was a definitive turning point for California's wildfire landscape, making the transition into a new era where one hundred one hundred thousand acre megafires and 1,000,000 acre gigafires become recurring reality rather than anomaly. Senator Padilla touched upon this a bit. Last year's 14 destructive fires across Los Angeles and San Diego counties made this painfully clear.
Speaker 82
The Eaton fire in Altadena and the Palisades fire in Pacific Palisades alone destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 homes. Over the past year, the department has held multiple insurance workshops, met with multiple survivors, and continue investigating consumers that we have consumer complaints that we have received. And yet more than a year and a half later, survivors are still reporting delays, denials, miscommunication, and claims process that forces them to fight for every dollar. These are not isolated stories. These are systems symptoms, sorry, of a systematic failure.
Speaker 36
SB eight seven six is designed to break the cycle and restore confidence in the system that families depend on on the worst moments of their lives. Specifically, s b a seven six strengthens the department's ability to step in when insurance companies repeatedly handle claims unfairly. It increases penalties when insurers commit unfair claims practices for after a disaster, like the fire recent wildfires we've just mentioned.
Speaker 36
Oh, and on behalf of insurance commissioner Ricardo Lada, I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Next, others in support of s p eight seven six. Going once, going twice. Alright, let's turn to the opposition.
If you're opposed to SB eight seventy six, now's your time.
Speaker 39
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair Nilo, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Denny Ritter, and I am here on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. On behalf of our member companies, I am here today to respectfully oppose SB eight seventy six, while also acknowledging the author's willingness to work with stakeholders on amendments.
Speaker 33
We do appreciate the author's most recent amendments taken in the Senate Insurance Committee. However, even with that amendment, this bill remains an extremely broad measure, containing more than 20 policy proposals that, taken together, would materially increase cost and reduce flexibility in an already, fragile insurance market. We are very concerned about the cumulative and unintended consequences of the remaining provisions. This bill includes multiple mandatory coverage expansions, such as increased extended replacement costs and higher additional living expense limits that will be priced into every homeowner's policy statewide, regardless of location or consumer preference. While these benefits may sound helpful in isolation, the reality is that these mandates will increase premiums for all Californians, including those in low risk areas.
Speaker 39
SB eight seventy six also converts certain coverages into automatic payments by requiring 100% of contents coverage without an inventory or valuation. This issue was just negotiated in Senator Allen's SB four ninety five last year, where insurers agreed to provide 60% without an inventory. This just took effect four months ago, and we're really concerned that it is up for renegotiation so quickly. This component, again, risks higher insurance costs that ultimately flow back to consumers. Finally, we note that these mandates come at a time when the Department of Insurance's sustainable insurance strategy has just begun to show early progress.
Introducing sweeping new coverage mandates and requirements creates uncertainty and makes it more difficult for insurers and reinsurers to commit capital for to California. We do appreciate the author's continued commitment, to working on this bill, we look forward to working with him. And thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
Speaker 80
Yes. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sharon Taylor, behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. And thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns regarding SB eight seventy six. The bill set the table for an expansive discussion among stakeholders, and we appreciate Senator Padilla's commitment to make changes that reduce the financial impact on consumers.
However, there's more work to be done. The bill layers more than 20 new mandates on our struggling market. Mandates like higher extended replacement cost, increased building code upgrade, and full contents payouts. These are significant changes that increase claim severity across every policy in the state and will drive immediate sticker shock in premiums. Our analysis indicates premiums could rise by 15 to 20%, which is about 200 to $3.50 a year on average and well over $1,000 in high risk areas.
Even consumers in low risk areas will pay more for benefits they may not need or want. At a time when affordability is already a crisis, this bill moves in the wrong direction. The bill analysis focused on the provisions that are in the committee's jurisdiction, which are the restitution provisions. With that, we note that SB ten forty Rubio was recently enacted to provide the Commissioner authority to require unlicensed insurers to pay restitution. At that time, the Department indicated they did not need it for licensed insurers because the Commissioner commonly requires restitution in connection with settlements under the authority in the government code.
Speaker 13
It's not clear why that's changed. Regardless, our focus is on restoring a stable and reliable insurance market under the commissioner's sustainable insurance strategy, which has already resulted in carriers representing 40% of the market making new filings to grow and expand coverage in California. So, therefore, we are concerned SB eight seventy six will undermine that progress and respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 74
Good afternoon, chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 23
JASSMINE Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Jasmine VIA on behalf of California Building Industry Association, with a respectful opposed unless amended position. We appreciate the leadership of the author and the commissioner on these issues, and we look forward to continuing to engage on this very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Alright. Questions by committee members. Senator Nieto?
No? Any of us?
Speaker 1
Okay. So, I I know we've had plenty of conversation. Alright. Not seeing any other members, the the bill I assume will be moved and the appropriate vote will be taken later on. Would you like to close?
Speaker 69
Thank you, mister chairman. Just to address one of the comments in the record, particularly in the jurisdiction of the committee with respect to enforcement and restitution precision. The bill does build upon the provisions of SB ten forty. And rather than being unnecessary, I would just point out, and it's addressed in your analysis at page seven, that these increased abilities to assess are for qualified specific circumstances, which include a finding of unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts, as well as same in the context of an emergency declaration. With that, I would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Next, we have Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio, after senator Rubio presents her bill, then right now?
No. Okay. After senator Rubio, then senator Niello, and then I'm gonna present senator Cervantes' bill. Without objection of other authors, senator Niello has witnesses that are, gonna leave soon. So
Speaker 72
Thank you. Just wanna make sure my where do you want my witness down there? Thank you. So thank you, mister chair and members. First and foremost, I appreciate working with your committee, I will be accepting some of the amendments stated.
S v thirteen twenty three is a patient protection bill and dignity measure that strengthens existing law for individuals receiving medical care while in in immigration custody. This bill clarifies and reinforces fundamental rights that should already be held. At its core, SV thirteen twenty three is about ensuring humane treatment, transparency, and account accountability in medical settings. Under current law, health care facilities must limit immigration enforcement access to non public areas. However, existing statutes do not address the communication rights of patients to locate their loved ones and let them know of their condition.
Speaker 26
As a result, detained individuals may be isolated and unable to notify family members during a medical crisis. We've seen reports that indicate that some individuals in custody have been denied communication with loved ones, have had, care delayed, experience worsening medical conditions, and extreme and in extreme cases, preventable deaths. SB thirteen twenty three requires health care entities to inform staff and volunteers on how to respond to requests from individuals in immigration custody and allow patients to notify family members or loved ones of their location and condition. Essentially, they must come up with a procedure. SB thirteen twenty three ensures communication is timely, consistent across facilities, and ensures that no one receiving medical care in California is cut off from their loved ones simply because they're in ICE custody.
Speaker 72
With me today, joining me as my witnesses, Jeanette Zanipatin from the Coalition of Humane Immigration Rights. So I'll turn it over to her, if I may.
Speaker 81
you. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Jeanette Zanipatin. I'm the director of policy and advocacy for the Coalition for Humane and Immigrant Rights. I'm here in support of SB thirteen twenty three, which is really a straightforward measure that would require hospitals and health care settings to strengthen existing patient privacy protections, by clarifying that individuals in ICE custody retain their rights while receiving medical care, and ensure that across California, individuals are treated uniformly across health care settings.
This is a critically important and timely measure as we have seen more and more individuals in DHS or ICE custody suffer both medical emergencies while in detention or injured during civil immigration arrests. Chula runs the Rapid Response Network for Los Angeles County, and we have documented firsthand the level of violence and enforcement operations that have occurred in Los Angeles. Over the past several months, immigration enforcement has become more violent as DHS and ICE continue to change tactics, often injuring individuals during these enforcement operations. Just recently, I was able to speak to a gentleman that was arrested and thrown into a car face first while conducting a sweep and expediting his arrest because ICE was, trying to ensure that that our rapid responders were not able to get there in time to document what was happening and or record his arrest. In another instance, we had a gentleman that was injured during an ICE raid who suffered a catastrophic injury to his right leg.
He was taken to UCLA, Harbor Medical Center, where ICE and DHS agents had stationed were stationed beside his bed, and placed handcuffs on him as well as ankle cuffs during his entire stay at the hospital. Initially, the hospital would not allow his family access to visit him or immigration counsel to access the patient, despite the fact that he had required several surgeries. The family was not given any information about him being at the hospital, as well as, you know, until several organizations intervened, along with Chirla, to gain access to the patient. Even then, ICE and DHS would not leave his room, which would not allow us to establish attorney client privilege, nor allow the patients to meet with his medical team without ICE presence.
Speaker 81
Because of these reasons, we are in strong support of SB1323 and ask for your support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support of SB thirteen twenty three. Please queue up.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB thirteen twenty three, now is your opportunity going once, going twice. Alright.
Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions by committee members, senator Rubio, would you like to close?
Speaker 72
Thank you. Well, I just wanna highlight that the case that they just shared is not isolated. It's happening across our our state. And just to clarify, we think of this as an immigration issue, but US citizens have been arrested. There was a young lady that was shot, spent three days in the hospital, and their family was not notified.
So it is the decent thing to do. Uniformity across facilities is critical. And more importantly, we all have to imagine what if it were our mother, our daughters, our fathers. It is something that we need to do. It's the right thing.
And with that, I ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you. It's appropriate time. I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you.
Speaker 57
Alright. Alright. So in terms of the batting order, senator Niello and then senator Ochoa Bogg, and then I'm gonna exercise chair's privilege to present senator Cervantes' bill just so that other authors know. She also has witnesses here. So senator Niello.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, mister chair, and thank you senator Ochoa Bogue. I promise to be quick and efficient. Appreciate the opportunity to present s b ten sixty six. The bill improves the state's unclaimed property program in three distinct ways. First, it would give owners more time it would give owners more time before property is deemed abandoned from the current the so called eschete period from the current three years to seven years, reducing the risk that property is turned over to the state too soon.
Second, it would require the state controller to retain its cheated property in the form that it was received, helping preserve the assets value and making recovery easier for the owner. Third, it would incentivize the quick processing and return of property once an application is submitted by allowing interest to be applied commencing on the date of the submitted application. California's initial law established in 1959 then established a fifteen year eschievement period. But over time, it's been incrementally reduced to the current three years, and the liquidation of assets has led to unfortunate abuse and significant losses foregone by people once they do get their property back. When dormancy periods are shortened and assets are sold, owners can lose not only the property itself but obviously the opportunity cost of the potential appreciation.
SB ten sixty six is a sensible step in that goal. It reflects the principle that government should be a custodian, not an opportunist. It moves us closer to a system that respects property rights, improves public confidence, and ensures that California is on the, side of the rightful owner. We're also seeing a growing concern well beyond Sacramento. Just last week, a CBS News reporting highlighted how states have used unclaimed property rules in ways that have drawn bipartisan scrutiny, and the federal and federal lawmakers are now advancing a bipartisan safer act to curb those practices.
Actually, US senator Elizabeth Warren is now calling for a nationwide review of state unclaimed property systems, citing reporting that includes our practice here, specifically in California. Elected officials from both sides of the aisle are recognizing that the system needs reform because property owners deserve notice, transparency, and a real chance to recover what is theirs. I have with me today, in support, Emily Udell of the California Credit Union League in support of this bill.
Speaker 35
afternoon, chair and members. Emily Udell with California's Credit Unions. We are the trade association representing about 200 credit unions across the state, and there are over 13,000,000 credit union members. We support senate bill ten sixty six because it lengthens the achievement period to seven years, which will decrease the likelihood that wanted desired property is turned over the state prematurely. Credit unions are not for profit member owned financial cooperatives who always are striving to serve their membership the best.
This would allow for credit unions who are their trusted financial institutions in their communities to retain funds for longer periods of time. SB ten sixty six is a pro consumer measure that would allow credit union members to keep their money. It's an easier process for a consumer to access their dormant accounts at their credit union versus trying to claim property through the state. Consumers may open various accounts for different saving goals over time. These accounts may go dormant without any intent to give them up.
Speaker 32
Sometimes someone may have been working through a job change, a family crisis, a move, or simply lost paperwork. For many Californians, unclaimed property is not abandoned money. It is a safety net. A seven year period, as this bill proposes to provide, gives individual a fair chance to reunite with their own funds before the state steps in. SB ten sixty six is pro consumer and helps credit union members, which is why we are pleased to support the bill today, and thanks senator Niello for bringing it forward, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Others in support, s b ten sixty six. Going once, going twice. Alright.
If you're opposed to s b ten sixty six, please approach microphone. Alright. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members?
Speaker 11
Senator Nilo, thank thank you. I this issue has been around for a long, long time. So I'm I'm curious why you think that lengthening the time that the property would have to be saved, why would that help? And as far as getting to the core of the problem, right, we want every all this property and money, whatever, in what form it is, we want it to be claimed. But what what makes you think this will help?
And second, just if you don't have the answer, that's okay. It's not a big deal. But what does it take by the holders of this property as far as resources to hold on to that property until somebody claims it? Doesn't it take time and money? Maybe maybe the witness from the credit union.
I'm just you know, what makes it
Speaker 10
You mean are we relieving a burden on the holders of the property before it's just cheated to the state by us cheating it sooner?
Speaker 11
The the second question was what kind of resources are used by the holders of property? I'm talking about
Speaker 10
You mean like the bank or whatever? Okay. Answer the first question, when the unclaimed property system was first established, the estate period was, as I think I mentioned, twelve or fifteen years. It has been incrementally reduced. And in my opinion, that's been happening because the state benefits by that.
We utilize that money in our general fund. Every year, in the last few years, the amount of unclaimed property is cheated to the state has varied from a billion and a third to $2,000,000,000. And in that same time, there's been a couple 100,000,000 that's been returned to owners. The state and the sooner the escheat period, the more money the state accumulates and the faster it accumulates, and, it is utilized in our general fund. So there is a motivation of the state, and, so the eschete period has been gradually reduced five or six times to now three years.
Now the question of how does that benefit the owner? People invest money and many people let it sit. And they may not contact the financial institution for three years. That's not a long period of time in terms of investment periods. And in addition to that, with that short estate estate period, if it's a an appreciating asset, the state currently automatically liquidates that so that in a period of three years with a an an investor having an investment at whatever private institution and expecting for it to stay and and mature, increase in value, after three years, ends up at the state, they sell it, and the person never receives the benefit.
These things have happened. So it would benefit the owner with a longer eschete period. Now your second question, what about the institution that's holding the asset? They hold the asset just like they would. They don't profit by that in any particular way.
It is there for the benefit of the owner.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, sir. Senator will do so. I assume there'll be a motion at the time that we have a quorum. Alright.
Senator Ochoa Bogg. And for housekeeping purposes, after Senator Ochoa Bogg presents her bill, I'm gonna present SB eleven sixty four, which is Senator Cervantes bill. So if other authors are listening, just putting folks on notice. Alright. Senator Ochoa Bo, floor is yours.
Speaker 38
Good morning, mister chair. And I'm becoming your favorite senator coming into the committee hearing today.
Speaker 38
And members, very happy to be here today. I am happy to present SB ten seventy one. I'd like to start first by accepting the committee's amendments. Adding guidance for the state's registrars is important, and I want to thank your staff for collaboration or collaborating with the sponsors and my team. SB ten seventy one will provide a legal path for families to amend a loved one's death certificate when a court has determined that the death was a homicide, which will ensure California's public records accurately reflect those legal findings.
The bill will allow a victim's next of kin after all appellate rights have been exhausted to request an amendment so that the official death certificate reflects the court's legal determination. I'd like to make clear that s p ten seventy one only allows an amendment to the manner of death on the state's official legal document recording a person's death and only after legal determination of homicide. All medical opinions in medical records are preserved. Joining me today are Ivy Fitzpatrick, chief deputy district attorney with Riverside County's DA's office, and doctor Fillmore Smiley, founder of Resenda's Gift and member of Not An Accident Campaign.
Speaker 4
First, I'd like to thank the senator for her leadership, compassion, dignity, and authenticity. Today, I'm speaking for me, my daughter Rose, her brother Cinco, her mom, Glory, and all of Rose's family and friends that love her. Let me tell you about the night Rose died. We didn't know anything other than that she was hit in a crosswalk by a car. Everyone was in shock, and I asked the investigator, was alcohol involved?
He didn't know yet, but eventually Nathan tells Gloria and I that the driver was drunk. Gloria collapsed, and I said, he murdered my baby. Now I never heard of a Watson murder, but everybody knows that if someone drinks and drives and kills someone, that's homicide. So later the coroner comes and we say goodbye to Rose's lifeless body. And now what do I do with my life?
So I turned to activism. I met Candace Leitner who introduced me to the rest of the not an accident team, Matt Capaluto, Larry Hatfield, Carol Swigert, and Kelly Montalvo. They said to check Rose's death certificate for manner of death. And I say, okay. But it must say homicide But it must say homicide because the coroner was aware of the arrest for the second degree murder before she, before she left that night.
Nope. It says accident. Accident, nothing about Rosa's death was accidental. Twice the legal limit, twice the speed limit, and a Watson advisement. Not only is this unjust, but it's revictimizing.
I suffer enough with unspeakable pain twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days a year. I don't wanna be revictimized. I don't wanna be revictimized by the implication that this was somehow accidental. I don't wanna be revictimized by an inane taxonomy with no research support and no construct validity. I don't wanna be victimized by someone who is gonna come up here and lie for their own gain and benefit.
Speaker 93
But s b ten seventy one is about justice. Justice for Rosanda, Elizabeth Smiley, justice for Danielle McMillan, Alec Duenes, Benjamin Montalvo, Carrie Leitner, Alexander Capaluto, Corey Hatfield Rife, Ronald Schweigert, and for all the children in California whose lives were taken by the intentional actions of another person. These deaths are not accidents. Thank you. I hope for your support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, sir. And, you know, Thank you for taking your unspeakable pain and directing it to a positive force.
Speaker 82
afternoon, honorable chair and committee members. My name is Ivy Fitzpatrick. I'm a chief deputy DA in Riverside County. In the course of my career, twenty eight years, I've had the pleasure and also the heartache to supervise the homicide and vehicular homicide units. First, I wanna thank the committee and its staff, for the thoughtful amendments that would make this bill a lot more workable for our registrars.
In simplest terms, s b ten seventy one provides a mechanism to amend the manner of death on a death certificate after a legal determination regarding the same. When a person dies and an autopsy is performed, there's both a cause and a manner of death listed on the death certificate. Cause of death is the literal medical cause of death. But manner of death is much different. Manner of death, unlike cause, is not purely medical.
It is derived from a medical legal death investigation which takes into account the circumstances surrounding the death that are known at that point in the death investigation, including not only the decedent's intent, but the actor's intent in causing the decedent's tent decedent's death, such as whether there were volitional harmful acts and whether there was an intent to kill. The example of vehicular homicides, I think, demonstrates the problem that this bill seeks to solve. Currently, when a victim is killed by an impaired driver, the coroner performs the autopsy with a few days after the death, Very early stages of the investigation. And typically classifies the manner of death at that time as an accident, not as a homicide. But after the death investigation is complete, we proceed to trial and an appellate court has upheld the lower court's legal determination of homicide, we not only have a complete investigation, we have an official determination of the manner of death, which is homicide, not an accident.
Speaker 61
SB ten seventy one seeks to have the state's official legal document regarding the victim's death. The death certificate reflect that official legal determination regarding the true manner of death. For these reasons, my office is a proud cosponsor of s b ten seventy one along with the not an accident campaign. And on behalf of the Riverside DA's office, as well as I'd like to register support for the California District Attorney's Association, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 12
Good after Excuse excuse me. Me. Good good afternoon. My name's Carol Schweigert. I'm a bereaved mother and one of the founding members of the Not an Accident Campaign Coalition.
I strongly urge your I vote on this truth and justice bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you for being here. Others in support of SB ten seventy one? Seeing no one approaches the microphone. Alright. Let's turn to the opposition.
If you're opposed to s p ten seventy one, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 43
Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Doctor. Michelle Jordan, and I am the President of the National Association of Medical Examiners. I am here to reiterate our organization's strong opposition to this bill as written. Although we understand the spirit of the bill and we deeply sympathize with those families who've lost a loved one, this bill is incorrect if it moves forward.
Speaker 54
The death certificate contains our medical opinions based on our independent investigations and not judicial outcomes. This is no different than the medical opinions listed in a patient's medical record. This bill will override our medical opinions and uncouple the critical separation between medicine and legal outcomes, which would be unprecedented. This does not happen anywhere in the country. The definitions of manner on a death certificate is entirely different than those in a criminal prosecution and really needs to remain separate and independent.
Speaker 43
It is important to note that protocols already do exist in medical examiner and coroner offices for reevaluating manner of death when medically appropriate or when families approach our offices. Please pull back the bill and at the very least work with the medical examiners and coroners to get the bill language correct. We were never consulted on this bill, and any amendments to a death certificate must remain with the initial certifier, which is the responsibility of the medical legal investigative agency. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, chair members. Usha Mutlar on behalf of the California State Coroner's Association, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other witnesses opposed to s b ten seventy one, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's now turn to committee members for questions or comments. Questions or comments? Seeing none.
Alright. Senator Ochoa Bogg, would you like to close?
Speaker 38
Yes. I am. Okay. I just wanna make sure that we have clarity that on the five manners of death, one of them is homicide. And all we're trying to do is when it's being classified as an accident that we actually are, once we have all evidence coming in, that we actually change that to the homicide.
It's already one of the top five manners of death. Accurate death certificate data does more than just provide closure to families. The information is transmitted to the state registrar and the California Department of Public Health, where it forms the basis for certified death certificates and statewide vital statistics. Those statistics directly inform public health research, guide criminal justice policy decisions, and shape statewide data systems that lawmakers and agencies rely on when addressing impaired driving and other preventable deaths. This bill is about truth and justice for victims and their families.
Drunk and impaired driving deaths are up in California, and death certificates should accurately categorize these deaths as homicides, not accidents. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Senator Smallwood Cuevas, I I you may not have heard the announcement. Senator Cervantes is not here and has witnesses, so I was gonna present her a bill. Yep. So okay. So immediately after I present senator Cervantes' bill, then we'll turn to senator Smallwood Quavis.
Yes.
Speaker 10
I will. Gotta have the gavel or I'm not really in charge. You may proceed when ready. Alright, thank you Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
I'm here to present SB eleven sixty four, which is authored by Senator Cervantes. Senator Cervantes could not be here. And Senator Cervantes accepts the committee amendments and thanks the committee for its fine work. I'm seeing that there are no committee amendments. Okay.
Speaker 1
If there were if there are committee amendments at some point in time, I'm sure she would accept them. So, colleagues, democracy in America is under attack. Right now, the federal voting rights act is being pared back dramatically, as it has over the course of the last several years, both legislatively and also judicially, in particular with the supreme court. Soon, the supreme court will issue a decision in Louisiana versus Calais, which could result in striking much of what is left of the Voting Rights Act. That means that the safeguards regarding vote dilution, voter suppression and discrimination that have protected Californians and all Americans for generations may never, may no longer be in place.
We have the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 in law, but this only protects against discriminatory actions in at large election systems. If the court acts to overturn what's left of the Voting Rights Act, state law will be totally insufficient to protect California voters, and that's where senate bill eleven sixty four comes into play. It will codify many of the provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act in the state law and ensure that no matter what the supreme court does, Californians will continue to have safeguards against dilution, voter suppression, and voter discrimination. It provides the California attorney general and individual voters with tools to enforce the voting rights act much like the federal voting rights act. We can't allow California's Californians to not be protected.
And thus, I ask for an I vote. Colleagues with me here to testify are the sponsors of the bill, the California Democracy Partnership, Mr. Adam Leos, senior counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Apparently, that's not I bet that is Kristen Nimmers.
Speaker 83
Good afternoon, Chair Umburg and committee members. My name is Julia Gomez, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. ACLU California Action is in strong support of SB eleven sixty four, a key piece of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 legislative package. Adam Liaz, with the Legal Defense Fund, had to catch a flight to Washington DC, so I will be reading his testimony. Nearly twenty five years ago, California led the country by passing the nation's first state voting rights act.
Since that time, seven states have enacted state voting rights act, and an eighth went to the governor's desk in Maryland just last week. Nearly all of the laws inspired by your work here in California provide a broader range of anti discrimination protections than the existing CVRA of 2001. State voting rights acts are powerful, practical, and are a powerful, practical, and popular solution to voting discrimination, and 78% of voters across the country support a state voting rights act in their own state. Two thirds of California voters support expanding the California Voting Rights Act. Despite California's progressive reputation, voters of color still face discriminatory barriers to equal participation in elections, especially at the local level.
Speaker 41
SB eleven sixty four would address voting discrimination in four important ways. First, the bill expands the CVRA's existing prohibition on racial vote dilution beyond at large elections, protecting against any district map or election system that weakens or silences the voting power of communities based on race. Second, it prohibits voter suppression, confronting confronting discriminatory barriers to the ballot. Third, the bill stops repeat voting discrimination before it occurs by requiring preapproval of certain voting changes for local governments with a recent history of discrimination. And fourth, the bill requires courts to exercise discretion in favor of voting access and equity.
Speaker 83
As the current administration turns the federal government from a bulwark against discrimination into a direct threat to black, Latino, AAPI, and other voters of colors. California needs a stronger voting rights act now more than ever.
Speaker 83
We urge the committee to advance SB eleven sixty four and put California back at the forefront of voting rights. Thank you.
Speaker 64
Good afternoon, committee members. I'm Kristen Nimmers, policy and campaigns manager with the California Black Power Network. We are a coalition of over 45 black led and black empowering grassroots organizations throughout the state. Formerly, we were known as the black census and redistricting hub, and our coalition began with a specific and intentional focus on democracy. We were a state partner in engaging hard to reach black residents and led a statewide campaign to inform the public about the state redistricting process and uplift communities of interest.
For over a decade, our member organizations have been engaging voters year round to provide public education on voting and elections. Through this engagement, we've been able to learn the challenges facing voters, what increases accessibility, and what can result in voter suppression. We have also been called to support and advocate on behalf of communities in the face of intentional acts to suppress black votes and political power. Disenfranchisement and voter suppression are not confined to the past. In 2022, leaked recordings captured LA city council members making racist remarks and discussions about how to redraw district lines to maintain power at the expense of historically black communities.
In 2018, a court found that Latino voters faced similar dilution attempts under Kern County's supervisorial map. We've also seen increased efforts to restrict access to the ballot as election deniers take hold of some local governments. Last year, we joined an amicus brief challenging an attempt in Huntington Beach to enact a voter ID law based on unfounded claims of fraud. We highlighted the burdens facing, black voters in other communities as a result of ID requirements. And although successful, the outcome of that case turned on a narrow legal theory that is not always available in these cases.
Speaker 39
These examples confirm that we still face threats of discriminatory redistricting and efforts to pass laws to suppress voter participation. SB eleven sixty four provides important safeguards against this by strengthening the California Voting Rights Act to cover district based systems and adding a limited preapproval program to prevent repeat violations. It also fills gaps and remedies available to stop policies that disproportionately burden voter voters of color by providing a cause of action for voter suppression and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of protecting voters. Since 1965, when black people gained the right to vote, we have made significant strides to building an inclusive democracy for all. We are at a critical moment in history that these efforts are under threat, and we must take action to protect democracy.
Speaker 10
Thank you. If there are others, in the audience, in favor, please, approach the microphone. State your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Speaker 27
Dora Rose, deputy director of League of Women Voters of California, enthusiastic cosponsors of this bill. I've also been asked to read out other, enthusiastic supporters of the bill, Common Cause California Legal Defense Fund, Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, PANA, a they're gonna they're here. They're gonna say it themselves. UCLA Voting Rights Project, Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and Education Fund, MALDF, Asian Law Caucus, and NextGen California. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Mr. Chair, Yvonne Fernandez, on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.
Speaker 51
Good afternoon, Chair Nilo. Janos Omelew with AFSCME California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini with the California School Employees Association in support.
Speaker 81
Good afternoon. Janette Cenic Batyne on behalf of the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights in stock support. Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU CalAction, proud cosponsor.
Speaker 10
And seeing no other supporters, approach you to the microphone. We'll move to the opposition. Anyone, opposed to this bill, primary witness, or me too, seeing none approaching the microphone, bring it back to the committee. Any comments or questions?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Alright. I think next is senator well, let's see. Alright.
Senator Perez. Senator Prince, the floor is yours.
Speaker 84
Thank you. I'm gonna start with SB nine fifty seven, then I'll go to nine ninety five and SB eleven oh three. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I'm here to present SB nine fifty seven, the Shield Act. Before I begin, I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected in comments four and five of the committee analysis.
I appreciate the incredible work and effort of this committee staff in working with my office and the Senate privacy committee to refine the agreed upon concepts from the first committee and finalize this language. The amendments will be doing the following. One, it will be expanding the definition of administrative subpoena two, it will be requiring social media companies to provide users with thirty days to respond to or challenge an administrative subpoena Three, it will establish disclosure requirements on social media companies so users will know what information was shared and why. Four, it will provide that a social media company must notify the Attorney General's office every time it responds to an administrative subpoena. And five, it clarifies that information submitted to the Attorney General in connection to an administrative subpoena for personal information is not a public record and may not be disclosed under the California Public Records Act.
SB nine fifty seven requires social media companies to notify individuals when the federal government seeks their personal information through an administrative subpoena. This bill also ensures that users have time to respond or challenge the subpoena, requires companies to disclose what information was shared, and establishes reporting requirements to the attorney general. Social media has become a critical tool for Californians to engage in activism, political expression, and information sharing. This is especially true now. Discussions around politics and government have been particularly prominent as communities across the state are responding to increased federal immigration enforcement.
Community leaders and residents have organized to share updates about immigration enforcement activity, using social media platforms to track ICE's presence, share alerts with their neighbors, and hold federal agencies accountable. Despite the federal and state constitutional right to freedom of speech, administrative subpoenas are being increasingly used by DHS to obtain information about individuals who operate accounts that post about or criticize ICE. These administrative subpoenas do not require judicial approval or probable cause, yet they can be used to obtain sensitive personal information like names, addresses, and phone numbers. We have already seen cases where individuals were targeted simply for expressing criticism of the federal government. For example, a New York Times article cites that in recent months, Google, Meta, Discord, and Reddit have received multiple subpoenas from DHS requesting identifying details of anonymous accounts that have spoken out against ICE or track the location of ICE agents.
In another example, a man in Philadelphia was subpoenaed after sending an email to DHS criticizing their treatment of an asylum seeker. DHS agents and local police showed up to his home to interrogate him. The subpoena was challenged in federal court as a violation of the First Amendment, and the court ruled that subpoenas cannot be used to intimidate individuals who criticize federal agencies. While some social media companies have willingly provided notice to individuals, others have shared information without ever letting the user know their data was requested. The lack of transparency in these instances undermines trust, exposes individuals to potential retaliation, and discourages people from speaking out publicly.
People should not be intimidated into silence out of fear that their personal information may be secretly shared to the federal government without their knowledge. SB nine five seven would protect user privacy and free speech by ensuring that Californians are notified and given a fair opportunity to challenge a subpoena before their information is disclosed. Today with me to provide testimony in support of this bill is Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy speaking on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Symphony Barbie, a legislative advocate with the ACLU of California Action. At the appropriate time, I respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 3
Good afternoon, chair and members. Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU CalAction here in support of SB nine five seven. Since president Trump took office, the Department of Homeland Security has been sending legal demands called administrative subpoenas targeting US residents who have who have criticized the government online. These subpoenas have never been issued by a judge, and recent reporting indicates that there are hundreds of these abusive demands sent to social media companies. The government targeting people they disagree with to reveal their identities would be bad enough, but people are put in impossible positions when they are targeted.
Speaker 37
In some of these cases that the ACLU has litigated to challenge these subpoenas, the people have been given ten days to file a motion in federal court. It is an impossible burden and one that risks trampling people's rights. These subpoenas demand that big tech companies like Google and Meta turn over extensive privacy data about account users who did nothing more than exercise their First Amendment right. And as the member mentioned, in the case where a person was targeted by a subpoena, an agent showed up at his home to interrogate him. These subpoenas are an intimidation dressed up as law.
They're an attack on people's fundamental rights, and we ask that you vote yes today on SB nine five seven. Thank you.
Speaker 85
Hello. Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support. In the past year, the Trump administration has consistently targeted people in for engaging in free speech. For example, ICE has issued administrative subpoenas to tech companies to unmask users tracking ICE activity, people who have criticized the government, and even those who attend a protest. These ICE subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knows it.
Every time a user has challenged one of these subpoenas in court in the past few months, ICE has withdrawn them. SB nine fifty seven offers very basic protections to consumers. It requires social media companies to do two things that they should already be doing. First, companies must give their users prior notice of a subpoena. In order to challenge a lawless subpoena, users must first know about them.
Many companies already promise to give this notice, but they don't always follow through. EFF's lawyers currently represent a PhD student whose data was turned over to ICE because Google did not give him the notice that he was promised. Second, SB nine fifty seven requires companies to make sure ICE subpoenas do not exceed the agency's authority and are not overly broad. Companies say they already do this. For example, when EFF asked 10 tech companies to do more to protect their users from these subpoenas, one company replied, and I quote, we carefully review our legal process to ensure facial validity and legal sufficiency, and we will object when appropriate, end quote.
While this statement is a good start, a mere promise from a tech company is no longer enough. We need enforceable laws, which is why SB nine fifty seven is important. Thank you.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you. Others in support of SB nine fifty seven, please approach please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, they'll now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB nine fifty seven, please approach the microphone.
Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee. Alright. Questions, comments by committee members? Senator Nieto.
Speaker 10
This comes under the general category of what has commonly been known as lawfare, a very troubling trend in the last decade, frankly, practice on both sides of the aisle and indefensible in many cases from both sides of the aisle. For that reason, I sport the bill, but I just thought it was important to point out that it's become a pervasive practice, horribly abused, and it's time for it to stop.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. No other questions or comments? Thank you, senator Perez. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion and we'll take a vote up. Okay.
Thank you. Oh, you gotta close.
Speaker 84
Good morning, Madam Chair, or rather, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. First, I want to thank your committee staff for its work on this bill. SB nine ninety five, the Massuma Con Justice Act, establishes a statewide inspection and compliance framework for large and voluntary residential facilities in California, including privately operated detention facilities using existing state inspection authority and enforcement tools. These facilities house thousands of people who depend on them for shelter, food, medical care, and basic safety.
Because individuals in these settings cannot freely leave, the state has responsibility to ensure that conditions are safe, humane, and consistent with basic health and safety standards. Yet, across this country, inside private immigration detention centers, people are being denied their basic rights. They are denied access to legal counsel, medical care, and even necessities as fundamental as soap, clean water, and clean food. The consequences are devastating. Since January, thirteen people have died in detention centers, which is quite an alarming number, an average of almost one death per week.
Last year alone, thirty two people died in ICE custody, the deadliest year in decades. Inspection reports have repeatedly documented serious failures, including lack of medical care, unsafe food, unclean water, and the absence of basic hygiene. Regardless of where one stands on immigration policy, there should be an agreement on this. No human being should be subjected to inhumane treatment. No corporation should profit from human suffering.
And no system should operate without accountability. And yet, accountability is exactly what is missing. Currently, California's inspection authority applies only to counties, and three of the four counties with this authority have not conducted any inspections. In practice, that means many of these facilities operate with little to no meaningful oversight. Recent reporting has underscored the consequences of that gap.
A news outlet found that San Diego County sheriff's officials failed to investigate at least seven reported sexual assaults at CoreCivic's Ote Mesa immigration detention center in 2025. Instead, control of these cases was ceded to civilian administrators employed by a private, for profit prison contractor. The facility's warden has the authority to determine how rape allegations are handled, treating them as administrative matters rather than criminal investigations because the facility itself is not a law enforcement agency. Advocates have also exposed the human reality inside these facilities. At Ote Mesa, detainees have resorted to writing messages on small hygiene bottles, weighing them down with rocks, and throwing them over fences, hoping someone on the outside will hear them.
This bill, in particular, is named after Masuma Khan, a 64 year old resident of Altadena. She survived the Eaton fire only to be detained by federal immigration agents during a routine immigration appointment and transferred to the California City Detention Facility in Kern County. Masuma has lived in The United States with her husband and daughter, both American citizens. She has no criminal record, yet she was held in a cold facility without warm clothing, without proper food, and without access to the medication she needed. Her story reflects a broader failure.
Here in California, the attorney general reviewed six private immigration detention facilities in the state and found serious deficiencies, including inadequate medical and mental health care, insufficient suicide prevention protocols, and a lack of transparency regarding use of forced practices. SB nine ninety five is grounded in a simple principle. If detention facilities operate in California, they must meet California's standards for safety, dignity, and human rights. To achieve that, SB nine ninety five creates a uniform statewide system for inspecting and enforcing standards in large, involuntary residential facilities, including private detention centers. It designates the California Department of Public Health as the lead coordinating agency working in partnership with fire, environmental, water quality, and workplace safety regulators to ensure a comprehensive approach to oversight.
The bill requires facility operators to grant reasonable access to inspectors and maintain records demonstrating compliance. It establishes a tiered enforcement framework that ties penalties to the severity of violations, allowing for warnings and citations when issues go uncorrected and escalating to referral to the attorney general for civil action when necessary. And finally, the bill ensures transparency and accountability by requiring inspection findings to be documented and reported to the legislature within thirty days. This bill is sponsored by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDF, CIRRLA, Public Counsel, and South Asian Network, and is supported by over 37 organizations like the ACLU of California Action, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, and the California Federation of Labor Unions. It is a priority of the legislative progressive caucus and building the California Dream Alliance, is made up of 75 advocacy organizations.
Joining me to testify in support of the bill is Jeanette Zanapitan with CIRLA.
Speaker 81
Jeanette Sure. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. My name is Jeanette Sanipatthin. I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy for CIRRLA. I'm also here as our proud cosponsor, along with MALDEF Public Counsel and South Asian Network.
I'm going to ask the committee's indulgence to allow me to read the testimony of Ria Khan, who is the daughter of the woman who this bill is named after. So, I'm going to go ahead and read her testimony. My name is Rhea Khan. I am the daughter of Masuma Khan. Thank you, Senator Perez and committee members, for listening to my testimony.
My family and I strongly support SB nine ninety five, the Masuma Khan Justice Act, and we urge you to do the same because human beings deserve safety and dignity. My mom is 64 years old and has been in The United States since 1997. She came to this country legally to care for me when I became sick with kidney failure. My mom is loved by everyone She meets, follows all the laws here, and has no criminal history. Yet, she was detained, and forced to live this traumatic and painful experience at California City, Detention Center.
Speaker 55
On October 6, my mom was detained during her check-in with, check-in appointment with immigration in Downtown Los Angeles and was immediately taken to California City Detention Center. She was detained for about a month, and during her time, she forcefully, she was denied medications for weeks, given meals with no protein or proper nutrition, fed moldy sandwiches with and bread with bugs inside and dirty and was given dirty drinking water. She, along with several others, were not provided sweaters for the frigid temperatures inside the facility. People were developing rashes as well. CoreCivic refused to give my mom her medications for high blood pressure, asthma, prediabetes, prescription for eye drops, for lens implants and glaucoma, hyperthyroidism and back pain.
Speaker 81
She was forced to lie down on cold floors, her first night, which was extremely painful for her. She begged them several times a day for her medications, yet her, her her requests remained unanswered. A week after she was detained, she still had not received her medications. When I visited her, I knew immediately she was having a medical emergency. She was having a severe shortness of breath, shaking, her legs were swollen, and she, could barely speak and walk.
She requested emergency medical visit with a doctor, but, again, her requests were ignored. It made me angry and upset that someone like my mom was being put through so much pain. Her blood pressure was also dangerously high. She was not, able to see a doctor for over two weeks and not even after, experiencing several medical emergencies. Both she and I requested, several times through the facility, to be able to see doctors and to be able to, have access to her medications.
Yet, she was not given her asthma medication until two weeks before she was released. My mom's experience at this private detention facility left her with significant trauma to the point where she can't sleep at night and continues to have nightmares. She speaks differently and has trouble comprehending things. However, she is not the only person who has been a victim of medical neglect and given unsafe food and water to consume There have been too many individuals who have suffered, and for these reasons, we ask for your support
Speaker 66
Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Ryan Schurman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. We've been in opposition to private prisons and detention facilities for over thirty years, and we continue to have that position, and we strongly support nine ninety five.
Speaker 44
Good afternoon, Lan Le, on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, and also the ACLU, in strong support.
Speaker 51
Good afternoon. Panarea Abdis with the California Community Foundation in strong support.
Speaker 14
On behalf of the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, we support the bill and free the day labors on the Adelanto Detention Center.
Speaker 63
Julia Vega with the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, in strong support, and
Speaker 70
Cal So to with the National Day Labor Organizing Network in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Before we take the opposition Almost. We almost had it. Yeah.
Quite yeah. Very ephemeral. Sorry. Okay. Let's go to opposition.
Opposition. SB995.
Speaker 25
Christina Alvarez, Samdanos Emias, Daily Labor Worker Center here in Sacramento in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else, let's turn to the opposition. We almost we almost had a quorum. Go ahead.
If you're if you're in support, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 22
Giovanni Rossell here with Endolan and Grupo Ato Defensa in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Okay. Now, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to s b nine nine five, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice.
Alright. Let's bring it back committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions except for senator de Raso. Senator de Raso?
Speaker 11
Just thank the author very much for doing this. It seems like it's just on and on and on and on. When I first came, I introduced various bills. I introduced and others introduced over the last few years, s b eleven thirty two, s b three ninety eight, s b three three four, a b two six three, a b three two two eight. This is just a sampling of all the bills that we have had to pass to try to get some control over the way that people are treated in those detention centers.
It is disgusting that we have to go this way and that way and jump hoops and, you know, it should be such a given that people are they are not there for crimes. Even if they were, they should not be treated inhumanely. And yet over and over, this goes it happens in our committees. People dying. I I'm just just appalled at how much work we have to do to try to get some accountability from the people who run those detention centers.
So I just wanna thank you very much. Thank
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Raso. Other comments or questions? Seeing Move the bill. Senator okay. At the appropriate time, senator Reyes will move the bill.
I'm sorry?
Speaker 1
So far, we haven't had an appropriate time, but I'm I'm hoping that we will. So alright. Senator Perez, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Last bill from senator Perez, at least today, is SB 11 o three. Go ahead. The floor is yours.
Speaker 84
Alright. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Before I begin, I will be accepting the committee amendments. I appreciate the incredible work and effort of this committee staff in working with my office to work through the language, of this bill.
Speaker 6
The amendments will be doing the following: require large home improvement retailers to preserve any documentation currently specified in the bill that it collects regarding an immigration enforcement action provide that a large home improvement retailer must provide any relevant documentation within seventy two hours of a request by the Attorney General through an administrative subpoena. And finally, it broadens the description of immigration enforcement activity that a large improvement retailer must disclose on their website. SB eleven oh three, the Repair Act, requires large home improvement retailers doing business in California to publicly report immigration enforcement activity occurring on their premises and to provide the attorney general with copies of any documentation gathered in the normal course of business within seventy two hours of receipt of an administrative subpoena. This bill will also require retailers to publicly disclose their policies on employee interactions with immigration authorities and whether they directly or indirectly share surveillance data with federal immigration agencies. Every day across California, every morning across California, day laborers gather in the parking lots of large home improvement retailers, which have long served as informal hiring sites for workers seeking jobs from homeowners and contractors in need of labor.
Speaker 84
Recently, we have witnessed these same locations increasingly becoming targets for immigration enforcement activity. Authorities carrying out these raids have utilized deceptive and legally questionable tactics during raids, including showing up masked, driving unmarked vehicles, utilizing military style equipment, and otherwise racially profiling a predominantly Latino workforce. These dangerous practices have spread fear, chaos, and harm among workers, shoppers, and surrounding communities. Individuals who are simply seeking honest work and otherwise abiding by the law are being kidnapped in broad daylight. In many cases, they are seriously injured, and in some instances, they have lost their lives.
This is an issue that has been deeply impacted on my district. In 2025, Carlos Roberto Carlos Montoya Valdez was seeking work in the parking lot of a Home Depot in Monrovia when an immigration enforcement raid occurred. He was chased and fled onto a nearby freeway where he was struck by a vehicle and later died from his injuries. Despite lives lost and communities terrorized, there has been no accountability taken for the actions that continue to occur on the premises of these companies. Even when there have been efforts to enforce basic constitutional protections, these orders have been ignored with little consequences.
In April, a federal judge of the Eastern District Of California ruled that agents again violated a court order by continuing to detain individuals without reasonable suspicion of any law violations, relying instead on generalized assumptions about day laborers. We cannot allow these assaults to take more lives and continue to spread fear in our communities. As these actions have continued, there is little to no information available for the appropriate parties to pursue legal action against the aggressive and borderline delinquent behavior directed at largely innocent people. This includes information about when these enforcement actions occur, how they are conducted, or whether surveillance data collected on these premises is being shared with federal authorities. That lack of transparency creates fear, spreads misinformation, and undermines public safety for workers, businesses, and communities across the state, especially as efforts to curb these attacks have stalled.
SB 11 o three is a transparency and accountability measure to address that gap. It does not interfere with federal enforcement activity. It simply assures that when these actions do occur, the public has access to basic information. I understand the opposition is concerned about the privacy rights of corporations, but I'm also concerned about the privacy rights of all Californians. This bill is asking for the bare minimum from entities when there have been repeated raids on our communities.
While there are numerous steps that large home improvement retailers can take to promote the safety of workers and shoppers, this bill simply asks for transparency to ensure individuals are informed about enforcement activities occurring at these sites. These are the same large home improvement retailers that across the country have themselves installed FLoC automated license plate readers, or ALPR, cameras that surveil and collect data accessible to law enforcement agencies. For example, records obtained from a Texas sheriff's office revealed that the office can access ALPR cameras at numerous Lowe's and Home Depot locations without within the state. Recently, a lawsuit was filed in California alleging that Home Depot installed ALPR cameras at all its locations in our state without notifying shoppers, raising serious privacy concerns. While that behavior calls into question their intentions and potential responsibility, s b eleven o three is focused on providing timely information to the appropriate parties seeking to defend the rights and lives of some of our most vulnerable people.
I want to note that my office has engaged in ongoing conversations with stakeholders and opposition on this bill. We have made clear that we are open to working collaboratively to address concerns. However, while concerns have been raised, no substantial alternatives or proposed amendments have been offered to address the underlying problems this bill seeks to solve. Joining me to provide testimony in support of this bill is Cal So to, director of workers' rights at the National Day Labors Organizing Network, and Fanalee Milan, senior organizer and legal observer at the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center.
Speaker 70
you, chair Umberg. Thanks, senator Perez. Hello, chair and members of the committee. A special shout out to senator D'Rasso from my colleagues at Endelon in Los Angeles. I'm a staff attorney and the workers' rights director at the National Day Labor Organizing Network.
We're the sponsors of the bill. I work daily on wage claims, workplace safety, and legal consequences of immigration enforcement for workers across California. I want to be direct. This is a transparency bill. Its purpose is to cut through the deliberate cloud of misinformation surrounding immigration enforcement at large retail stores so that workers, customers and the public can make informed decisions.
This is the basic level of accountability that communities deserve. And I want to thank Senator Perez's office, Ms. Cerrantes, Mr. Ramirez, as well as Chair Umberg's office, Mr. Dougherty, for all the tireless work you put in to get us to this point, where we have a bill that talks directly to the issues facing day laborers and the customers of these large retailers across this state.
This is not asking large retailers to collect any new information. The stores already run sophisticated surveillance systems. Automated license plate readers and cameras track every worker, customer, and contractor in the parking lots of these stores. The data is already being collected. The bill simply requires that when enforcement occurs on these premises, these enormous companies share what they have.
Speaker 24
Far from creating a privacy burden, this bill strengthens privacy rights. Before this proposal existed, we went, my organization, to the Home Depot through the Los Angeles mayor's office and asked which of their stores had been sites of enforcement operations. The response, frankly, was shocking. Company with cameras, license plate readers, and security staff on every property told us that they did not formally know about any raids on their property back in October 2025. This bill is a direct response to that answer.
Speaker 70
When masked armed federal agents operate in a commercial parking lot, the public has a right to know. Are the raids at this store? Who showed up? How many Say
Speaker 70
Yeah, I'll wrap up right now. I want to note that I'm here wearing a red armband, and you'll see many of my colleagues also wearing that armband. This is in support of Roberto Carlos Montoya. A week, it's Worker Memorial Day, and some of the workers who have been injured and killed on the job are those very same day laborers from those Home Depot parking lots. Thank you very So I urge you to support this bill.
Speaker 28
Good day, chair and members of the committee. My name is Fanelli Milan, and I'm a the senior organizer for the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center here in support of the repair act. On November 5, of last year, I was unlawfully detained, by the San Bernardino sheriff's department at a Home Depot, Home Depot Store 6645 in Rancho Cucamonga while legally observing. During this incident, I experienced firsthand what many deliverers go through at various Home Depot locations throughout Southern California. In my capacity as an as an organizer, I have witnessed human beings being hunted hunted in these parking lots.
To date, over a 150 POC day laborers have been racially profiled and detained in, from Home Depot parking lots in Pomona, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, and San Bernardino. Additionally, we are currently representing a day lever. His name is Gerardo, who is a constituent of, senator chair Umberg. He looks for work at the Home Depot in Santa Ana, and he has also experienced, wage theft. He has all he has been a direct witness to immigration enforcement as well, at Home Depots in Orange County.
Speaker 11
Gerardo, like the thousand of deliverers across California, urge and plead with you with you, chair Humber, and the rest of the committee members to please pass, this legislation. We we need accountability now. Please support SB 11 o three. I also wanna thank, senator Gomez Reyes for meeting with us this morning. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you very much. Alright. So next, other witnesses who are in support of SB 11 o three, please approach the microphone. Please queue up, and approach the microphone.
Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. Give us your name and your affiliation and your position on the bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
you you support the bill? Alright. Sir, apologize because we've got many, many bills today. So that all we can do is take your I think you've given us your name and your support for the bill, and we we appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Alright. Just thank you. Alright. And let me interrupt you because it's we've only been waiting since 09:30 this morning to establish a quorum. So alright.
So Commit committee assistant Porter, will you please call the role for purpose of establishing a quorum?
Speaker 12
Duraso here. Laird? Reyes? Here. Reyes here.
Stern? Valadares? Valadares here. Wahhab? Wahhab here.
Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson here. Weiner? You have a quorum.
Speaker 1
We have a quorum. Alright. I think the expression is Habemas quorum. So, okay. Go ahead.
Give us your name, your affiliation, your position on the bill.
Speaker 14
Alexis Sudoro, worker rights director for the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center on behalf of the thousands of day laborers in the Indian empire. We support this bill and so shall you.
Speaker 81
Chair and members, Andrea Alarcon, civil rights attorney and council member, city of Palmdale, in support, specifically its language that makes it applicable to charter cities.
Speaker 66
Good afternoon. Irma Baragona with the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition of Day Labor Center. We support the bill.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Giovanni Rossell with Endolon and Grupo Alto Defense at Pasadena in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Miriam Dejes with the National Day Labor Organizing Network and the Pasadena Community Job Center in support of Thank the
Speaker 10
Henry Ortiz, executive director of Community Healers United in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 81
Good afternoon. My name is Fatima Garcia, executive board of Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Center here in Sacramento. Thank you.
Speaker 41
My name is Anna Martinez. I'm the day labor coordinator for the the, Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. I strongly support this bill.
Speaker 62
Hello. My name is Jose Madera, director of the Pasadena Community Job Center, which is part of the National Day Labor Organizing Network and strongly in support. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon. Christina Alvarez with San Brando Semillas, the labor worker center here in Sacramento. I support this, and I strongly ask for your support as well.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon. Tia Kuntz with the California Coalition for Worker Power in strong support.
Speaker 14
Hello. My name is Oscar Areta. I'm here on behalf of SABA. I'm the lead organizer in this organization and named in a strong supporter.
Speaker 81
Jeanette Sonipatina on behalf of the Coalition for Humane and Immigrant Rights in strong support.
Speaker 42
Hi. My name is Freddie Giro. I support eleven oh three. Thank you very much. Eduardo Medina from Salva and I support eleven oh three.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else in support of SB eleven o three?
Speaker 22
Salvador Salmiento, campaign director, attorney for the National Day Labor Organizing Network, in strong support and sponsors. Alright. We ask for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Anyone else? I'm Nancy Messa. I'm an organizer with the National Day Labor Organizing Network, also a strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 11 o three? Going once, going twice. Alright. Now let's turn to the opposition.
If you're opposed to SB 11 o three, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 73
Thank you, chair and members. Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association, respectively in opposition to SB 11 o three. I've spoken with the senator's office and their staff, about this bill and wanna thank them for hearing us out, and we're committed to continuing conversations, should this bill move forward. I appreciate the, the committee staff's thoughtful analysis and reviewing the amendments, that were just taken. So we're just looking through that.
Speaker 88
Some of this might be in reference to the old version of the bill, but I have seen them, and I just gotta get some more feedback on it. First, I'd like to say that the California's Retailer Association recognizes the profound impact that these certain immigration, enforcement activities have on employees, customers, and surrounding communities, and we share the goal of avoiding fear and harm in retail settings. While these enforcement activities occur in a retailer's premises, the retailer's first goal is to protect employees and customers. That being said, we are in opposition to SB 11 o three as that we believe that as currently written, they would actually unfortunately risk the safety of employees. Under the current version, again, got to review the amends, but SB 11 o three requires at a minimum that large home improvement retailers provide the AG with copies of any video footage, photograph photographs, written reports, and any other documentation of immigration enforcement activity within set now seventy two hours.
The the bill further requires that large home improvement retailers compile and disclose on their websites a daily record of any immigration enforcement activity, including could be number of law enforcement officers and vehicles present, number of individuals subject to search, detention and arrest, whether weapons of any kind were drawn, and whether there are any injuries occurred. Our members cannot gather this required information from, video footage alone. In order to comply with these requirements, retailers would have to
Speaker 1
send employees I know you've just seen this, I I believe this this part's been amazing.
Speaker 88
Exactly. Yeah. So I just Right. Looking at it, I'll just move on. We'll continue with the the the conversations.
The other concerns detailed in our letter, privacy litigation exposure and federal law, we'll continue to have conversations with the author's office, but for these reasons, we respectfully oppose at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 95
Good afternoon, mister chair and members, author, Calvin Robert Woodry, California Chamber of Commerce, also respectfully opposed. As with the prior testimony, just seen the amends. I'll do my best to update my comments to them on the basis of that. To be clear, I wanna make very clear, we do not oppose this bill out of any fondness for ICE and certainly sympathetic to the tragedies in the district which you spoke of and glad the the workers can be here to speak on them. At a high level, really, our concerns with the bill come from making a small number of businesses a select industry kind of act as a helpful kind of public surveillance.
Speaker 47
Right? It doesn't apply to non profits. It doesn't apply to any other businesses. Doesn't apply to government entities even. Cities wouldn't have to do this.
Right? It's just a very small subset of business. Appreciate the change and the work from the author and committee staff to change to seventy two hours in response to a subpoena. We think that's a good improvement to allow kind of more feasibility. But I want to highlight, right, that seventy two hour timeline is still much shorter than most other legal timelines to respond to subpoenas, civil discovery, which would all be measured in, you know, weeks or months.
This is still very tight in terms of response times. Touching on the information on the website, I'll move on there because I haven't had time to review the amends and I want to stay accurate. Also wanna flag a concern still related to the definition of premises on the bill. The bill creates obligations for retailers to act around their premises, but defines premises as areas exceeding that actually owned by the retailer. Right?
So we're talking about any kind of nearby streets. We think that should be narrowed to really situations that are on the retailer's premises. And the rest of it's irrelevant with the amends, so thank you for the time.
Speaker 88
Good afternoon, mister mister chairman, members. Skyler Wanaka with the California Business Properties Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one else coming to the microphone, let's bring it back committee for questions or comments. I have some. Go ahead, Senator D'Araso.
Did you wanna question or comment?
Speaker 11
clearly, and I'll just say the one that has gotten the most attention in terms of improvement centers is Home Depot. It's not here and here and there, once in a while, sometimes. If you think of all the the attention that's been paid played in the media, it's Home Depot that's been hit over and over and over and over again. And I just don't understand why they wouldn't they wouldn't wanna have some protections there. As the gentleman said from the retailers association, how you would not want your employees, customers, others who are there.
And I the one time that stands out the most in my mind is when a rented truck was on the premises clearly in the parking lot clearly in the parking lot, rented truck to try and, you know, distract people from who they really were. Came just jumped out. They went where the day laborers were. Jumped out, the ICE agents, and then just grabbed everybody and pushed them into the into the truck. It was so dehumanizing.
So I I don't understand why there's such a reluctance. They should have been doing this a long, long time ago, so gladly support the bill.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Yes. Senator Valadares, then senator Reyes Gomez Gomez Reyes.
Speaker 84
Well, thank you. And I understand the intent of of the author. However, I do have several concerns with the bill. And I'm at this from my own real world experience, you know, having worked in loss prevention, having had to review surveillance footage, having had, you know, a little bit of training on how to deal, with a security incident. And what I do know from the loss prevention world over the last few decades, the amount of liability that companies have taken on just trying to intervene in theft in their facilities has grown exponentially.
I also understand that the interactions that sometimes employees have during these situations can become a safety issue for the employee. So I'm a little concerned and empathetic to the employees that you would essentially be forcing to intervene, and how the bill protects? Or is there any language in the bill that would offer protection to a corporation or a company a a retail company from increased liability if government is requiring them to do this? Yeah. So, a couple of things.
I want to be very clear that SB eleven oh three does not require for a company's employees to get involved at all when there's federal immigration enforcement activity happening on their premises. I do not want for there to be any sort of conflict like that. On top of that, they legally cannot intervene in a situation. It would be illegal for them to do so. Most folks that operate these kinds of large scale companies, as a part of loss prevention, they're not just hiring employees for enforcement.
They also have cameras. They have other sorts of surveillance tools so that they capturing as these activities are taking place both in their stores and outside of their stores. I'm sure we've all now been to a store where we've seen, you know, cameras in the parking lots. You get out of your car, sometimes it even makes an announcement to let you know that you're being recorded. It's that data and that information that's being digitally captured that we want to ensure is being uploaded to the attorney general's website.
Last year, the attorney general created a mechanism on the DOJ's website to be able to upload images as well as videos of, ICE enforcement activity if there is a constitutional rights violation or if you believe that the law is being broken. And so in this case, we're saying if the attorney general issues an, administrative subpoena, that the company would then have to provide over the data that has been captured. So we don't want the employees to get in any sort of conflict. This is simply about the data and information that is captured by those cameras. And if I could have the opposition come up here, probably the retail association.
And I understand that we're still trying to study some of these new amendments. Can you verify that the current language doesn't increase liability for you, one? Two I'll ask the second question in sec. Can you verify that for me?
Speaker 84
And from what you understand of the bill yesterday without the amendments, are you are you are is the section that I'm talking about, the in the amendments, has that changed at all? Has any of the requirements for transferring data changed at all? It's been the scope is much more narrow because now the data is only provided when an administrative subpoena is issued. And, Chair Unberg, I'm not
Speaker 84
Great clarification on that. Now, my other question to retail. Do you believe that even by simply collecting and transferring this data, you're and being required to transfer this data?
Speaker 1
Just be to be clear, there's no requirement to transfer the data absent some sort of Correct. Government Right. Exactly. Subpoena. A subpoena.
An administrative or a search warrant. Right.
Speaker 88
That I think if there's that they have an administrative subpoena, I think that we'd if we'd be following that, I don't think there would be extended liability
Speaker 88
On that. And I would say I appreciate both that amendment and the changing to the requirements or now including which may include instead of including.
Speaker 84
So is there any concern from from the author that you're now providing even more information to the AG that, in turn, the federal government could then request? That we're now providing more information to the attorney general that the federal government could then request. No. The the whole purpose of us wanting to provide this information to the attorney general is so that if there is a case, as was mentioned earlier, as the gentleman who died in my district, Roberto Carlos Montoya Valdez, you know, who was killed in Monrovia, that the attorney general, if he wishes to move forward and investigate, can seek out that information. The federal government, in many cases, already has access to that information.
As we've seen, we've seen ICE agents, DHS agents, CBP agents wearing body cameras when they're doing these operations. Oftentimes, they're taking out their cell phones and recording themselves. So a lot of that information is being requested by them. What we don't know and what we still don't know in the case of Mr. Montoya Valdez is who was present during that activity and what exactly happened and went down.
That is incredibly important and critical for us to know and to be able to investigate.
Speaker 1
Let me on. The the the short answer to your question is that that the federal government can obtain virtually the same information as state government using the same process. So if it's an ICE agent who's a federal employee who's violated the federal law, either by search warrant or subpoena, the federal government get that same information.
Speaker 84
So then if we're requiring, companies like Home Depot to work to collect this information now or by subpoena, you could have the federal government step in at any time once this bill passes to say Home Depot, we want all of this
Speaker 1
this To be clear, there's no requirement under the amendments that they collect that information.
Speaker 84
If but if the federal government if if law if if immigration for enforcement wants to submit a subpoena to Home Depot to say we want you to give us every bit of digital data that you have from this state when we are on the site, they would have to turn that over.
Speaker 1
They they that is correct to the extent they've collected data, but there's no requirement. Just to be clear that the amendments do not require the private entity to actually collect that. If they do collect data, they're required to preserve it and produce it if the the procedures are followed.
Speaker 84
Got it. So there's so there's and with the new amendments, there's no requirement to collect the data. Okay. I think I'm good. Okay.
Yeah. And I And I just want to say to your point and your concerns, Senator Valadez, I would say that I think that there is very valid concerns about the amount of information that and data that is being collected in real time and whether or not the federal government currently has access to that data. We mentioned the flock cameras or ALPR cameras earlier. There's been a lot of discussion about that data being utilized in order to identify, you know, folks who are undocumented, even though we have state laws that say that that data is not supposed to be weaponized. So I think that is unfortunately already a growing concern.
So I I just wanted to acknowledge that as well.
Speaker 32
Thank you. First, I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think, like, senator Durazzo mentioned, it is something that is important. We have to find ways to protect our community. It isn't just the immigrant community.
We know that, US citizens have been pulled off. One of the witnesses talked about that earlier. There was a question about, or a comment that this only applies to a small subset of businesses. Well, that's intentional because those are the ones that are most targeted for ICE arrests. And I appreciate the comment from opposition that said that they share the goal of avoiding fear among employees and customers.
That's part of what this bill is all about. I I I I want to thank your your not only your witnesses, but those who came from the Pomona Economic Group and the others. But Pomona specifically because that those are the closest to me. It's
Speaker 1
So we have we have a we have a policy here. We don't clap. If you wanna show your support, you go like this. That's there you go. Okay.
Go ahead, Senator Gomez Reyes.
Speaker 32
But I I do want to appreciate it because oftentimes we we hear testimony and it's just from the experts. But those who have lived experiences, those are the most important because it is what you have experienced that causes here a senator to say we have to stop this. And I sincerely appreciate you, senator Perez, for bringing this forward. And with that, I would move the bill.
Speaker 1
Alright. Senator Reyes, move the bill. Alright. A few few comments. First off, thank you.
Let me reiterate what senator Gomez Reyes said. This is your government, and we're really gratified that you would come and provide your testimony here today. You've come from far and wide, and we appreciate it. Second point, this bill's gonna get out of committee. I'm gonna support the bill.
The bill's gonna get out of committee. But okay. Few few more points here. I appreciate senator Perez's passion and work on this bill, and we've made some very substantial amendments. There is no doubt in my mind that there are ICE agents, for example, that are acting illegally.
There are federal authorities that are acting illegally. They are targeting people because of their color of their skin or because of their language or because of their occupation, which is abhorrent. No doubt in my mind. A couple other things. There are concerns though, and there are continuing concerns that we make a bill that not just focuses on the issue, but passes muster at the Ninth Circuit.
This bill, this law will be challenged. And when it is challenged, we wanna make it such that there are no infirmities. I I I'm gonna support the bill, but I continue to have, especially with the part concerning what in essence would be compelled speech requiring that a private entity have to create a website and post information on that website. So I urge you to continue your both your quest, but also your analysis to make sure that when this bill and I think it will get to the governor. When it gets to the governor, that not only does it get signed, but it becomes effective.
And so the collection of information, we wanna also make sure that we don't overreach such that the retailers decide, you know what? We're not gonna do any collection. We're not gonna do any surveillance. We're going to basically bury our head in the sand because we don't wanna have the obligation to produce information that we may have in our possession. So having said all those things, I I do urge you to continue this quest, but but do so in a way that makes sure that we pass muster at the Ninth Circuit.
So with that, senator Perez, would you like to close?
Speaker 84
Certainly. And I appreciate all of the work and that you've put into this, chair Umburg, as well as your staff, and the comments that you've made. And I'm certainly mindful of, you know, constitutional supremacy issues. We had SB eight zero five last year when my other bills go to the Ninth Circuit and be the only bill that was upheld. So, you know, we're very mindful as, you know, we face those challenges and have several bills in in this space, you know, regarding civil liberties and the supremacy clause challenges.
I will also say, you know, I I think it's incredibly important part of the reason why I wanted to bring forward this legislation and work so closely with the National Day Laborers Network, who you can see organized en masse and came from across the state to be here today, is because we have been witnessing people, day laborers, be targeted at Home Depots for over the past year. And it has been utterly shocking to have a man be murdered in my district, Roberto Carlos Montoya Valdez, and I say his name because I think it's so incredibly important that we do not lose sight of him, is is heartbreaking. And my community is still very much mourning and desires justice for him and for his family. It is utterly unacceptable, and we are in very strange times right now. And I think at a moment when people need us to rise up as Californians, you know, to defend one another, this is the kind of thing that we should be doing.
Right? And, yes, we are going to face challenges along the way. We're going to have to be creative, and we're gonna have to think differently because these are not the usual times. But, that's what we're doing, and that's what we've been doing as a legislature. So we have to lead the way for the rest of the country.
And I, am just really, really grateful to all of the co sponsors and all the supporters that showed up today. It means the world to me. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
All righty. Thank you very much. It's been moved by Senator Reyes. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 23, SB eleven oh three. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Humberg? Aye. Humberg, aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Cavallero? Duraso? Laird?
Aye. Reyes, I. Stern? Valadares? Wahab?
Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? Four to one.
Speaker 1
Four to one. We're gonna put that bill on call. I don't see any other authors here. If not, then I'm gonna Oh. I have two.
Okay. With witnesses. With witnesses. You have witnesses also. Alright.
Alright. I think senator Ashby is deferring to senator Weber Pearson. So alright. While senator Weber Pearson's coming up, I'll explain to some of the folks in the audience that when a bill is put on call, it means that we're gonna wait for others to come down and vote on the bill later on today. So Well, no.
Your senator Weber Pearson's beat you to the punch here.
Speaker 1
you know what? Senator Weber Pearson senator Smallwood Cuevas. If you don't mind, I'm gonna call on senator Smallwood Cuevas. So Hi. We alright.
Senator Smallwood Cuevas.
Speaker 57
So Oh, well, wonderful. Thank you all. Good afternoon. Chair and members, I'm proud to present s b eleven fifty five, the Federal Employees Protection Act. And this is a California housing stability measure that provides temporary eviction protections for federal employees and federal contractors whose income is materially impacted by a government shutdown.
Specifically, the bill prohibits landlords from evicting covered tenants for nonpayment of rent during a government shutdown and for thirty days after it ends. It prohibits charging late fees during that period and requires that pending eviction proceedings be stayed during that time. I recently amended the bill to address the non rent payment fees and the Judicial Council of California's concerns. Courts will have to update their forms by 01/01/2028, but the bill will take effect immediately upon enactment. Today, we are once again watching federal workers pay the price for dysfunction in Washington.
And while this is a Department of Homeland Security shutdown, not a full federal shutdown, the harm to working families is still very real. During a shutdown, essential workers, like our TSA officers, are required to report for duty. They are required to protect our safety, our security, and our nation's property. They are required to do their jobs. This matters in communities like mine, where working families already face some of the highest housing costs in the country and often cannot afford to lose even one paycheck.
At LAX alone, nearly 200,000 people pass through every single day, and our TSA officers work high pressure jobs in a busy travel setting to make sure that the security functions efficiently and safely. However, TSA officers missed their first paycheck because the federal federal government failed to keep itself open and operating, and California workers should not bear the consequences of that failure. We have already seen the damage that it causes. During the shutdown, TSA absenteeism rose to 12.4%. More than 500 officers quit, and airports around the country experienced major delays.
Behind those numbers are real families. And one union member described a TSA worker who fell so far behind on housing payments during the shutdown that they were at risk of losing the custody of their children. That is why SB eleven fifty five matters. It offers a narrow temporary housing protection so California workers can stay housed until they receive the back pay they are already owed. With me to testify are Gil Gilbert Gollum, legislative director for the American Federation of Government Employees, Local twelve sixty, and Austin Lee, a TSA worker at the Sacramento International Airport.
Speaker 89
Chair and committee. My name is Gilbert Gahlm, and I represent the American Federation of Government Employees Local twelve sixty. We currently represent 4,500 TSA screeners in the state of California. We are also the sponsor of this bill. Also, I work at Sacramento International as a transportation security officer, so I'll probably see you when you come through.
I stand here today in support of senate bill eleven fifty five, authored by senator Smauguquebus and coauthored by senator Wahhab. We are grateful for their support. Sixty six days it's been sixty six days that our agency has been under a funding lapse, make it the longest shutdown in history. It's still going on as we speak. Prior to this, it was forty three days back in October.
So you do the math, combine those days. Under this administration, we've we've been under a funding lapse for about 25% of the time that the administration spend in in in office. The overwhelming majority of our workforce faces rents and high cost of living areas, and the average salaries of a TSO is under $60,000. Many of us are already living paycheck to paycheck. Miss missing one already throws our lives into chaos.
Missing multiple paychecks, that has severe consequences. At best, many TSOs have to make hard decisions, often choosing between having to feed their family, buy gas to get to work because we're required to show up to work, utilities, or childcare. At its worst, some of our members have come close to homelessness. Our union local in the most extreme cases has given aid to the most vulnerable members in need so they can keep a roof over in their keep a roof over their heads. But we can't do this alone.
Speaker 43
We need California's intervention so that all of our federal workers can get relief during the shutdown. How can we fulfill our promise to secure the traveling public if we don't feel secure ourselves? The bill, if enacted, would immediately protect our TSA employees who are already having to work under the history under history's longest shutdown. More broadly, this is a game changer changer for all federal employees in California. It'll provide much needed needed breathing room and stability for all those impacted during political impasses at the federal level.
Speaker 89
Federal employees want to pay their rent. This does not relieve them of the responsibility to
Speaker 89
Oh, okay. In closing, I'm asking that for an I vote for the committee. I thank you for your support. See you at SMF. Thank
Speaker 56
Good afternoon, member of committee. My name is Austin Lee. I'm a transportation security officer. This is my fourth year here in, Sacramento National Airport. I stand you here before you, not as a politician, but not as a professional speaker, but as someone living through the reality of the sixty six days government shutdown.
Every day, my coworker and I put our uniform on, stand our post, protect the traveling public just like we always have. But the difference now is we are doing it not knowing if we're gonna get paid. Imagine going to work every day, giving your full effort, carrying the responsibility of public safety, and going home not knowing how you're gonna pay your rent. I have drained most of my savings just to stay up afloat. Others don't have the safety net.
Speaker 18
I have coworker working second jobs after exhausting shift. I've seen people push to a point where selling plasma became a way of living, not to get ahead, not to get bike comfortable, just to survive. That shouldn't beat the reality of federal employees serving this country. This is not just a financial stress. It's fear.
Speaker 56
Fear of conviction, failed bill piling up, fear of failing our family while still showing up to serve this nation. And the hardest part is, we did nothing to deserve this. Yet, in this middle of this hardship, something powerful happened. We took care of each other. We checked in on one another when no one else did.
We shared meals when no one so no one go hungry. We gave little what we had because that's how we are. I've never been so proud of my coworkers than I am right now. But pride does not pay rent. Unity does not replace the paycheck, and resilence should not be a requirement for survival.
We should not have to choose between serving our country and providing for our family. So I urge you no. I I urge you please do something. Put protection in place so that no federal employees should have ever never stay stand where we are standing here today. No one's serving this country should be left as vulnerable.
I'll leave you with this. When there's darkness, there's light. Right now, my coworker are supporting each other and being light in difficult times. So today, we ask you to be the light for us.
Speaker 56
Yes. Yeah. And then, support, s b eleven fifty five, 55. And then, thank you, senator.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Others, in support of the bill, come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and that you support. Mister chair and members, Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of
Speaker 90
Mister chair and members, Brian Augusta on behalf of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board in support.
Speaker 10
Others, in support, seeing nobody come to the microphone. Let's hear now from the opposition.
Speaker 60
Good afternoon, chair and senators. My name is Freddy Cantana representing the California Apartment Association and we respectfully oppose SB eleven fifty five unless amended. The bill would prohibit a landlord from evicting a tenant for nonpayment of rent if the tenant is a federal government employee or federal contractor and is materially affected by the federal government shutdown. We share the concerns of the author for Californians negatively impacted by a federal government shutdown, but prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for the duration of a federal government shutdown for third and thirty days following the shutdown creates a financial stress on housing providers that may also that may also be federal employees. These housing providers still need to bear the cost of mortgage, property tax property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.
This is why we recommend an emergency loan program which would be sponsored by the state and ensure everyone can have their needs met during a federal government shutdown. For these reasons, the California Apartment Association remains in opposition unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 88
Is it evening? Yes. We're Good evening, mister chair and members. Skyler Wanakot with the California Business Properties Association align our comments with the previous speaker and do agree that, a government assistance, path is a much better, path forward. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose.
Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Others in opposition, seeing none come forward, we'll bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Senator Reyes.
Speaker 63
First, I want to thank the federal workers who, especially our TSA workers who continue to work through all of this and allowed us to get on our flights home and bring us back up here and and other federal workers who were furloughed during this this shutdown. Trying to find this balance, making sure that we don't cause our renters to, through no fault of their own, to become homeless as a result of something that is beyond their control. But I also have to acknowledge that as was mentioned by the opposition, these landlords have to pay their mortgage and taxes and insurance and the last thing we want, a million of them are mom and pops. This is they've invested into these homes or apartments, duplex, whatever, and that is their income, and that is how they pay for for these expenses. I I like the idea of these emergency loan programs not only from the state of California but from the federal government to to be able to provide We know that our federal employees are eventually going to get back to work, and they're going to get their back pay.
Speaker 32
But during that period of time, trying to find that balance, there's no doubt that I would support the bill. I want to make sure that our workers are protected. But I am concerned about that balance that we are because of something that the federal government does, now our local landlords are the ones that have to take take over the the the burden of the fact that their tenants don't have the money for rent because of something the federal government has done has done. And that's really important. We have to figure this out.
During COVID, we had the program so that our tenants couldn't be evicted, but we also had program that allowed them to to apply for and receive these benefits that were paid to the landlord. So then it was everybody was protected. And here, again, we are trying to balance all this on on the backs of the landlords. If it's a big landlord and they have one tenant, it's not gonna be a big deal. If it's if it's a mom and pop that has a duplex and one of those has a federal employee and now half of their rent isn't coming in, it is a big burden for them.
And it's something that I think that we have to we have to consider as as we move forward with the bill. But with that, I would move the bill.
Speaker 30
Thank you for both being here and for the work you do in, in our city and in our region. Obviously, I'm gonna support the bill. But I I just wanna take the moment to say I'm really, really proud of Sacramento Airport and the workers that are federal workers, but also the workers that are not federal workers, have really stepped in to help their colleagues. I've been out there a number of times to check-in. I know even the administration out at the airport has been really supportive and trying very hard to show up and help, and we we we don't like these times, and I think this is pretty simple.
I think the author's point is pay them for their work, then we won't have to worry about these issues. It's a good job with good pay, and you show up every day and you're doing the hard work. All we're asking is that you be paid on time so you can pay your bills. And then none of this would be necessary, and I'm sorry that it is, and I'm really sorry that this is where we're at. But I'm very glad that you're in Sacramento, and I'm glad that you work at a supportive place.
And I'm glad that there are senators swinging for the fences for you, and, hopefully, we never need this bill.
Speaker 1
Mhmm. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, senator Smolokuyevos, both for your patience and for the bill. This is a tough question, and as senator Gomez Reyes points out, that we're shifting the burden, what really should be a governmental responsibility to make sure government continues to work to the landlords. And I'm gonna vote aye, but and I I I realized the clash of values. There's another value that that is part of this bill, and that's the value of keeping our our government operational so that the federal workers can continue to to support us and support their job.
There's gonna be another bill coming up a little later on that's a little different. Mhmm. But but I'm gonna support this because I I think that the societal value in keeping government working and realizing it places a burden upon the landlord, perhaps an unfair burden, but but nevertheless, we've gotta keep government working. So for those reasons, I'm gonna support the bill. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 10
Thank you for that. A comment from me, on the similar lines of our wheelchair. What do we do if the if if this bill passes and there are landlords who cannot make their mortgage payment and they default?
Speaker 57
to answer the question, unfortunately, this bill is about making sure that the landlords get paid within thirty days of when the work stoppage ends. I mean, the the payment is reinstated for those workers to make sure that they get paid. I think, you know, I think all of the conversation is absolutely right. We did not want to be here, and here we are again in the same situation where we have our airports, which are always under high threat, requiring workers to work and not be compensated. And that not only is creating, you know, a financial hardship for the workers, it also exacerbates our homelessness crisis because many of these workers, as the workers shared, you know, are not high wage workers.
These are workers who are choosing between gas and rent and and keeping their lights on. And so to go without a check means they are more at risk of being homeless. So this is a this is a complex issue that is a domino effect for a lot of things that are, quite frankly, things we shouldn't have to be dealing with, but we are. I think, you know, as the good senator pointed out, under Biden administration during COVID when we had the situation where folks were not able to work, could not pay their rent. There were programs to support apartment owners.
There were programs to ensure that those landlords can be made whole. But we, you know, we have a federal administration now that is cutting health care, that is not providing the basic supports and ensuring that their actions that are taken are done in a way that doesn't create more ripple effects and problems but actually addresses them. And so, you know, I think the question really is how do we get the federal government to do right by the people of this country? How do we get the federal government to do right by security workers who are protecting our airports, our largest infrastructure that are always under threat? How do we get the federal government to recognize that these actions are causing harm?
Speaker 99
I I I I hoped that we can get to some answers on this, and I think one is, you know, if we could get folks to talk to this administration about ways to make those investments so that when these situations happen, it's not on the backs of working Californians and, quite frankly, working property owners, because I have a lot of mom and pop property owners in my in my district as well. So I I'm we're we're here trying to avert a crisis. We are here also to say this isn't a bill that can go on into perpetuity, that there are some limits on this as soon as, you know, these work stoppages that are forced upon were mandated by by the federal shutdowns that we can essentially make sure that those homeowners, those property owners get paid within thirty days of that first paycheck. I think that is creating a situation where they can expect to be paid and to be made whole and at the same time the workers can keep a roof over their heads while they're keeping us safe coming in and out of our airports. And, you know, I hope to work would love to work with you, Senator Nilo, if we could send a letter, talk to the federal government about ways to to to fix the problem.
Speaker 57
You know, I hope that we we can get there. And hopefully, we won't have any more shutdowns since these have gone on for so long and are affecting so many workers, about a 150,000 in our state.
Speaker 10
The pandemic was a unique situation. We knew it was gonna last a long time. The unfortunate thing about the shutdown is this has been an increasing circumstance in the last maybe decade and a half where it's almost become routine. Never was before. Both republican and democratic administrations.
This has been an equal opportunity dysfunction at the federal government level. So I'll ask the question again. What do we do? I understand you're thirty days, but we don't know how long this is gonna go on. What do we do if there are landlords that can't make their mortgage payment and the financial institution institutes default proceedings?
What will we do then? We've protected the workers, but these landlords are every bit as important relative to their living also. What do we do about that?
Speaker 57
Well, as I said, as I say, the federal government created this problem. We're trying to solve it. And what do we do? We've got to figure out how do we get the federal government to invest in programs, to not have shutdowns that reach, you know, sixty six days and counting, to ensure that these incidents don't drag on in a situation where a worker cannot afford to pay their rent. I think, you know, those are the things that we can do to really address the problem of landlords.
If we continue to shut down and have workers work sixty six days, forty five days, and as you say, this is unprecedented that this is happening so often in this administration. We've gotta get to a situation where we don't make these kinds of decisions that put Californians in harm way. So I I I know you're looking for a particular answer here. I think we can go back and forth on that. This bill, I think what we have to do is prioritize, as much as we can, the individuals who are most at risk of ending up on our streets, where we already have a crisis, and who are, through no fault of their own, being put into that situation.
And so this bill is to address that and to also say that we understand that when resources come back, when those paychecks, the first paycheck is received, that that landlord will be paid within the first thirty days, which I think is you know, it's not a perfect situation, but it is a way of trying to address the needs under this very unprecedented and unfortunate crisis that too many workers are having to face.
Speaker 57
Well, I wanna say thank you to the workers for their very expert testimony and for being committed to us and to their government jobs even though the government has not committed to them. I think this bill helps to, protect them, protect their housing security through these difficult times. It's a commonsense bill. And I thank you for your time, and I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 26, SB1155. The motion is due passed to senate appropriations. Humberg?
Speaker 12
Humberg aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen?
Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Duraso?
Laird? Reyes. Reyes eye, stern. Valadares? Valadares, no.
Wahab, Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson eye, Weiner. Four to two.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Niello. I really had hoped you'd finish the entire roll. Senator Smallwood Cuevas, your second bill.
Speaker 57
Thank you, chair and senators. I am proud to present s b thirteen sixteen, an enforcement and accountability measure. This bill helps ensure that when workers report wage theft, retaliation, or unsafe working conditions, employers cannot withhold key records during an investigation or raise them in an administrative appeal or writ of proceeding or evade payment even after a final order is issued. SB thirteen sixteen does that in three ways: It allows the Labor Commissioner's liens to be renewed, it limits the late use of records that were not timely produced and requires CalOSHA to annually report complaints and citations data to the legislature and governor's office. Too many workers still wait far too long for justice when it comes to wage theft.
The California state auditor found that the labor commissioner's office had 47,000 backlog wage claims at the end of fiscal year 2223 and that workers received the full amount owed in only 12% of cases, and that's from 2018 through 2023. We know this problem is real on the ground. In 2025, the Labor Commissioner cited Los Angeles developers more than $2,300,000 for wage theft and related labor violations, impacting 124 construction workers. Behind these numbers are real workers. Last year, care facility worker Jessica Delgado reported unsafe and unsanitary conditions and missed meal breaks.
And after she spoke up to access the rights that we have created through passing laws to protect our workers, she was suspended and then terminated. The labor commissioner later recovered $40,460 for her retaliation penalties and labor law violations. SB thirteen sixteen responds by making clear that if an employer or a contractor does not timely produce payroll, time, and employment records requested by the labor commissioners, those records generally cannot later be used as evidence in an administrative hearing or writ proceeding. The bill still allows room for good faith extensions due to inadvertent errors, but the bill cracks down on folks who intentionally run out the clock. This bill also strengthens judgment enforcement by allowing labor commissioner liens to be renewed before they expire so an employer, again, cannot simply run out the clock while workers are still trying to collect what they are owed.
And if it improves legislative oversight by requiring Cal OSHA to annually report its complaints and citations data to the legislature and the governor's office. At its core, this bill is about making sure workers are not denied justice because evidence was withheld, judgments went unenforced, or enforcement data never reached policymakers. With me to testify are Tia Kunz with the UCLA Labor Center and the state building trades.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, senators. I'm Tia Kunz. I direct our policy research at the UCLA Labor Center. And for the last fifteen years, I have studied wage theft and particularly collections. So the senator has spoken about the devastating impact this has on workers' lives.
Speaker 9
I'm here to give you guys a real crash course in why this occurs, how employers get away with it. Right? So I teach labor and employment law, and I always tell my students that in truth, our labor and employment laws are enforced using the honor system. There simply is no way that the labor commissioner's office would have enough investigators to pose a credible threat of a compliance check on the spot. So let me tell you the ways in which this bill is smart and surgical in improving the labor code that aligns evidence and collections procedures with other areas of the code.
Speaker 19
So how employers get away with it? Number one, time's on their side. Right? It takes three to five years to even get a hearing during which time anything can happen. The company can go belly up due to no fault of its own.
It can fraudulently transfer its assets to a shell corporation, and also the worker can disappear. Right? Workers can be deported. Workers can move, and the labor commissioner doesn't have access to them again. And in fact, my office found that 63% of employers aren't operating anymore by the time they get a judgment against them.
Number two, status quo is on the employer side. Right? They can ignore the process altogether. They can stall or commit malfeasance by just not turning over evidence when politely requested and then less politely requested by the labor commissioner. And then they can, under current law, show up and use that evidence against a worker.
Why would we reward that behavior by allowing them to use that evidence that they have withheld previously? And then last, collections is really, really hard to do. We all know how to dodge a collections call. Maybe you don't, but I certainly do. And what we know is that during the period of time it takes to win your claim, we see that if 63% of employers are already disappeared, if you didn't have that lien filed at the very beginning, there's no hope that you're gonna collect anything at the end of the day.
We've got to extend that period of time from ten years to twenty years and give workers the leverage they need.
Speaker 25
Good evening, mister chair and members of the committee. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, speaking today in support of SB thirteen sixteen. The bill, as the author stated, will make targeted updates to California labor enforcement statutes and would improve enforcement efficiency so that the workers would be able to recover unpaid wages and penalties already owed to them under current law. Specific updates aligning document production timelines, correction of cross references, and clarification of lien renewal authority will improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary disputes. I testified in a previous hearing of all the different types of wage theft and any tools that we have to keep these from becoming part of a company's business model would expedite wage and hour cases, and we'll get that money rightfully owed to the workers back into their pockets sooner, and that's something that the state building trades would certainly support.
Speaker 7
Mister chair and members, Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Mister chair, Keith Dunn on behalf of the district council of iron workers in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support? SB thirteen sixteen. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn the opposition.
If you're opposed to SB thirteen sixteen, now is your opportunity. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Senator Reyes.
Speaker 32
Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I it it in my years as an attorney representing injured workers for over thirty years, I've seen wage loss for many of our workers, and so many of them never recover, at least during the time that that that I continue to follow-up with them. And this is such an injustice, work that was completed, work that was done, and they were never paid. So thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, would move the bill.
I move the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Gomez Reyes. Alright. Other questions or comments? Senator Gomez Reyes has moved the bill. Would you like to close, Senator Smallwood, please?
Speaker 57
Wanna say I really appreciate your comments, Senator Reyes. Yes. Wage theft is such a what feels like an intractable problem. The more laws we pass, there are more schemes that employers come up with to not pay workers who've done a day's work and still have not received a day's pay. This bill gives us a little more of a tool more tools in our toolbox to to try to fight it and to ensure that workers, at least in the state of California where we are passing laws to protect them, can actually utilize the law to find and have relief.
We are asking for an I vote, and we know this won't be the last on wage theft because, this is a problem that we will continue to have as, we have just a a playing field that is uneven, where you have employers who do the right thing and you have so many who do not. This bill helps to level that playing field. And so, again, with that, I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you very much. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 27, SB thirteen sixteen. The motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations. Umberg?
Speaker 12
Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes? Reyes, I, Stern, Valadez, Valadez, I, Wahhab, Weber Pearson, Weber Pearson, Weiner.
60?
Speaker 1
60. All right. We're gonna put that on call. Thank Thank you very much. All right.
Thank you. All right. Next, we're gonna have Senator Ashby. Senator Ashby, you would like to take up which bill? SB ten ten, file item number 31.
Okay. Alright. Senator Ashby.
Speaker 30
Thank you, chair and colleagues. Thank you to my witness who spent a a long day in this chamber. I'm very grateful to you for waiting us out. We're moving as quick as we can. Is your chair okay to continue?
Speaker 30
Alright. SB ten ten establishes an extended producer responsibility, EPR program, for appliances containing refrigerants requiring manufacturers to fund and implement a statewide system for collection and proper refrigerant recovery. The bill creates consistent statewide standards reporting and accountability for how these appliances are managed at end of life. SB ten ten follows the same legal framework as other EPR programs in California. Like those programs, it allows producer coordination through a stewardship organization and includes standard necessary antitrust protections.
This bill also uses a fee structure consistent with existing EPR laws to fund program implementation. While refrigerant recovery is required under current law, there is no comprehensive statewide system to ensure it is happening consistently. SB ten ten builds on existing collection and recycling efforts to create a consistent statewide framework to ensure refrigerants are properly recovered. As more appliances reach end of life, unmanaged refrigerants will continue to grow and undermine our climate goals. Proper recovery has significant impacts.
For every 1,000 refrigerators responsibly recycled, emissions are reduced by equivalent of removing 1,500 cars from the road per year. Let me put that another way. One refrigerator's emissions is equal in impact to eighteen months of a gas vehicle in our communities. SB ten ten uses a proven EPR framework to address a clear gap in current law while maintaining standard legal safeguards. This bill idea, by the way, was brought to me by a constituent who works in this space.
And we learned that while there are California rules around how you remove the refrigerants from all of our refrigeration systems, they are not being upheld adequately across the state, and I think you'll hear more about that from my lead witness. We will never reach our climate goals if we don't address all of the ways that we are negatively impacting our climate, and this is one that we have intended to address for many, many years. We have a system, a program that works. We use it for other things, mattresses, paint, tech equipment, carpets, batteries, all to name a few. We should use them for this refrigerant system as well.
It works. Chair with me today is Doctor. Joanne Brash, who's the assistant director with the California Product Stewardship Council, who will also help me with testimony and some expert witness.
Speaker 52
Thank you, chair. Thank you, senator. As mentioned, my name is Joanne Bresch. I'm assistant director at the California Product Stewardship Council, sponsors of the bill, and the leaders in EPR and other hard to manage recycling programs. Refrigerated appliances are ripe for EPR constructs for a few reasons.
As the senator mentioned, there's not a consistent program, so the fees for dropping off these appliances widely vary. In the jurisdictions where it's low cost and convenient, those programs are subsidized by the jurisdiction's garbage rates. In the jurisdictions where appliances can cost up to $125 just to drop it off, we find high levels of illegal dumping in those jurisdictions. So with the inconsistency on cost and convenience, we're seeing a lot of mismanagement of these dangerous products. Also mentioned, the hydrofluoro carbons that are in the refrigerants and the chemicals are also really high value and has a lot of dangerous potential if not managed correctly.
Speaker 91
The current combination of both the federal and kind of the state oversight on the gases doesn't give us a consistent oversight program for the appliances containing those those gases. So, as mentioned, it's a really ripe product for this type of model, and we'll continue to work with the different stakeholders to make sure that the program works for all the stakeholders involved. With that, I respectfully ask for an
Speaker 1
I vote. Thank you very much. Other witnesses support SB ten ten, please come forward. No one is coming forward. If you are a me too, now is a good time to me to it.
Speaker 47
Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste. We have a support in concept position. We're really excited by the direction the author's headed, but we want to thread the needle on a few issues.
Speaker 1
Alright. Any other needle threaders? Seeing none. Alright. Let's turn to the opposition.
If you're opposed to SB ten ten, please make your way to the podium.
Speaker 62
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jacob Cassidy. I'm the Director of Government Relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHEM is, respectfully opposed to this legislation.
If we separate this issue out by the refrigerant gases or the refrigerant itself, there's two very different issues at play. With respect to refrigerant gases, industry has phased out the use of h HFCs. They're using, refrigerants that have very low global warming potential, if if any at all. So the refrigerants and that has been going on for over the past decade plus. An average refrigerant is about the lifespan is about fifteen years.
So the refrigerant gases, the Clean Air Act explicitly, exempts the ones in use from their the an individual's ability to not manage it through the systems. That is a federal system of managing refrigerants. It is federal law. It must be done. If if we know where these jurisdictions are, they they definitely should be looked at looked into to determine how that illegal activity can be stopped.
Speaker 20
With respect to the refrigerator itself, there is many, many dollars, tens, hundreds of dollars of value in the scrap material that is within them. People go around, they pick up these these products, and they get them recycled to this to the existing marketplace. Roughly about 80% of all appliances are recycled in this, you know, one way or another. Lastly, for the most part, you buy a new appliance, The old appliance is picked up, taken back, and as part of the re the distribution chain as it was returned, you know, these these products aren't really laying around, at least from from my perspective. Other programs that have been mentioned, lastly, those products do not have, value within them.
Speaker 62
No one wants a used mattress to recycle. No one wants used sharps or other materials, but the used appliance has enough value that people drive around picking up the stuff and bringing it to scrap markets that the refrigerants should be legally taken care of. There are federal state programs. And with that, I'll happily answer any questions once tests and fires are done.
Speaker 31
Thank you, chair and members. Ryan Flanagan here on behalf of the Recycled Materials Association, RIMA, and we are in opposition to this bill. RIMA represents over 1,200 recycling companies nationwide, a 100 of whom operate here in California. They are the very businesses that recycle the household cooling appliances this bill targets. Appliance refrigerant recovery is highly regulated in exist by existing California and federal environmental law.
Speaker 53
The Federal Clean Air Act section six zero eight, Carbs Refrigerant Management Program, California Integrated Waste Management Act, and DTSC's certified appliance recycler program already mandate collection of refrigerant gases. As a result, our first impression is that this bill has the appearance of a solution in search of a problem. There are no gaps in the existing system. It is a functioning multilayered framework actively enforced at both the federal and state level. If non compliance is the issue, then targeted enforcement is what is needed, not wholesale changes to a widely effective recovery system.
Speaker 31
If the enhancements to the existing program are believed to be necessary, care should be taken to carefully define the problem and prescribe an appropriate fix. Industry knowledge and experience should be brought to bear in any such effort. If illegal dumping is the issue, then that matter should be specifically targeted. We'd be
Speaker 31
the author and sponsor on these targeted approaches. What makes appliance recycling possible is economics. Unlike mattresses or carpets, products California has previously subjected to EPR programs, household cooling appliances have inherent scrap metal value. That scrap metal value motivates thousands of independent collectors throughout the state to actively seek out end of life appliances and deliver them to car certified facilities. No government subsidy or collection infrastructure is required.
SB 10 ten's compliance cost will erode the scrap metal value that makes the existing system work. When that value disappears, collectors stop collecting, fewer appliances reach certified facilities, controlled refrigerant recovery rates fall, and illegal venting increases. This bill may potentially create the problem it claims to solve. While SB ten ten is well meaning
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Okay. Alright. Others who are opposed to SB ten ten?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else opposed to SB ten ten, please approach. Now is a good time. Alright. Seeing no one approaching.
Let's bring it back to committee for questions. See, senator Wahhab has moved the bill and no one else has a question or a comment. So would you like to close?
Speaker 30
Sure. I would like to close and I will do so ever so briefly. But because we've had such a long day, a lot of our support witnesses weren't here. So I'd just like to rattle off a list. My team has worked for two and a half years on this bill.
It's a toughie, and we will continue to work with the opposition for sure. I don't have any problem doing that. In fact, I look forward to it. I think it'll make the bill better. But the California Product Stewardship Council, the Climate Center, Western Placer Waste Management Authority, the Climate Science and Technology Seventh Generation Advisors, the Watershed Project, the Council Center for Environmental Health, the Circular Polymers, Executive Officer, the founders of Clean Earth for Kids are all in support.
I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you very much. Committee's supporter, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 31, SB ten ten. The motion is due passed to the Environmental Quality Committee. Lundberg? Aye. Lundberg, aye.
Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes Reyes I, Stern, Veladares, Wahhab Wahhab I, Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I, Weiner. 51.
Speaker 1
51. We'll put that on call. Thank you. Alright. Senator Ashby, you're up again.
Speaker 30
Alright. This is, an electric vehicle charging association bill. Here we go. It it I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, thanking the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. Thank you so much as always.
Speaker 75
California leads the nation in advancing clean transportation, including streamlined approvals for electric vehicle charging stations. There is some ambiguity in existing law, though, that has prevented local governments from streamlining the approval of EV charging stations that have essential additions such as canopies and particularly on-site energy storage systems. As a result, the deployment of chargers is not keeping pace with growing demand, creating infrastructure gaps, increasing costs for developers, and hindering the state from reaching its climate and transportation goals. SB twelve eighty three expands existing requirements for ministerial approval of EV charging stations to include essential additions like canopies and on-site energy storage systems and requires local governments to update their EV charging station ordinance by the 2027. This bill will help us accelerate our EV infrastructure and support California's clean energy and transportation goals by making the approvals faster, cleaner, more consistent, more effective, and will help those in areas where they need the additional storage.
Speaker 30
I have two witnesses with me, mister chair. One is Reid Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, and the other is Bill McGavern, is the policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, if they are both still here.
Speaker 46
Thank you, mister chairman. Bill McGavern with Coalition for Clean Air, in strong support. Unfortunately, California still has by far the country's worst air pollution, and we're also seeing the devastating impacts of climate change. And by far the greatest source of the emissions that are causing this harm are our transportation sector. The good news is that we have a solution.
Speaker 92
We have electric vehicles, and they are now widely available. And we're doing better than other states in deploying them, but we're still not doing that quickly enough. One of the main obstacles to transportation electrification is the infrastructure as senator Ashby said. And because of that, this legislature has twice passed laws requiring local governments to streamline the permitting process, for charging stations. And many have done that, but unfortunately, too many jurisdictions either have not streamlined or are imposing barriers that are delaying or discouraging the permitting of the EV charging stations, and that's why we need this bill.
Speaker 74
Thank you, chair and members. Reid Addis, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association here in support today. California has made strong progress in deploying EV chargers across the state, but we still need many hundreds of thousands deployed. The challenge is not a lack of demand or investment, but one of the challenges is permitting. While the state already requires streamlined ministerial approval for EV chargers, in practice, the process remains inconsistent and often delayed across jurisdictions.
Speaker 93
Projects that should be simple are treated differently from one city to the next, and more complex installations like those with canopies or on-site energy storage are often pushed into discretionary view, adding time, cost, and uncertainty. Most importantly, the technology has advanced has advanced, and the current law needs to catch up. SB twelve eighty three provides a practical fix. It clarifies the streamlined permitting applies not just to the charger itself but to the supporting infrastructure needed to make the projects viable. Importantly, the bill does not weaken local authority on health and safety.
Local governments still review projects to ensure they meet all applicable safety standards. What this bill does is it ensures that once the standards are met, projects move forward in a predictable and timely way. We cannot meet our EV goals if every project faces a different process in every jurisdiction. We need a system that is clear, consistent, and scalable. Twelve eighty three helps do that.
We respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair members, Chris Grogan with Capital FC on behalf of ChargePoint in support. Thank you.
Speaker 59
Sarah Brennan with the Weidmann Group on behalf of Electrify America in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else? Opposition to SB twelve eighty three.
Speaker 37
Good evening, mister chair and members. Damon Conkin with the League of California Cities and representing the California State Association of Counties and the rural county representatives of California. We are respectfully in opposition, to senate bill twelve eighty three unless amended. We appreciate the committee's analysis of the measure and the author's intent to accelerate EV, infrastructure. However, this bill broadens the ministerial approval framework from charging equipment to ministerially approving more complex site in intensive infrastructure with structural, electoral, and safety implications.
Speaker 94
Additionally, and more focused for this committee is the bill establishes a new private right of action allowing applicants to seek injunctive relief to enforce permitting requirements with potential recovery of attorney fees and costs. At the same time, the bill creates a deemed approved structure that allows projects to move forward automatically and even allows construction to begin before a permit is issued. Taken together, these provisions are not simply redundant, they're compounding. They create a system where an applicant can both proceed without a full review and retain the ability to litigate to compel, expand, or challenge local decisions. This fundamentally shifts the legal risk onto cities.
It creates a strong incentive for an applicant to use litigation or the threat of litigation to as a tool to secure faster approvals, avoid conditions, or resolve, disputes over project scopes or compliance. Even where a city is acting in good faith, the cost and exposure associated with defending, these claims is significantly, particularly for smaller jurisdictions with fewer staff and, limited legal and, resources. Faced with strict timelines, automatic approvals, and the risk of attorney fees, local agencies will be pressured to prioritize speed over diligence and to approve projects under the threat of a legal challenge rather than through sound engineering and safety review. If the project is already deemed approved and can proceed, the additional private right of action is not filling a gap, it's creating leverage.
Speaker 1
Perfect. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else opposed to SB twelve eighty three? Now's a good time.
Seeing no one, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Senator Niello.
Speaker 30
I have the answer for a private right of action. You wanna know why. Right?
Speaker 10
No. Oh. I have concerns about the private right of action as articulated, Yeah. But I'm concerned about local
Speaker 10
I am always concerned about the private right of action, and I am with regard to this Yeah. Bill too. I I think it's I think it's really not applicable because of the initial problem that I have, and that is the local jurisdiction's ability to make sure that the ancillary structures of a charging facility are safe. And the ministerial approval of that effectively, I think, works against that. Now if the local jurisdictions are intentionally causing delays or if there's malfeasance behind that, I could understand that.
I in in everything that I've read, I can't I can't see any evidence of that. I think the intent is to move the whole charging facility forward as quickly as possible. I get that. But I think the the local jurisdiction should still still have some oversight of these ancillary structures.
Speaker 30
They do. Two two things. And and I won't argue with you because if you don't wanna support it, I understand. But two things I think would give you some assurances. One, in local gov, which was the last committee hearing we were in, we really addressed this issue, which is a local governance issue.
The building inspectors weighed in on this bill and said and we made changes. We made amendments based on their input. They still retain all the authority over the structure itself. It's just that they have to get through their administrative process in a certain amount of time. The addition that this committee made, I think, appropriately, that the staff and this chair made, is to the private right of action, which I would argue we are in the right committee to have that conversation.
And they have placed on this private right of action a component where it only applies exactly as you have stated in the instance where the local municipality has not acted in compliance. So in other words, we're just creating a standard. We're asking the building inspectors and the local municipalities to meet that standard so that these projects don't languish. And you know, you come from local government just like me, they do languish. They take a long time unless they get some type of priority order.
We're trying to meet a goal here on infrastructure for vehicles. This helps us achieve that goal, especially in rural areas where we need the solar panels on the rooftop in order to power the station itself.
Speaker 1
Alright. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
We go. Committee assistant oh, is there a motion? Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Committee assistant Porter.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 33, s b twelve eighty three. The motion is to pass as amended to senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, I. Allen? Ashby? I. Ashby, I.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes? I.
Reyes aye. Stern? Valadares? Wahhab? Aye.
Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson aye. Weiner?
6 to zero.
Speaker 1
60. Alright. Senator senator Wahhab. Okay. Wait.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. No.
No. No. We are we are gonna go in order. If senator Weber Pearson is is ahead Okay. Senator Actually You wanna flip a coin?
No, we're not gonna flip a coin. But here's the order we would normally go in. Would go in senator Allen, who's not here. Then we would go to senator Caballero, who's not here.
Speaker 1
Okay. Senator D'Arrozzo has already presented. Then we would go to Senator Niello. You did, and then Senator Reyes. And then we would go to Senator Wahhab, and then Senator Weber Pearson, and then last, and perhaps least, Senator Umburg.
Senator Reyes, file number 37, s b eight seven three.
Speaker 32
Thank you, mister chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present s b eight seventy three, an important step forward to ensure all Californians have access to our justice system without fear. One of the core responsibilities of government is to protect people and not inflict terror or fear. SB eight seventy three will protect the legal process for all in California by preventing indiscriminate arrests by ICE agents in and around the grounds of courthouse. Recently, there have been numerous reports of immigration related arrests happening in and around courthouses in California. Earlier this month, witnesses at the Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse located in my district witnessed several arrests of individuals coming out of the courthouse.
In fact, by noon, there had already been four arrests. This was done without explanation and with very little detail after the fact, significantly impacting our community. Despite this limited information, one thing is clear. This has a chilling effect on willingness of individuals to participate in our legal process. Discouraging people from coming to our courts makes our community less safe.
Several states have taken similar action, including New York, Illinois, and Washington, who have all enacted legislation to protect the sanctity sanctity of court courthouses from ICE arrests, from indiscriminate ICE arrests. California fully intends to protect the rights of our residents to participate in judicial proceedings. And let me be clear, with a judicial warrant, ICE agents would be exempt from this. Here to testify on behalf of this bill are Kate Chatfield, executive director for the California Public Defenders Association, and Veronica Melendez, litigation director for the California Rural League Assist Rural Assistance Foundation. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Thank you. My name is Kate Chatfield, and I'm with the California Public Defenders Association in support of SB eight seventy three. This past year, our members have reported ICE agents arrest arresting clients and others in and around courthouses all over the state. They have seen people dragged off, wind cars in court parking lots having their windows smashed with children inside, agents roaming the court hallways and entering courtrooms. In one instance, when one of our members, a public defender politely inquired about agents' presence in the courtroom as they were looking through the calendar, she was sworn it and called an expletive.
Another public defender reported being shoved by agents outside the court when he simply asked to see a warrant. It is for these reasons that CPDA is proud to cosponsor s b eight seventy three, which protects the integrity of California courts by shielding all individuals from civil arrest while traveling to, being present to at, or departing from a courthouse. As the senator said, access to courts is a cornerstone of our judicial system and a cornerstone of democracy. When people fear arrest simply for showing up to a scheduled proceeding, the entire system suffers. Cases are delayed, witnesses disappear, and defendants cannot exercise their rights.
Speaker 1
Our own California Supreme Court justice, chief justice, Patricia Guerrero said, making courthouses a focus of immigration enforcement hinders rather than helps the administration of justice by deterring witnesses and victims from coming forward and discouraging individuals from asserting their right their rights. Crucially, the bill preserves exceptions for valid judicial warrants striking a reasonable balance. As noted in this committee's analysis, a federal district court recently dismissed a preemption challenge to New York's comparable law. SB eight seventy three can similarly withstand court scrutiny. California has a right and a duty
Speaker 86
Afternoon. Veronica Melendez on behalf California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation represents farm workers and mixed status families throughout federal and state court. Every Californian has a fundamental right to their day in court. This right is jeopardized when ICE agents are conducting arrests in and around courthouses regardless of a person's immigration status, given that the US Supreme Court has sanctioned racial profiling by ICE agents.
For the first time, we find ourselves telling our clients and witnesses that by filing a case in court or participating in a court proceeding, they might be detained by ICE. Faced with this risk, workers and witnesses are either declining to file in court or or are deciding not to participate. One of our farm worker clients was not paid wages for two weeks of work. He had two options. He either filed his claim with the labor commissioner, waited three to five years to even have a hearing, or filed in small claims given the amount of money that he was owed.
Speaker 72
He did not want to file with the labor commissioner given the long delays. But because of the activity of the ICE agents in the courthouses, his ability to file in small claims is no longer an option. ICE activity around the courthouses is solo affecting organizations like CRLA Foundation. We are now finding ourselves with other organizations spending additional resources, money, and staff just to figure out how to have clients testify in court when before they could just simply walk in. We have to put additional staff so that workers testify remotely, they're able to do so.
Speaker 86
We have to arrange for remote testimony. We have to pay for separate locations among other costs and arrangements. It should really not be this difficult for anyone to participate in California's court system. We urge your support to s b three SB873. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Mr. Chair, Andy Leibenbaum, on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles, we are in proud support.
Speaker 55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sandra Barrero, on behalf of SEIU California, proud cosponsors in support.
Speaker 90
Good afternoon, chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, who California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Western Center on Law and Poverty are proud cosponsors and urge an I vote.
Speaker 56
Hello. Good afternoon. Ysmele Romo on behalf of Public Interest Law Project, National Housing Law Project in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Good afternoon. Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California in proud support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support? Saying no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. SB eight seven three. If you're opposed, please come forward.
Going once, going twice. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee. Questions, comments by committee members? Senator Weber Pearson has moved the bill. Senator Niello wants to say something, I bet.
Speaker 10
Yes. I do. Okay. There was, opposition, stated by the State Sheriff's Association and also the, I think, the San Bernardino, sheriffs, expressed, opposition. Concern being conflict between state and federal law, putting them in a very difficult, position of enforcement.
And while the core approach of the bill, it can be supportable, it defines the court premises as being quite a bit around the court itself. So given the very difficult position that it puts law enforcement in, I have a very hard time supporting this.
Speaker 1
Alright. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, there's been a motion by senator Weber Pearson. Would you like to close?
Speaker 32
Yes. I and the the words of our California Supreme Court justice were shared earlier from chief justice Patricia Guerrero. But I want to repeat those. She said she shared these words during the state of the judiciary just recently. She said, making courthouses a focus of immigration enforcement hinders rather than helps the administration of justice.
With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And just one final comment. This thank you for this bill, number one. Number two is that this is a matter of public safety, not just for the individuals targeted, not just for families, it's a matter of public safety for all of us. Intimidation of witnesses does not serve any purpose but the purpose of criminals.
So, alright. With that, commissus porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 37, SB eight seventy three. The motion is due passed to senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Duraso? Laird?
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern? Valadares?
Wahab? Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson, Aye. Weiner? Four to one.
Speaker 1
Four to one. We're going to put that on call. All right. Senator Gomez Reyes, filing number 38, SB ten thirty two.
Speaker 32
Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members. This is the staffing agency fair employment or SAFE Act. I will be accepting the committee amendments, and I would like to thank the chair and committee staff for your work on making this bill stronger. SB ten thirty two will create a clear common sense regulatory framework for temporary staffing agencies similar would to what already exists for contractors and other high risk industries.
California has the largest temporary staffing market in the nation, with staffing firms generating over 41,000,000,000 in annual revenue and employing millions of workers over the course of a year. Despite the scale, California lacks a just a dedicated licensing and regulatory framework for temporary staffing agencies, allowing gaps in oversight that can put workers, honest businesses, and taxpayers at risk. This fragmented labor enforcement system leaves workers and families exposed. This bill addresses this issue by establishing clear oversight, real accountability, and required registration so staffing agencies are complying with the law before harm can occur. The SAFE Act would align temporary staffing agencies with the existing regulatory approach in other industries to protect workers and promote compliance.
Here to testify in support are Alberto Alberto Torico, on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, and Jennifer Snyder of Council for Power, the partnership organization for workplace ethics and reform.
Speaker 95
Thank you, mister chairman. Good evening. I'm Rip here testifying on behalf of, the proud co sponsors, United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council. I wanna focus my comments on the on the private right of action in the bill. It's a limited private right of action that that only licensed operators can use for the limited purpose of seeking an injunction against unlicensed operators.
We took the this language from AB eleven seventy one, authored by Senator Rubio in 2023. We brought that same language to this bill. We have had no reports of abuses in the system or, as you and I talked about, mister chairman, no no cottage industry has emerged as a result of the bill. However, in order to address concerns raised by the committee, the author has accepted an a further amendment removing the ability of attorneys to collect the turn reasonable attorney's fees if they prevailed in such a in seeking the injunction. So we think with those protections, any concerns about, private right of actions gone amok are are I think are sufficiently addressed.
It also allows for licensed operators to pursue a remedy against online operators that are undercutting the marketplace. With those comments, I respectfully request an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 96
Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Mine is an enforcement point of view. I come to you after thirty three years of working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, predominantly focusing on fraud and public integrity types of crimes. As a trial attorney, as a supervisor And your
Speaker 96
As a as somebody who's worked in this field, I can tell you that I've been deeply involved in the investigation and review of thousands and thousands of fraud matters. And what's critical to point out is it's impossible to launch an investigation and to successfully enforce a law if you don't know who the bad actor is. And identity is a critical factor that is very often lost when you have businesses that hide between multiple identities. There is a recent broadcast on CBS, on sixty minutes both and also on the CBS Sunday morning show. And it had to do with trucking companies that change their identities so that they avoid detection for the violations that are occurring.
Speaker 48
The same thing has been happening in the staffing industry for at least ten years. I specifically recall a case that we were looking at in 2015. And as this industry grows, as the number of people impacted by temporary staffing grows, 2,000,000 estimated currently in California, it's imperative that baseline requirements be established so we know who the business is, so they cannot hide behind this mask of changing identities. We need to know that these are secure businesses that are operating from baseline requirements that, frankly, most of the compliance staffing agencies already meet. But unless and until licensing and baseline requirements are established, the 2,000,000 workers in California and the legitimate businesses are at grave risk because fraud invariably infiltrates vulnerable populations.
Speaker 96
And when you have a structure of employment that involves co employment, that is layered, the people in that environment are at risk. And so I ask you to support the bill and to Alrighty. Issue an I vote in order to protect the workers, in order to protect the compliant businesses
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Others in support of SB ten thirty two, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 7
Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Von Fernandez for the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Others in support.
Speaker 28
Good evening, mister chair. George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in support. Please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to s b ten thirty two, please approach.
Speaker 98
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am Liliana Bernal. I am a small business owner based here in Sacramento. I have been in the staffing industry for over thirty years and six years ago started my own business. In that six years, we have helped more than 2,000 people find meaningful employment.
Staffing agencies like mine play an important role in the California economy. We connect job seekers to employers, help businesses stay operational, and create a fast, compliant pathway into the workforce. I am here in opposition of s to s b ten thirty two, specifically the private right of action. I wanna be clear. We agree that there is fraud in our industry, and it harms all of us, including companies like mine that work hard every day to follow the law and operate ethically.
Bad actors should be held accountable, but this bill as written does not just target bad actors. It also creates new risk and new barriers for responsible businesses that are creating jobs and doing business the right way. The private right of action should be deleted. It will generate frivolous lawsuits against staffing firms and clients acting in good faith, and it opens the door to litigation that small businesses are simply not equipped to handle. It shifts enforcements from state agencies and into the hands of private attorneys, creating incentives for lawsuits even when there is no meaningful harm.
Speaker 30
This bill creates new entries new barriers to entry for responsible businesses trying to do the right thing. It adds direct cost and legal risk that small businesses must absorb, discouraging entrepreneurship, especially for women and minority owned businesses that already face disproportionate barriers to starting and scaling a business. We should not be making it harder for ethical businesses to create jobs in California. If a law like this had been in place six years ago when I started my business, I would not have been able to do it. Rather than creating new regulations, resources should be directed toward enforcing the laws already on the books.
Speaker 98
We want to be part of the solution, and we ask to work with the author to ensure enforcement targets fraud and abuse without And hurting those of
Speaker 77
Actually, think she's actually urging you to take the private right of action out. That's what exactly what she said, just delete the private right of action. And I'll Mike Robeson here on behalf of the California staffing professionals representing the state's staffing industry, of which Ms. Bernal is a member. And I'll focus And I
Speaker 1
know we've only known one another for thirty six years, but you still have to give us your name.
Speaker 77
And I'll focus on the private right of action. I and I and I to the degree I understood what the amendments that were just taken here in committee do, they they don't fix the problem that that Liliana explained. It's still going to be a legal risk for her to open a business and stay in business. I understand I think I understand the intention behind the amendments is that if you take some financial incentive out of private attorneys for there won't be a private right of action, what's the incentive? Well, by that same logic, why even have it?
Just take it out then. If you don't intend for them to use it, then it shouldn't even be in there. As the author said, it's modeled on five registration laws in the state of California, none of which have a private right of action. This one shouldn't either. If you're going to model on existing law, then model on existing law.
Speaker 45
They don't have a private right of action. If you keep it in there, even without the attorney incentive, the incentive isn't between the attorneys. It's weaponizing it so that incumbent staffing companies can keep their thumb from, you know, small entrepreneurs starting a business. How do you start a staffing company and register if you can't actually run the business for a while and make some money, get registered and so on? But if you're constantly threatened with the potential of a lawsuit, you're never going to be able to open.
Speaker 77
And even if you are open and you're registered, just because it says it's a registered staffing company against an unregistered staffing company and their clients, there's it's nothing to say you can't file a lawsuit against a registered a registered staffing company against another registered staffing company. It's sort of like in the previous testimony. You're going to leverage something to get something you want, which might be the registered or unregistered staffing And company's client
Speaker 77
I think we can get a bill on registration. I think we can get a really good bill on
Speaker 1
registration. Well, Reyes is attentive and hardworking. So right. Thank you. Okay.
Others who are opposed? SB ten thirty two.
Speaker 97
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary Cooper representing the National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations. And I know that Senator Weber Pearson knows what Locum Tenens certainly is. And we are working with Senator Reyes to try to come up with a solution.
We don't believe that the Locum Tenens organizations really fall under that classification. And she is working with us to try to fix that. So right now we're opposed unless amended. But thank you Senator Reyes for your accommodation.
Speaker 47
Evening, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Moucher, California Chamber of Commerce, for the reasons aptly stated by your longtime relation. Micros.
Speaker 63
Good evening. Molly Mellon, on behalf of the American Staffing Association and their over 1,000 members. I'd also just like to read a list of individual companies that asked me to share their opposition, so I will do that quickly. Star Staffing, Ellis Solutions, Innovative Career Resources and Staffing, ATR International, Inland Staffing, Omega Solutions Incorporated, Legacy Career Solutions, IdeaOn, Trident Consulting, TalentSpace, Staffing Solutions, Joysys, Spire Systems Incorporated, Next One Staffing, and Aloha HP. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Anyone else oppose SB ten thirty two? Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members?
I have a couple. So Senator Nilo.
Speaker 10
The first witness, you mentioned that you would have not have been able to start your business. If you explain what you meant by that, I I missed it. Could you explain what you mean?
Speaker 98
So I started my business a month before COVID. Critical time for all of us. I quickly had to jump into business because not only did I have employees that needed to find employment, but I had clients that needed to find essential workers. I left a very large organization. They would have been able to be registered, and they would kept me in litigation to stop me from being able to very quickly respond to the need at that time.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments? If not, Senator Reyes or any of the proponents, what do you anticipate the registration process would entail? For example, how much would it cost?
What, you know, what what of challenge would there be to register?
Speaker 47
We originally wanted the bill to go through the state licensing board because they have a licensing scheme for construction companies. Then we were quickly rebuffed in that attempt and directed to the labor to the Department of Industrial Relations, does licensing for a variety of different industries. We're modeling after those industries, so it's a pre existing system in the Department of Industrial Relations. Background checks, workers' compensation, some other factors that are in the bill. We also had contemplated a pretty large fee for the license to cover the cost of getting the program started, to cover the cost of running the program.
Speaker 95
We took an amendment earlier to allow the Department of Industrial Relations to set the fee to cover the costs. So it's it's not a money making venture by any stretch of the imagination on the on the licensing side.
Speaker 1
What what give me an order of magnitude. Are we talking about a thousand dollars or $10,000?
Speaker 95
Not not not $10,000, sir. No. So I don't know what the fees are for the other licenses. I I think I've seen fees from few $100 to several $100, but we're not anticipating a fee to be a $10,000 fee to get the license.
Speaker 1
Okay. Alright. I I see that the opposition has a different point of view.
Speaker 77
No. I'm just gonna let you know that the the highest fee of the of the existing registration laws, the highest fee is $600 for the farm labor contractors.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, thank you very much. $600. Got it. Alright.
And in terms of enforcement, what what do you envision? You don't like the the private right of action, absent attorney's fees, only for injunctive purposes. What do you envision as the appropriate enforcement mechanism?
Speaker 77
To register. Mean, the other the other in the other body of law, DIR enforces registration. And obviously it works because they're all registered and they're all everybody's doing business. So, like I said, I think we can find a path forward on registration, but the private right of action is just a no go. And you're not going to move this bill, just move it without the private right of action.
Okay. Is
Speaker 1
there a motion? Senator Weber Pearson, did you move the bill? Oh, I'm sorry. So was that senator Ashby that moved? Senator Ashby moved the bill.
Alright. Senator Reyes, would you like to close?
Speaker 32
Yes. I do want to appreciate that we we've had some meetings with the opposition, Liliana Bernal, and and others from the organization. They're the good ones. They have had staffing agencies and have provided jobs for many workers. We know there are many staffing agencies that are not the good workers.
The good they're they're not the good the good ones. And there's fraud that's committed, and the fraud usually affects our workers more than anybody else. And we've got to find a way to register them, make sure they have workers' comp insurance to cover their employees when they are injured, and make sure that that they are following the law. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Marty, thank you very much. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 38, s b ten thirty two. The motion is due pass as amended to Senate appropriations. Hamburg? Aye. Hamburg, aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Dourasso? Aye.
Dourasso, aye. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.
Stern? Valadares? Wahhab? Weber Pearson? Aye.
Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? Five to 1.
Speaker 1
51. Alright. We'll put that on call. Let's see. Yes.
Senator Weber Pearson is here. I see. Yes.
Speaker 63
Good evening, Chair and Committee members. Thank you for the opportunity today to present SB eight ninety eight, which requires manufacturers to disclose the minimum amount of time. They will support their connected consumer products as well as provide a separate notice when the product is approaching and reaches the point it will no longer receive necessary software support and updates. I want to thank the committee and their staff for working with our office, and I have accepted the amendments proposed by Senate privacy that will be taken in this committee due to timing. Millions of consumer products today are enhanced through Internet connectivity think dishwashers, vacuums, TVs, smartwatches, speakers, phones, and much more.
Speaker 60
We buy these smart products to enjoy the benefits they promise, like security updates, monitoring for bugs or performance issues, and the full functionality of their smart feature. However, consumers may be unaware if their connected products may lose software support at all, let alone win. This is information they should have at the point of sale and easily available at any point. If that software tether is disconnected, the products they rely on can quickly become vulnerable to security threats, privacy risk, or a significant loss of key features. This bill, in addition to ensuring that before they make a big purchase, they know the minimum amount of time they can expect their product to receive these updates and support.
Speaker 63
It also ensures that consumers know when a product will be reaching its end of life, meaning when the manufacturer will definitely no longer provide these critical updates and support. A product reaching the end the defined end of life doesn't automatically mean the product will no longer work. The notice simply informs consumers if features may be lost, if security protections may change, and how they can continue to use the product safely. I also want to be clear about what this bill is expecting from manufacturers. There is no need for manufacturers to be future tellers here.
Manufacturers built out entire teams, have spent years developing concepts, and invested deeply in these products. At the bare minimum, they should have a short term and long term plan, and know how long before release what support is going to look like. They know this information, and they owe it to consumers to disclose that. I do agree that it would be unwise and unrealistic to mandate that manufacturers know the exact end of their product lifespan right at production, which is why this bill does not require that. This bill also does not require companies to replace all products they no longer support, but rather specific cases when one is leasing a device as a part of a previously agreed arrangement.
In conclusion, SB eight ninety eight simply requires manufacturers to notify customers and the public six months before and again when a product reaches its end of life so people have information they need about the products they already own and rely on. Today, I have Becca Kramer with Consumer Reports as my lead witness, and thank you so much. I know you've been here all day, so thank you. And I respectfully ask for an I vote on SB eight ninety eight.
Speaker 85
you wanting to be here for? Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Reports in support. SB eight ninety eight requires the makers of connected devices to tell consumers how long they plan to support those devices. Consumers are purchasing more devices that connect to the Internet in the form of smart TVs, smart home products, and even large appliances. But over time, manufacturers stop updating these feature these software in those connected products, which can then affect the security and also their features.
So for example, a TV that, loses updates may not support certain apps like the latest version of Netflix. And just recently, the FBI announced that a Russian group had hacked end of life consumer and small business routers to conduct attacks on websites, spy on passwords, and gather sensitive information. Some devices may even stop working altogether. These end of life devices pose a problem to consumers and for our cybersecurity. This lack of awareness around a device's end of life is also a consumer protection issue with many consumers not understanding that with some types of connected devices, when the security updates end, many of the useful features of their product end with them.
Speaker 56
The Federal Trade Commission researched 184 connected products to discover that only 21 of those products disclosed the software device support duration or an end date on the product webpage. A December 2024 Consumer Reports survey found that 43% of connected device owners said that the last time they purchased a connected device, they were not aware that it might lose software support at some point, and that same survey found that nearly 70% of Americans believe manufacturers should be required to disclose how long they will support those devices. The requirements in SB eight ninety eight provide information that consumers can use to purchase connected devices that last longer and stay secure. It also provides a mechanism for consumers to find out when their products are no longer supported so that they can remove them from their networks, closing a potential security hole. Other countries have legislation that requires manufacturers of connected devices to disclose how long they plan to support their products, and it's time that Californians receive these same protections.
Speaker 10
Thank you. And I let you go more than two minutes because you're the only primary witness.
Speaker 10
Yes. Others here that are in support and would like to come to the microphone, say your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 17
Good evening, Chair members. Christopher Sanchez with the Consumer Federation of California in support.
Speaker 10
And seeing no others come forward, I think the professor is getting up to give us a little opposition.
Speaker 8
Minor, mister chair. Chris McKayla, good evening. On behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in respectful opposition, unless amended, our concern is the enforcement mechanism. Yes, there is not a, established private right of action here. However, a violation amounts to a violation of the UCL, the unfair competition law, in the last section of the bill.
Speaker 80
As you're probably familiar with, the UCL doesn't require, for example, intent. It deems a violation of any provision of this new law as a violation of the UCL, and so our fear is there's potential liability, for example, for inadvertent, actions. A UCL action is available to both public prosecutors and private litigants, so we view it, although not a PRA, that there is an enforcement mechanism on the private side, Our, alternative suggestion is to have only public enforcement of this provision under the UCL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 67
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Always tough to follow the professor, but Jack Giannis with Slogans and Gentle on behalf of Consumer Technology Association. I'll keep this very brief given the time. We had a productive call with the author and her staff last week.
Speaker 34
Really appreciate their openness to hearing our concerns. At this time, we do have an opposed position on the bill due to concerns of potential confusion it could create for consumers, the impact on small and medium manufacturers, as well as a lack of alignment with other disclosure regimes at the federal and international level. But that being said, we look forward looking with the author and her staff moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Evening, Chair, author. Ms. Spencer Snyder with Platinum Advisors on behalf of the Entertainment Software Association. Respect for opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Good evening, Mr. Chair. Author, Rob Muthrie, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully oppose unless amended for the reasons stated by the first two witnesses. Thank you.
Speaker 98
Evening. Naomi Padron. On behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, we have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. And also on behalf of my colleague at TechNet, they also asked me to convey their opposed unless amended position. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Good evening, Mr. Chair. Jacob Cassidy, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, in opposition, respectfully. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Seeing no others come forward, I would say bring it back to the dais, but it appears that everybody has abandoned me. Is it is there something I said?
Speaker 10
Question. The the opposition, unless amended, can you tell me how you view the concerns they have?
Speaker 85
a little bit more clarity on which of the concerns? Because there were some discrete concerns that I heard raised by opposition. Is it about the enforcement piece or about consistency with federal and international standards?
Speaker 10
I would allow them to be more specific on that. Mr. McKaylee, would you
Speaker 85
On the enforcement piece, I would you know, I defer to the author, of course. We think it's important that consumers have the ability to enforce their rights and that they're not just words on the page. Our public agencies are tasked with enforcing many, many, many statutes and cannot enforce them all. And so it's important to make sure that people are also able to make sure that their rights are respected. So happy to have the conversation, but always wary about taking away the right of people to be able to ensure that the law is followed when it comes to what their rights are.
In terms of the other question about the standards In terms of, for example, how this compares with The US Cyber Trustmark program, that also requires manufacturers to disclose a minimum guaranteed support time frame to achieve certification. However, under the proposed rules, that time frame could be zero. And it's also a voluntary program, which leaves a lot of gaps for consumers to fall through and does not cover things like routers, which is one of the most commonly attacked end of life devices on networks. And so we see this bill as filling in some of those gaps and putting in place best practices. And as I said in my testimony, some other countries already have some of these rights, and it's time for California to also get those rights as well.
Speaker 63
So I would just say, you know, we'll continue to have conversations with the opposition around the enforcement. But one of my main concerns was around, you know, the the PRA, and this does not establish a new PRA. What it would allow is for a private citizen to seek through the all they could seek was injunctive relief. And so they would not be able to get any kind of monetary or any replacement of their, device. It's just injunctive relief within this particular bill.
Speaker 10
Senator Wahab, did you have a comment or question? We have a motion, and I would call for a roll, but it seems we've been abandoned here. And so, Weber Senator Weber Pearson, you may close.
Speaker 63
Yes. Thank you, chair. Respectfully ask for an I vote on SB eight ninety eight.
Speaker 69
Thank you. The most I'm sorry. This is s B898. The motion is to pass as amended to to Appropriations Committee. Umberg Nilo, Alan Ashby, Gallero, Duraso Laird, Reyes Stern Veladares Wahhab?
Speaker 41
Aye. Wahhab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.
Weiner? You have two to zero so far. Put it on call maybe.
Speaker 99
Chair and members, I would first like to accept the committee amendments noted in the analysis and would like thank the chair and committee staff for their work on this bill. UC, University of California, manages vast budgets, complex procurement systems, and long term vendor relationships, the university exercises significant discretion in selecting contractors, consultants, and partners outside of competitive bidding. This discretion has been exercised without oversight or transparency and has created opportunities for conflicts of interest, self dealing, and steering the UC contracts to companies in which top UC executives hold paid Board of Director positions for those companies. The risks associated with conflict laden contracts extend beyond public financial loss and hidden personal gain. The appearance of conflicts or the existence of conflicts erodes public trust in the university, deprives competing businesses of opportunities and risks diverting resources away from students, faculty, and research.
To ensure that contracts are made public and based on merit and public benefit, SB eleven forty one, as proposed to be amended, will require a top UC executive within sixty days of accepting a position on a board of directors with a business entity to post on a UC website a written recusal for from any contract decision where that business entity is a party. SB eleven forty one also requires disclosure of the type of type and amount of compensation that the UC executive is receiving from private business entities and provide contact information for any member of the public to obtain copies of contracts with those private businesses within thirty days of the request. SB eleven forty one allows attorney general to bring civil action for any violation. UC executive is narrowly defined to cover the couple dozen top executives of UC, including chancellors of UC campuses, CEOs of UC hospitals or hospital systems, and presidents of UC health systems. As a publicly funded institution, UCs have a legal obligation to ensure that contracting decisions are made solely in the best interest of the university and the public it serves.
With me to testify in support of this measure is Liz Pearlman, Executive Director of AFSCME three thousand two hundred and ninety nine. To answer any technical questions, Kate Hallward, Counsel of AFSCME three thousand two and ninety nine. Go
Speaker 34
Hi. Good evening. Liz Perlman, executive director for Ask Me three thousand two ninety nine. We're 42,000 frontline workers, cafeteria workers, groundskeepers, health care, medical assistants, janitors, and more at the University of California in support. For years, have witnessed troubling side deal relationships between companies who receive UC contracts and UC's top executives who sit on those company boards of directors.
Speaker 68
Through Public Records Act requests, we discovered CareDx, a medical data company who pays the CEO of UCSF Health to sit on their corporate board of directors. We've discovered Welltower, a real estate company that leased buildings to UCLA Health, which has paid the CEO of UCLA Health a total of $1,800,000 to sit on its corporate board of directors. SB eleven forty one does not prevent any company from doing business at UC. SB eleven forty one does take a step in protecting the integrity of the UC's contracting processes. It levels the playing field for other competitors, maintains public trust, and shields the state government from the damaging, scandal baiting accusations emanating from Washington, DC.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support of s p eleven forty one.
Speaker 51
Good evening, Mr. Chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB eleven forty one, please come forward. If you all right. If you're opposed to SB eleven forty one, now's your time.
Speaker 16
You, mister chair. Tyler Ragularmi of the University of California. Do appreciate the committee, and the staff work on this bill with the amendments in print. The university will move to neutral on this bill.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? SB eleven forty one, going once, going twice.
Alright. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by senator Niello. So
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. And, you know, I noticed, Sonia, when you became chair, everyone left. I wanna just let you know, I still like you. So alright.
You should
Speaker 1
Thank very self esteem. I need to understand. I know your self esteem was hurt, lowered. So alright. So when somebody else shows up, I'm sure there'll be a motion.
Speaker 1
Alright. The bill has been moved. Alright. Thank you, senator Nieto. Let me let me just, first of all, me commend the author and the various stakeholders here for coming together.
I think you came together in a very reasonable way and worked out a compromise that that suits the purposes. I just wanna make sure that well, I agree with you that those who are in positions of authority, those decision makers should not have a financial interest in the contracts in which they are involved as a decision maker. I think these amendments address those concerns. I just want to make clear, it's my understanding that this bill only applies to chancellors of the individual UC campuses and the CEOs and presidents of a UC hospital or a UC health system. Is that your understanding, Senator Wahab?
Speaker 99
Yes. We said UC executive is nearly defined to cover the couple dozen top executives of UC, including chancellors of UC campuses, CEOs of UC hospitals or hospital systems, and presidents of UC health systems.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. All right. Chief Counsel Estrada, would you call the roll, please?
Speaker 41
Okay. This is SB eleven forty one by Senator Wahhab. The motion is to pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Hamburg? Aye.
Hamburg aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo aye. Allen?
Ashby, aye. Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes?
Stern? Valadares? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.
Weber Pearson? Weiner? Weber Pearson? I. Weber Pearson, I.
Alright. Weiner. Okay. You have five to zero with members.
Speaker 1
Zero. Alright. We're gonna put that on call. Federal Hobby, you have another bill.
Speaker 99
Yes. I have SB twelve thirty eight. Alright. I would first like to accept the committee amendments as described in the committee analysis and would like to thank the chair and committee staff for their work on this bill. The Department of Real Estate reports that 99% of all new housing construction create an HOA to offset long term infrastructure costs, but this also comes with long term effects as the HOA board and management companies have little to no accountability to the homeowners whose property they are responsible for maintaining.
Speaker 79
HOA management companies are only required to obtain a business license if required by a local ordinance and may hold a real estate license which is not subject to discipline or oversight by the Department of Real Estate for practices related to HOA management as prescribed by the Davis Sterling Act. To be clear, under current law, neither a HOA manager nor an HOA management company is subject to the licensing and oversight by any state agency. Even more concerning, many HOA management contracts contain a hold harmless clause ensuring that an HOA manager and management company cannot be held responsible for any activity that the HOA management company and its employees do with HOA board and homeowner resources, leaving the HOA board and homeowners responsible for an HOA manager's wrongdoing. Homeowners seeking to hold an HOA management company accountable must file a court action in Superior Court to enforce the law in Davis Sterling, a very expensive and cumbersome process where homeowners are at a distinct disadvantage. SB twelve thirty eight will protect homeowners who reside in communities with a homeowner's association by requiring additional disclosures to the homeowner and ensuring HOA managers and board act in the homeowner's best interest.
Speaker 99
The board sorry, the bill will ensure property owners can obtain necessary information from the HOA to clarify the financial health of the association. This is particularly critical information homeowners need when selling a condo or home within an HOA. Specifically, SB twelve thirty eight will protect homeowners by requiring HOA managers provide a duty of care and the highest good faith effort to the HOA and its members. Similar to other professions that manage millions of dollars of property owner assets, budgets, and reserve accounts, this challenge will ensure that HOA managers provide a defined standard of care to ensure that the duties and responsibilities of an HOA manager have a mutual benefit to both the HOA board and its members who share a mutual goal of maintaining the financial and physical building health of the HOA. SB twelve thirty eight clarifies that HOA reserves are not expended on specified types of litigation that are not already authorized in existing law.
This ensures that HOA managers can no longer exploit a loophole in current law that allows the HOA manager to use reserve funds that are intended for the maintenance and upkeep of the community for their legal defense. Further, SB twelve thirty eight ensures the legal defense line item is the general fund and not hidden from the homeowner or board. Lastly, the bill will ensure that inspection ratings are transparent and understandable for the homeowner, HOA board, and HOA manager who is responsible for ensuring buildings are habitable and compliant with the state's current health and safety standards. Deferred maintenance has created massive financial consequences for property owners living in these associations and the ratings proposed in the analysis are intended to help the HOA's plan for maintenance that is necessary to keep the building safe and in good repair. With me to testify in support of this measure is Jennifer Speck, Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy for the California Association of Realtors.
Speaker 100
J. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jennifer Speck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, proud to partner with Senator Wahhab and sponsor of the bill. Under California law, homeowners receive budgets, CCNRs, and meeting minutes, but what they don't receive is information that actually determines whether or not the HOA is maintaining a safe environment or whether or not it can be refinanced or sold within the existing lending terms that are available to homeowners.
Only the HOA manager and the vendors they hire know whether the, structural inspections mandated by state law have identified safety risks, whether the HOA's reserves are sufficient to address those safety risks, and whether or not the repairs are urgent or exceed the high cost thresholds that are determined to be about a $10,000 per per, exterior element as required in the inspections under existing law. None of this is required to be disclosed under the Davis Sterling Act. SB twelve thirty eight closes that gap by creating clear, standard, decision ready disclosures tied directly to structural safety and lender requirements. The bill also establishes a baseline duty of care for our HOA managers. Today, HOA managers handle millions of dollars in homeowners' assets, but they have no statutory standard of care.
They are routinely shielded from liability by the HOA and its members, even when the HOA manager has their own negligence that caused the harm to the HOA itself. SB twelve thirty eight does not change the enforcement models. It simply ensures that when managers, who are acting as agents of the board do so with honesty, competency, and good faith. We've seen consequences of status quo. In Southern California, the Lordin Management Company collapse, cost a homeowners association $14,000,000 in a judgment, which destabilized the entire community.
Speaker 31
They left homeowners with disclosures that now depress property values. Nationally, we've seen cases where HOA funds were misused for personal expenses, misconduct that could also occur in California because homeowners have no practical enforcement mechanisms outside of costly civil litigation, which is often unsuccessful because of how HOA management contracts are structured. The question is not whether standards will increase costs, the question is whether lack of standards will continue to expose homeowners to financial loss and some issues and barriers of homeownership and we appreciate the committee's I vote.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Others in support of SB twelve thirty eight?
Seeing no one approaching, let's talk to the opposition.
Speaker 92
Good evening, mister chair and, committee members. My name is John Gill. I am on the legislative committee for the California Association of Community Managers. I'm also an attorney that has represented homeowners associations and worked with association managers for thirty five years on issues related to association corporate governance and fiduciary duty. We appreciate the work of the committee staff and thank the author and the committee amend for accepting the committee amendments related to the proposed fiduciary duty of managers and the amendments that have been put into effect.
Speaker 101
Once we have the chance to review the language in print, we are hopeful to be able to remove our opposition to the bill. Associations are nonprofit corporations. And because of that, associations are governed under a corporate governance structure. They are governed by a volunteer board of directors consisting of association members that own homes in the community. And they hire an administrative managing agent to perform the administrative functions in the community at the direction of the board of directors.
The fiduciaries are the board members. In corporate governance, the board members have a fiduciary duty to the association, the corporation, and to all the members. And the managing agent works at the direction of the fiduciaries who make the decisions, and the managing agent, implements them. The board has a fiduciary duty to make decisions that the board believes are in the best interest of the entire community and of the members as a whole, and the individual members may not agree with them. Imposing a fiduciary duty on a manager, the administrative agent, to each individual member would put managers in the uncomfortable and untenable position of having to second guess the decisions of the board members who are the existing fiduciaries
Speaker 1
Alright. It. Thank you. Okay. Others in opposition to twelve thirty eight, SB twelve thirty eight.
Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Oh, there we go. We require people to be fleet afoot here. So Alright. There we go.
Speaker 56
On behalf of the Committee Association's Institute of California Legislative Action Committee. We look forward to reviewing the amendments and we'll continue to work with the author and the sponsors to address our concerns.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else opposed to SB twelve thirty eight? Seeing no one else coming forward, We'll bring it back to committee for questions and comments.
Seeing no questions or comments, senator Ashby has moved the bill.
Speaker 41
This is file item number 42, SB twelve thirty eight by Senator Wahhab. The motion is to pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Hamburg? Aye. Hamburg, aye.
Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen, Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Caballero, Duraso, Laird, Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern.
Valadares. Wahhab. Aye. Wahhab, aye. Weber Pearson?
Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? 123. There's 6 to zero with members missing.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Mister chair, I want to thank Alison Meredith for her fine work on many bills including SB eight eighty four. SB eight eighty four is a bill that responds to the threats to interfere in this year's election And also responds to evidence of local authorities who are also interfering or potentially interfering in elections. So for example, Sheriff Chad Bianco's attempted seizure of ballots in Riverside and the Trump administration's weaponization of federal law enforcement, and the threat to have ICE in polling places.
I take those threats seriously, and that's why, along with Senator Cervantes, we have proposed safeguards to protect the integrity of California's elections by establishing a 200 foot buffer zone. By the way, to the extent there were amendments suggested, I accept those amendments. That 200 foot buffer zone though, I should add, that has been, that portion of bill has been amended to provide for a 100 foot buffer zone which is existing law. It can be extended to 200 feet upon a vote of the board of supervisors, the county board of supervisors. In other words, in their discretion as to whether to extend that.
And that prohibits electioneering and non time sensitive law enforcement actions such as white collar crimes or other things to intimidate voters. Under existing law, electioneering is prohibited within a 100 feet. It also provides for other procedures to expand the opportunity for those who are eligible to vote to cast their ballots, whether it be additional drop boxes or vote by mail procedures. There is a concern about the United States Postal Service and their manipulation in terms of the election. And this addresses that issue.
With all those items, I urge and I vote. I am my own witness.
Speaker 10
You are performing without a safety net. Anybody here that is, in support of this legislation, come to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 10
And anyone else? Seeing none come forward. Let's hear from the opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition, seeing none, come forward. Anyone else in opposition that would like to state name, organization, and position, seeing none, come forward.
We'll bring it back. There are people on this side of the dais now. Do we have Senator Wahab moves the moves the bills. Anybody have any questions or comments? Senator Reyes.
Speaker 32
Thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I I think that the integrity of our of our elections is so important. I want people to know that that they're safe voting and that their vote is going to count. So thank you so much for doing this.
Speaker 1
I I thank you very much for coming forward to testify. An urgent I vote.
Speaker 10
That's a great close. He must be experienced at this. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 12
This is file item number 44, SB eight eighty four. The motion is due passed to Senate appropriations. Umburg? Aye. Umberg aye.
Nilo? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes? Aye.
Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? Aye. Wahhab?
Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson, I. Weiner? Weiner, I.
Six-zero.
Speaker 1
Alright. Why don't we do this? Let's the consent calendar has been moved. Let's go ahead and while we're awaiting folks, let's go through the roll. So committee assistant Porter, let's start at the top.
Speaker 12
Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes? Reyes aye.
Stern? Veladares? Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab I.
Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson I. Weiner?
Speaker 1
No. No. Let's just let's we'll we'll go through it then when one of the author shows, we'll stop. No. We're just start with file item number two and go through the roll.
We did the consent calendar. Okay.
Speaker 12
This is file item number two, SB eleven twelve. The motion is due passed to Senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo? Nilo, I. Allen? Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, I. Capallero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes?
Reyes, I. Stern? Valadares? Wahab? Wahhab I, Weber Pearson?
Weber Pearson I, Weiner? Weiner I. Seven-zero.
Speaker 12
The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Aye. Nilo aye. Allen? Aye. Ashby aye.
Cavallero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes? Reyes, I, Stern, Valadares, Wahhab, I, Weber Pearson, I, Weiner, I.
Seven to zero.
Speaker 12
The motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo I. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby I.
Capayero? Duraso? Laird? Reyes? Aye.
Reyes I. Stern? Valadares? Wahhab? Wahhab aye.
Weber Pearson? Weiner?
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Laird I, Reyes Aye. Reyes I, Stern, Valadares Aye. Valadares I, Wahhab. Eight to zero.
Speaker 12
The motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Aye. Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye.
Ashby aye. Capayero? Duraso? Laird? Aye.
Laird aye. Reyes? Reyes aye. Stern? Valadares?
Wahhab? Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson, I. Weiner?
Weiner, I. 8 to 0?
Speaker 12
File item number 7, SB eleven sixty four. This needs a motion. The motion is to pass the Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye.
Umberg aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen?
Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Legrasso?
Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Reyes, I.
Stern? Valadares? No. Valadares, no. Wahhab?
Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, I. Weiner?
I. Weiner, I. 7 to 2.
Speaker 1
Yes. But then we but but next is number 9 because the other one's on consent. So if am I marked down as a no on number nine? We haven't.
Speaker 12
File item number 9SB1310. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? No. Umberg, no.
Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby?
No. Ashby, no. Caballero? Gurraso? Laird?
No. Laird, no. Reyes? That's my bad. Stern?
Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Wahab? No.
Wahab, no. Weber Pearson? Weiner? No. Weiner, no.
Two to five.
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass the senate appropriations. Umburg? Aye. Umburg aye. Nilo?
No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Laird, I.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, I. Stern? Valaderas?
No. Valaderas, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, I.
Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, I. Weiner? No.
Weiner, no.
Speaker 12
The motion is due pass the Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Ashby, aye. Caballero?
Duraso? Laird, Laird I, Reyes, Reyes I, Stern, Valadares, Wahhab I, Weber Pearson, Weber Pearson I, Weiner, Weiner, I. Seven to one?
Speaker 12
The motion is due passed to senate appropriations. Umburg? Aye. Umburg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Caballero? Ludraso. Laird. I. Laird I.
Reyes. Reyes I. Stern. Valadares. Wahhab.
Wahhab I. Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson I. Weiner I. Weiner I.
Seven-one?
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass as amended to senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, I.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Aye. Laird, I.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, I. Stern? Valadares?
No. Valadares, no. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, I.
Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner?
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Humberg? Aye. Humberg, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Ashby, aye. Caballero?
Duraso? Laird? Laird I. Reyes? Stern?
Valadares? Valadares I. Wahhab? Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson?
Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. 7 to zero.
Speaker 1
7 to zero. That'll go on call. The next bill am I recorded as a no on the next bill?
Speaker 12
The motion is due pass to appropriations. Umberg? No. Umberg, no. Nilo?
Speaker 8
Nilo, aye. Allen Ashby? Caballero, Gurraso, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valadares, Valadares I, Wahhab, Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson? Weiner?
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass the Senate in appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo?
No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Caballero?
Duraso, Laird Aye. Laird I, Reyes Aye. Reyes I, Stern, Valadares, Wahhab Aye. Wahhab I, Weber Pearson Aye. Weber Pearson, I.
Weiner? Weiner, I. Valadares, no. Ashby, I. Seven-two?
Speaker 12
The motion is due pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? I. Ashby I.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? I. Laird I.
Reyes? Reyes I. Stern? Valadares? I.
Valadares I. Wahhab? Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson, I.
Weiner? Weiner, I. Nine-zero?
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass as amended to senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby I.
Caballero? Legrasso? Laird? Aye. Laird I.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes I. Stern? Valadares?
Aye. Valadares I. Wahhab? Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson?
I. Weber Pearson, I. Weiner? Weiner, I. 9 to 0?
Speaker 12
The motion is due passed as amended to senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Ashby, I. Caballero, Ludraso, Laird?
Aye. Laird, I. Reyes? Reyes, I. Stern, Valadares, Wahhab, Wahhab I.
Weber Pearson? I. Weber Pearson I. Weiner? Weiner I.
80.
Speaker 1
Senator oh, Senator Reyes moved the bill. So okay. Senator Reyes moved the bill. Must be special.
Speaker 12
Motion is due passed to senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? Ashby I. Caballero?
Duraso? Laird? Laird I. Reyes? Reyes I.
Stern? Valadares? Valadares I. Wahhab? Wahhab, I.
Weber Pearson, I. Weber Pearson, I. Weiner, I. 9 to 0.
Speaker 12
File item number 23SB11O3. Chair voting aye. Allen Caballero Duraso Laird Laird I. Stern Valadez? Wahhab?
Wahhab I, Weiner? I. Weiner I. Seven to one.
Speaker 12
to Yeah. That was a test. File item number 25SB1323. This needs a motion.
Speaker 12
The motion is due passed as amended to senate appropriations. Umburg? Aye. Umburg aye. Nilo?
Speaker 12
Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Capayero. Ashby, I.
Capayero. Duraso. Laird. Aye. Laird.
Reyes. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Stern.
Valadares. Wahhab. Wahhab I? Valadares said no.
Speaker 12
Valadares, no. Wahhab I, Weber Pearson I. Weber Pearson I. Weiner Weiner, aye. Seven to two.
Speaker 12
File item number 26, SB1155. Chair voting aye. Allen Caballero Duraso? Laird? Laird aye.
Stern? Wahhab? Wahhab aye. Weiner? Aye.
Weiner aye.
Speaker 12
File item number 27, SB1316, chair voting aye. Allen Caballero Duraso? Laird? Aye. Laird aye.
Stern? Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab aye. Weiner aye.
Speaker 12
File item number 31SB1010. Chair voting aye, Allen, Cavallero? Duraso? Laird? Laird, aye.
Stern? Valadares? Weiner?
Speaker 30
No. Thirty two wasn't thirty two I presented earlier, and there's no motion because you didn't have a quorum.
Speaker 12
The motion motion is due pass as amended to senate appropriations. Umberg?
Speaker 12
Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen?
Ashby? Ashby I. Caballero. Duraso. Laird.
Laird I. Reyes? Reyes I. Stern? Valadares?
Aye. Valadares I. Wahhab? Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson,
Speaker 12
File item number 33, SB twelve eighty three, chair voting, I. Allen Caballero Duraso Laird?
Speaker 12
The motion is to pass as amended to the senate public safety committee. Umburg? Aye. Umberg aye. Nilo?
No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Ashby, aye.
Caballero? Gurraso? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Reyes? Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadares? She
Speaker 12
Valadares, no. Wahhab? Wahhab, I. Weber Pearson? Weber Pearson, I.
Weiner?
Speaker 12
Nilo aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Aye. Laird aye.
Reyes?
Speaker 12
Reyes, I, Stern. Valadares, Valadares, I, Wahhab, I, Weber Pearson, Weiner, Weiner aye. 90?
Speaker 12
File item number 37, SB eight seventy three, chair voting aye. Allen? Caballero? Duraso? Laird?
Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Valadares? No.
Wahhab? Wahhab, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.
7 to 2.
Speaker 12
File item number 38, SB ten thirty two. Chair voting aye. Allen Caballero? Laird? Aye.
Laird, aye. Stern? Valadares? No. Valadares, no.
Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Weiner?
Speaker 12
File item number 42, SB 1238. Chair voting aye. Allen Caballero Duraso Laird? Aye. Laird aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Valadares? Weiner.
Aye. Weiner aye. 9 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 43, SB898. Chair not yet having voted. Hamburg? Aye. Hamburg, aye.
Nilo? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Caballero? Duraso? Laird? Aye. Laird aye.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Stern? Aye.
Stern aye. Valadares? Weiner. Aye. Weiner aye.
Eight to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 44, SB884. Chair voting aye. Nilo? Allen Caballero? Duraso Laird?
Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye.
Valadares?
Speaker 2
In the absence of of authors, could you do me the courtesy of lifting the call on two and three and consent so I'm totally added here?
Speaker 1
Sure. In a minute, we're gonna in the army, we'd have everybody do push ups for ten minutes. So alright. That's one
Speaker 1
Ten minutes. Yeah. So fifty fifty fifty push ups. Alright. Go ahead.
If you would, let's let's as senator Laird has requested, let's accede to his request.
Speaker 12
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye, Allen Caballero Duraso Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Aye.
Stern, aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. 10 to zero.
Speaker 12
Speaker File item number two, chair voting, I. Allen Caballero Duraso? Laird?
Speaker 12
Laird, I. Stern? File item number two, SB eleven twelve. I. Stern, I.
Valadares? I. Valadares, I.
Speaker 12
File item number three, SB1142, chair voting, I. Allen Caballero Duraso. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadares?
Speaker 1
9 to 0. Alright. So we're going to take a short break. Here we go. Oh, senator Allen is here.
Oh, just yeah. He swoops in. Senator Allen, file number 29, s B1244.
Speaker 16
Presentation. Two bills in in housing. And that's where Senator Caballero is, by the way. Okay. Alright.
SB twelve forty four. So this bill addresses a a unique and but but a really kind of vexing problem. This bill requires health insurance brokers, agents, advisers, and related professionals that advise local public agencies on employee health care to disclose compensation that they receive for selling those benefits and plans before entering or renewing a services contract with that agency. So under current federal law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 requires brokers and related professionals to disclose their compensation to private employers with plans covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, upon request. This requirement does not extend to public agencies because public sector plans are exempt from ERISA.
Speaker 94
Existing California law requires health plans and insurers to annually disclose broker compensation to public agency governing boards, but this disclosure has some very significant gaps. It only captures what the health plan or insurer pays directly to the broker, missing compensation from third party sources including supplemental insurance, point solution vendors, pharmacy benefit managers, and other entities. So this bill closes gaps in existing law by doing the following: it ensures that public agencies benefit from disclosures already available to private employers it requires brokers, agents, related professionals to proactively disclose their compensation to public agencies so that it helps guide decisions before and not after they're made And it captures more forms of compensation than both state law and federal law currently cover. We know that local public agencies spend literally billions of dollars around our state annually on employee health benefits. They rely on insurance brokers and agents and related professionals to recommend insurance carriers, negotiate rates, select vendors, etc.
Speaker 16
But these professionals often receive compensation from insurers and third parties that public agencies never see. For example, commissions can be as high as 50% of the premium for some supplemental products, which is built into the premiums that the employers and employees pay. Base commissions can be between three to 6% of the total premium for an entire health insurance plan. In addition, there there we've seen evidence that they can be treated to trips and other experiences going to the Super Bowl, luxury resort that employers are completely unaware of. Aside from it from potentially artificially inflating health care costs, these hidden compensation arrangements can create misaligned incentives steering the agencies toward more expensive vendors in a way that the agencies are totally unaware of.
Unlike private employers, public agencies are charged with overseeing taxpayer dollars and ensuring that they're spent appropriately. So that, you know, we know that they're not they're not flushed with cash, especially with all the all the challenges we've had budgetarily. You know, these decisions, you know, made by public agencies are costs ultimately borne by employees and by the public. So this bill gives public agencies more tools and information to guide their decision making without capping compensation or barring contractual agreements. It doesn't say that the that the, the school district can't continue to contract with a particular broker or a particular insurance plan.
It just provides more transparency. And so with me to testify today in support of this bill, we have Darryl Hemenway on behalf the California Teachers Association and Chris Calabresi, who's superintendent of schools for Benicia Unified School District. I also have Matt Bittner with the Volition Group who's here to, to answer technical questions.
Speaker 90
Good evening, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in support of SB twelve forty four. My name is Daryl Hemenway, I work for the California Teachers Association as a bargaining specialist. I care deeply about educational employees getting the best health and welfare benefits possible for the best cost. And I care deeply about ensuring that our school districts are fiscally sound and able to make the best decisions possible regarding the expenditure of public funds.
Our school districts and other public agencies face a health insurance system in which they have fewer protections than the private sector, namely in the area of broker compensation disclosure. Brokers, consultants, and other agents who essentially sell school districts and other public agencies health and welfare benefits plans are able to receive undisclosed compensation that consistently results in an unconscionable markup to already expensive premiums and misaligned incentives. Industry standard, we may receive, and we are not a fiduciary, are stock phrases they include in their contracts with school districts. Retention bonuses and data sharing payments are terms they do not include. But those dollars still get priced into premiums, which end up costing the public employer, worker, and taxpayers.
Speaker 36
Worse yet, we have no way of knowing exactly how much is being skimmed out of the billions of health care premium dollars charged to our hardworking classified workers and certificated educators. And because numerous types of indirect compensation are not required to be disclosed, we can't know exactly how much they are skimming out of every premium dollar our educators pay. We know that in two large joint labor management health trusts for K-fourteen, about 98 to 98.5¢ of every premium dollar goes to care. For direct with broker programs, industry patterns suggest this number to be significantly lower as additional indirect compensation to those external agents is undisclosed. SB twelve forty four would make them proactively disclose any and all compensation they receive pursuant to a contract with a school district or other local public agency.
Speaker 90
It would allow our unions and our districts to work together to get the best health and welfare benefits for the best cost. It would help our public agencies to be better stewards of the public's money. For these reasons, I respectfully request your yes vote on SB twelve forty four.
Speaker 102
Good evening, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of SB twelve forty four. My name is Chris Calabresi, and I'm the superintendent of the Benicia School District. Before that, was a school leader in the Brentwood Union School District, and what I learned there is exactly why this bill matters. Health care is the second largest expense in our district's budget, right behind salaries.
Every dollar spent on benefits is a dollar not spent in the classroom, so boards have an obligation to know exactly what they're paying for and who's being paid. In Brentwood, like in most districts, we paid our broker directly, and part of the costs were subsidized by insurance carrier commissions and the insurance program we bought our coverage through. On paper, that sounds like a great deal. In practice, that meant our broker was being paid by the same companies whose products they were supposed to be evaluating on our behalf. Our health care costs kept skyrocketing.
And when it came to out to bid, somehow there was never any good alternatives. The answer was always stay where you are, and in our district, it took years to understand the underlying dynamic. Our brokers stood to lose significant revenue if we moved our business away from an entity that was also paying them. Every financial incentive kept us where we were. That's the gap that SB twelve forty four closes.
Speaker 27
It simply says, if you're advising a public agency spending tax taxpayer dollars on employee health care, we get to see who's paying you and how much. The goal is to have the visibility into potential conflicts of interest and ensure the compensation and fees paid to brokers and consultants are reasonable given the services they provide. Federal disclosure rules only cover private employers. Public agencies aren't covered. So the school district gets less transparency than a private company down the street, even though we're spending public money.
Speaker 102
SB twelve forty four makes sure public agencies see the compensation streams we actually deal with, compensation that is under increasing scrutiny even in the private sector. Our teachers, classified staff, and students deserve better. I urge you your yay vote.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Others in the room in support of the bill, come to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 20
Good evening. Brian Mayer Montes with the California Teachers Association in support, also speaking on behalf of California School Employees Association and the California Federation of Labor Unions in support as well.
Speaker 51
Good evening. Katie Van Dyne with Health Access California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 59
Good evening, chair and members. Faith Borges on behalf of California agents and health insurance professionals, the largest trade organization of health insurance agents in the state. We are opposed to, Senate Bill twelve forty four, but are hopeful amendments based on productive conversations with the author's office and with the supporters. Our members serve as advocates for their clients, including public agencies and their employees, helping them navigate complex options, control costs where possible, and resolve utilization issues when they arise. First, I want to acknowledge and appreciate Senator Allen's commitment to transparency.
Speaker 19
Consumers absolutely deserve to understand how their health care dollars are being spent, and our members support clear, meaningful disclosure. Agents and brokers do provide extensive compensation disclosure in the commercial market under federal law, as has been stated. Our operations are designed to comply with those data reporting requirements, and our members would welcome extending those same standards to government plans. True parity aligned with ERISA and existing federal requirements is something that we fully support. However, Senate Bill twelve forty four, as drafted, places a burden on expanded disclosure on agents and brokers even though much of the required data is held by carriers and vendors, not by agents.
Speaker 59
Transparency laws should be accurate, actionable, and aligned with where costs are actually generated. As currently drafted, Senate Bill twelve forty four creates a system without control over where those without control over the data are held responsible for reporting it. That misalignment does not improve transparency. It risks confusion, incomplete information, guesswork, legal risk, and potentially reduces access to experienced advisors, especially for smaller public agencies. We believe there is a path forward, one that advances transparency and protects consumers and maintains access to knowledgeable community based representatives.
We appreciate the senator, and the proponents for their openness and engagement throughout this ongoing review process, and we look forward to continuing that work. We thank you to the committee for your time and consideration. Days like this give me an appreciation for the work you do away from your families, so thank you for your time.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Others, others here that are opposed, to the bill? Seeing none come forward, we'll bring it back, to this side of the dais. Questions or comments? Senator Asprey moves the bill.
Questions or comments? Well, I do. I I understand and I agree with what you're trying to do. I think it goes a little bit too far. But when I was back in the private sector, I had responsibility for coverage of this sort for our company.
And brokers shopped plans, but I shopped brokers.
Speaker 10
I didn't really care how much the broker made. I just cared that I was getting the best deal, and that's why I would shop brokers. And, again, the brokers, they would shop plans. They'd get find the best plan. And then with multiple brokers, I'd figure out what was my best deal.
So perhaps the, proponents might wanna address that issue or the author.
Speaker 16
Bizarrely, you had more rights in some respects as a private employer than the public entities because they're not covered by ERISA because the public entities are not covered by ERISA. And there's there's a slew of disclosure requirements that ERISA requires for private, you know, for for for for private clients. But
Speaker 90
I I would just add that these disclosure requirements would actually make that competition amongst brokers more transparent and would allow public agencies to engage in a truly deep process of vetting how much they're spending on the broker part of the health benefits and allow them to make better decisions.
Speaker 10
I understand that, but are you nothing prevents you from shopping brokers.
Speaker 90
Nothing prevents us from shopping brokers, but the the lack of this law prevents brokers from being transparent about how much money they are receiving and how much of that is getting folded into premiums that are being charged to employers and to employees.
Speaker 10
Except for competition. So at any rate, I understand. That's the concern I have. I the people who still can shop brokers, I realize there's a difference. I think
Speaker 16
you yeah. But but you just have more you'll have more information to do the shopping.
Speaker 10
When did this bill? Again, when I was doing this, I didn't really care what the broker made. I cared that I was getting the lowest possible deal that I could get given what was offered in the marketplace.
Speaker 16
Yeah. I I understand. I think what ends up happening is you have, you know, business officers within school districts, for example, that are totally understaffed and under resourced. They're trying to run, you know, complex school district budgets, and they hire a broker who, know, who who ought to have more of a fiduciary duty, quite frankly, to help guide them through this this this whole story. And as was mentioned by the superintendent, unfortunately, they're not always given the full picture, and they're trusting these people to help guide them.
There's really good ethical people in this profession, and yet there's a whole incentive structure that is built around keeping these brokers happy and keeping them encouraging the school districts to keep the plans as is. And we've come up with all sorts of information about trips and and big compensation packages and all that kind of thing. So we're just trying to address a real problem that we know that exists within our public entities where, you know, where where there isn't the same kind of profit motive and and, you know, the same sort of incentive that you felt, you know, there should be. Right? We all know, but we all know that these are entities that are are are complicated to run.
You know, we wanna make sure that that our public entities that we entrust with with all these incredibly important public services that are also, you know, with limited public resources that just have real access to information associated with this this phenomenon, this industry that exists to help people connect with insurance. You know, I wish that every school district had someone like you
Speaker 16
Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, like, you know, engaging but but but it's I think, you know, having served on the school board, I it is hard to describe how overwhelmed, so many of these folks are just trying to run run the operations of a of you know, with with with with nothing close to the kind of staffing that they really need. And so, you know, I I say that was incredible respect and and love for these folks that are working in these administrations, but that's the reality on the ground in in in in most of our school districts given given the way the compensation system and the and the funding works.
Speaker 10
Perhaps, a little more attention to the shopping would justify maybe a little more staff. I was running two dealerships, and all office managers of every dealership was reporting to me, and I still had these non op I'm not complaining about what I did. I'm just saying I had a lot to do too. But it's amazing what shopping can get you. At any rate, I appreciate the answer.
Speaker 16
Yeah. It's hard to know how to shop properly if you don't have all the transparency, but I I hear you.
Speaker 10
So do we have a motion for the bill? Senator Raspy moves. Let's call the roll. Sure.
Speaker 10
Yeah. I keep forgetting that. Yeah. That's why he's the chair and I'm the chair. I'm the part time chair.
Senator Allen, you may close. I respect for Ashwin Iva. Thank you. Call
Speaker 12
File item number 29SB1244. The motion is to pass the senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye.
Nilo? Allen? Aye. Allen, I. Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, I. Caballero? Caballero, I. Duraso?
Aye. Duraso, I. Laird? Aye. Laird, Aye.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern, Valadares? Aye.
Wahab, Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. Weber Weber
Speaker 45
Thank you very much, mister chair, for the opportunity to present s b nine forty two, a bill that would create state oversight of for profit private detention facilities to meet the same standards of care and confinement to protect the health, safety, and humanity of individuals held in non criminal confinement facilities. The purpose of for profit private detention centers in California is to involuntarily detain immigrants pending a civil immigration adjudication that could lead to their exclusion from the state or deportation from the country. As part of their contracts with the federal government, private detention center operators agree to adhere to a minimum set of standards created by ICE. These standards include provisions that ensure safe and adequate food service, medical care, personal hygiene, religious practices, sleeping conditions, and environmental health and safety. Recent reports from multiple government oversight bodies, like the US Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General, the Federal Government Accountability Office, and our own California Department of Justice, have repeatedly identified unsafe conditions, inadequate food supplies, and poor or nonexistent medical care in these for profit private detention facilities.
Speaker 17
California routinely regulates other civil confinement facilities to ensure that while they are providing health related and custodial services, they are also protecting the health and safety of the people who have been involuntarily confined to their facilities. The vast majority of these civil confinement facilities are privately owned and operated, and there is no question that the state has a legal obligation to ensure the protection and well-being of the people who have been involuntarily confined. So why are those who are detained in these private for profit detention centers not entitled to the same health and safety protections afforded to every other detained person in California? The answer is they are, they should be, and they are. It is our obligation to ensure those protections are enforced.
Speaker 45
SB nine forty two makes it clear that no private company who chooses to operate a civil confinement facility in California should be exempt from the same basic public safeguards that apply everywhere else. Before I introduce my witnesses, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the California Hospital Association for their collaboration and engagement on this bill, and I'm committed to finding solutions to the issues that they've raised in the past and look forward to continue working with them. With me to testify in support of the bill is Hamid Yazdan Pana, co executive director of immigrant defense advocates.
Speaker 87
Yeah. Good evening, chair and members. It's been a long day. I'll keep it short. California should pass SB nine forty two because no one in civil immigration detention should have to rely on the goodwill of private corporations for basic safety, medical care and dignity.
SB nine forty two would require privately operated facilities in California to meet minimum standards of care. Those standards can mean the difference between safety and serious harm. While immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, the day to day operations of these facilities have been delegated to private contractors. Those contractors are already required to follow health and safety requirements, state law, and local public health guidance. But too often, they fail.
Speaker 62
The problem is very clear. Private detention operators are carrying out a government function without the transparency, oversight, and accountability we expect when human lives are in their custody. A recent Disability Rights California report on the California City ICE Processing Center found that detained people were denied critical medical and mental health care while also being forced to live in dirty and unsafe conditions. People were housed in units that were unsuitable for living, some without working sinks or toilets. Flooding water left pouring from the walls into housing areas.
Speaker 87
Investigators also documented heavy dust buildup in vents, trash, bird feces in recreation yards, and even reports of black mold in water jugs. These are not minor maintenance problems. They are threats to health, dignity, and safety. SB nine forty two provides a simple answer. When private contractors ignore basic standards of care, there must be accountability.
I urge an I vote for SB nine forty two.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Others in support, SB nine forty two, please come forward. If you're in support of SB nine forty two.
Speaker 75
Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California in strong support. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else? If you're opposed to SB nine forty two, now is your time. Going once, going twice. Alright.
Coming back to committee. Questions by committee members.
Speaker 1
Senator Stern has moved the bill. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no questions or comments, senator Caballero, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Chief counsel Estrada, please call the roll.
Speaker 41
This is file item number 34, s v nine forty two by senator Caballero. The motion is to be passed to senate appropriations. Committee, umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Oh, okay.
Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero, aye. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I. Laird?
Aye. Laird, I. Reyes? No. I'll go back through.
Stern? Aye. Stern, I. Valadares? Aye.
Valadares, I. Wahhab? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.
Weiner?
Speaker 1
Eleven to 0 on call. Alright. We're gonna take another short break here. Yes. Sure.
The last bill, would you
Speaker 41
Okay. This is file item number 34SB942. Chair voting aye. Alan Weiner? Aye.
Weiner aye. Still one member missing? 12 to zero. One up. Alan I, 189101112.
130. 130.
Speaker 41
Okay. Great. Ready? No. Do you do you want me to open back up the Caballero
Speaker 10
Hold on. Hold on. No. I I thought that senator Remberg said we were gonna go through the votes again, but I but I think somebody said we have to go through Caballero's.
Speaker 41
the consent calendar, Alan? Aye. Alan, I. Caballero? On the consent calendar, Caballero?
Okay. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I. So you have one member missing, twelve-zero.
Back on call.
Speaker 41
File item number two. This is senator Archuleta's SB eleven twelve, with the chair voting aye, Allen. Allen, I. Caballero? Duraso?
Aye. Duraso, I. You have one member missing, twelve-zero. One member missing, twelve-zero.
Speaker 41
File item number three, SB eleven forty two by Senator Becker. The motion is I'm the motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Allen? Aye. Chair voted aye also.
Allen? Okay. Aye. Caviero? Duraso?
Speaker 41
This is 1142. Yes, aye. Duraso? Aye. Valadares?
Not voting. Okay. You have one member missing from this vote. 11 to zero.
Speaker 3
It's us fighting with each other. It's okay. Not have to do that. It's one family.
Speaker 12
File item number four, SB989. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I. Stern? Aye.
Aye. Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Over Pearson?
11 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number five, SB1016. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
Duraso? Aye. Duraso I. Stern? Aye.
Stern I. Weber Pearson? 11 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 6, SB1344. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
Duraso? Aye. Duraso I. Stern? Stern I.
Valadares?
Speaker 12
File item number seven, SB1164. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I. Stern? Stern, I.
10 to two.
Speaker 12
File item number nine, SB1310. Chair voting no. Allen? Allen, no. Caballero?
Duraso? No. Duraso, no. Reyes? Stern?
No. Stern, no. Weber Pearson? Two twenty
Speaker 12
File item number 10, SB1246. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
I. Duraso. Caballero I. Duraso. I.
Duraso I. Stern. Nine to three. Everyone's voted.
Speaker 10
That bill's on the call? Wait. We have everybody vote on that one? That bill, and again, the
Speaker 12
File item number 11, SB fourteen twenty five. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Capayero?
Aye. Capayero aye. Duraso? Aye. Duraso aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Beladeres? 11 to one.
Speaker 12
File item number 12, SB nine ninety eight, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero I. Duraso I. Stern? Aye. Stern, Aye.
Valadares? 11 to one. Everyone
Speaker 12
File item number 14, SB nine fifteen, chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, I. Duraso? Duraso, aye. Stern?
Aye. Stern, aye. Eleven-two. That bills out. File item number 15, SB ten seventy one, chair voting aye.
Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Reyes? Stern?
Stern, aye. Weber Pearson? 11 to zero.
Speaker 10
So we had one person not voting who is not here. So that bill I think that bill is still on call. You called senator Reyes, and she didn't vote. Correct. She's not here.
So Yeah. Put that on call.
Speaker 12
File item number 16SB13O8. Chair voting no. Allen I. Caballero. Duraso.
Stern Weber Pearson.
Speaker 10
That that bill failed passage, and, senator Ochoa Bogh requests reconsider reconsideration. Reconsideration granted.
Speaker 12
File item number 18, SB eight seventy six. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Capayero?
Speaker 12
File item number 18, SB eight seventy six. Caballero I. Duraso? Yes. Duraso I.
Stern Stern I. 11 to two.
Speaker 12
File item number 19, SB eleven nineteen. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
19? Yes. Aye. Caballero I. Duraso?
Aye. Duraso I. Stern? Stern I.
Speaker 12
File item number 20, SB 12 47. Chair voting, I. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
I. Caballero, I. Duraso? Duraso, aye. Stern?
Stern, aye. 13 to zero.
Speaker 12
Item number 21, SB957. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I.
Stern? Stern, aye. Valadez? File item number 21, SB 957. 12 to zero.
That bill is out. File item number 22, SB 995. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I.
Caballero? Aye. Caballero I. Duraso? Duraso I.
Stern? 12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 23, SB eleven oh three, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero aye. Duraso? Aye. Duraso aye. Stern?
Stern aye. Valadares? 11 to one. That bill is out. File item number 25, SB1323, chair voting aye.
Allen? Allen I. Caballero? Aye. Caballero I.
Duraso? Aye. Duraso I. Stern? Aye.
Stern, Aye. Eleven-two.
Speaker 12
File item number 26, SB1155. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso I.
Stern? 10 to two.
Speaker 12
File item number 27, SB thirteen sixteen. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I.
Stern? Aye. Stern, 13 to zero. That bill's out. File item number 30 one, SB ten ten.
Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero, aye. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Stern?
Aye. Stern, aye. Valadares? Valadares, no. 11 to two?
Speaker 12
File item number 30 two, SB ten fifty. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso I.
Stern? Aye. Stern I. 13 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 33, SB1283, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso aye. Stern?
Aye. Stern aye. Valadares? 12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 35, SB twelve forty three. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, aye. Turaso? Aye. Turaso, aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 11 to two. That bill is out.
File item number 36, SB ten sixty six, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero, I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso aye. Stern?
Aye. Stern aye. 13 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 30 seven, SB eight seventy three. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I.
Stern? Aye. Stern, I. 11 to two. That bill's out.
File item number 38, SB ten thirty two. Chair voting, aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero I. Stern? Aye. Stern I.
Eleven-two.
Speaker 12
File item number 41, SB 1141, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero? Aye.
Caballero, I. Duraso? Duraso, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye.
13 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 42, SB twelve thirty eight. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, I.
Valadares? 12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 43, SB eight ninety eight, chair voting aye. Nilo? Allen? Allen, I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye.
Valadez? 11 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number 44, SB eight eighty four, chair voting aye. Nilo? Allen? Allen I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero aye. Duraso? Aye. Duraso aye.
Valadares? 11 to zero.
Speaker 12
On the consent calendar, Caballero. I'm sorry? Consent. I. Uh-huh.
Caballero, I. 13 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number two, SB eleven twelve. Chair voting aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
13 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number three, SB eleven forty two, chair voting aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Valadares? 12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number four, SB nine eighty nine. Chair voting aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Weber Pearson. 12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number five, SB ten sixteen, chair voting aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Weber Pearson?
12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number six, SB thirteen forty four, chair voting aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Valadares?
12 to zero.
Speaker 12
File item number seven, SB1164, chair voting aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. 11 to two.
Speaker 12
File item number nine, SB thirteen ten, chair voting no. Caballero? No. Caballero, no. Reyes?
Weber Pearson.
Speaker 10
Senator Choi, requests reconsideration. Reconsideration granted without objection.
Speaker 12
File item number 15, SB ten seventy one, chair voting aye, Reyes Weber Pearson. 11 to zero.
Speaker 1
Alright. We didn't actually recess, but we're back on the record. So there's only one item that remains, and that's file item number one, s b 982. As you'll recall, that bill failed but was granted reconsideration. In a moment, it's gonna be taken back up for reconsideration.
But before we take it up for reconsideration, I need to basically announce the rules of the procedure for which we're gonna take this up for reconsideration. When it's taken up for reconsideration, there may be no testimony, there may be no witnesses, and there'll be no commentary or questions. I I'm going to provide a statement, but that will be the only record in terms of the bill and reconsideration. But before we do so, I I wanna make some preliminary remarks. Preliminarily, we know certain things here in California.
One, we know that refineries are leaving the state. We know that refineries are closing down. Refineries close down and refineries leave the state, that means that very, very good jobs, high paying jobs, important jobs, important jobs to Californians and their families are leaving the state or no longer exist. We also know that climate change is real. We know that climate change is real and contributes to certain natural phenomenon.
We know that we are still dependent upon fossil fuel, and we know that we need fossil fuel to survive, at least for the foreseeable future. One of the things that we wanna do, that at least I wanna do, is I want to incentivize the creation of additional jobs here in California. I wanna incentivize the investment in infrastructure that helps to reduce emissions. And we've said that for a while, that we want to create a structure that actually reduces emissions, but also increases high paying jobs here in California. In order to incentivize investment, and this would be billions and billions of dollars of investment, In order to incentivize investments in connection with, s b nine eighty two, senator Weiner has proposed certain amendments that I'll review here in just a moment.
And those amendments, senator Weiner has proposed and has agreed to take in the very next committee. Those amendments incentivize, as I man mentioned a moment ago, multibillion dollar investments in a number of different technologies. And so the proposal by senator Weiner and the commitment by senator Weiner is as follows in terms of amending s b nine eighty two. Number one, there would be the elimination of retroactive liability. If you recall, the original bill had retroactive liability stretching back to 2016.
That is eliminated. Liability would be incurred after 01/01/2032. In order again to incentivize investment, billions of dollars investment, the creation of jobs, the bill also allows the covered entities, meaning the covered entities are the fossil fuel producers, manufacturers, refiners, etcetera, to demonstrate emissions reductions, including but not limited to solar, wind, geothermal, and greenhouse gas sequestration in order to decrease their proportional share of liability by twice the amount invested in those demonstrated emissions reductions. Emissions reduction reductions starting in January 2027. 01/01/2027 would count for this reduction.
I'll give an example. So if there's a billion dollars, realistic figure, there's a billion dollars that's invested in, for example, greenhouse gas sequestration, and after 2032, there is a qualifying natural disaster and then there's a an assessment that whatever that assessment would be, that the entity being assessed would get two times that credit. So let's say they've invested a billion dollars, they would get $2,000,000,000 worth of credit, which would suffice as a significant, I think incredibly significant investment in California's infrastructure, clean energy, and jobs. With that, I think that that summarizes the the proposed amendment and the commitment by senator Weiner. So one second.
For avoidance of doubt, the commitment by senator Weiner is to take the amendments in the insurance committee. No. No. No. Okay.
Let me let me rephrase. Let me make sure we get this correct. In in the next committee where you can amend the bill, Senator, which
Speaker 1
Got it. Okay. So we'll we'll take the amendment in the next committee in which the bill can be amended. Okay. So having said that, committee assistant Porter.
Needs to be a motion. Okay? Senator Weber Pearson has moved the bill. If you would call the roll, please.
Speaker 12
File item number one, SB nine eighty two. The motion is to pass to the Senate Insurance Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, I. Caballero?
Caballero, I. Duraso? Laird? Laird I. Reyes?
Reyes I. Stern? Stern, aye. Valadares? Valadares, no.
Wahab? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner?
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.