GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY, PRIVACY AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE
HEARING FOR THIS HEARING, AND
UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE THE
COMMITTEE WILL BE PERMITTING IN
PERSON TESTIMONY ONLY. WE HAVE
TWO BILLS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TODAY, MAYBE 984 FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON AND A B
27 52 FROM DOCTOR WOULD THANK
YOU AND YOU ADVANCE FOR
COOPERATION, AND WE CAN NOW TURN
TO THE ITEMS BEFORE US TODAY AND
WE WILL BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
I SEE. WE HAVE ONE OF OUR
AUTHORS HERE. DOCTOR WOULD
PLEASE JOIN US. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT A B 27 52. THIS BILL WAS
AMENDED IN THE SENATE AND NOW
SIMPLY CLARIFIES THE CPUC S
AUTHORITIES COLLECT LOCATION
DATA FOR THE PURPOSES OF
BROADBAND MAPPING. LAST YEAR,
THE GOVERNOR SIGNED ANOTHER BILL
OF MINE THAT UPDATED THE STATES
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE MAPS TO
ACCURATELY CAPTURE THE REALITIES
OF BROADBAND SERVICE, ADDING
MORE GRANULAR, GRANULAR LEVEL
MAYBE 27 52 BUILDS ON THAT WORK
AND FURTHERS THE MISSION TO
CREATE A BETTER AND MORE
MEANINGFUL BET BROADBAND DATA
REPORTING PROCESS. MAYBE 27 52
CLARIFIES THAT THE C P. U. C S
CURRENT AUTHORITY TO COLLECT
LOCATION DATA REGARDING
BROADCAST BANNED ACCESS ALSO
INCLUDES ADDRESSES. ABSENT THIS
MORE GRANULAR DATA MAPS WILL
CONTINUE TO MISREPRESENT AND
EXAGGERATE BASIC BROADBAND
ACCESS STATEWIDE, ESPECIALLY IN
RURAL LOW INCOME AND TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES. IT MAKES CLEAR THAT
INDIVIDUAL DATA REPORTED TO THE
CPUC WILL NOT BE MADE PUBLIC
ONLY AGGREGATED AND VISUALIZED
AT THE CENSUS BLOCK LEVEL.
ALTHOUGH A FEW PROVIDERS REMAIN
ACTIVELY OPPOSED A MAJORITY OF
THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
IN CALIFORNIA ARE NEUTRAL ON
THIS BILL, AND IN FACT, HAVE
ALREADY PROVIDED THIS DATA TO
THE C P U. C. IT'S REALLY THAT
SIMPLE AND OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
OF PROVIDERS HAVE COMPLIED AND
PROVIDED THAT CPUC WITH THE
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF GRANULAR
DATA AND SOME THAT UNFORTUNATELY
SERVED. THE LARGEST NUMBER OF
CUSTOMERS ARE NOT PROVIDING THIS
DATA FIGHTING AN ISSUE THAT WE
BELIEVE SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SETTLED. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT SOME OF THE COMPANIES IN
COMPLIANCE ARE ACTUALLY MEMBERS
OF CCT, A THE ONLY ORGANIZATION
OPPOSING MY BILL. IT SEEMS EVEN
CTC CT OAN MEMBERSHIP DOESN'T
BUY THE ARGUMENT WE ARE MAKING
WE'VE CONSULTED THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION AND THE YOU
WHO ARE BOTH AGREED THERE IS NO
BASIS FOR PRIVACY CONCERNS
REGARDING THIS BILL. ALL
INDIVIDUAL DATA SUBMITTED TO THE
CPUC WOULD BE PROTECTED BY
EXTENSIVE STATE AND FEDERAL CODE
NAME, NAMELY THE INFORMATION
PRACTICES ACT. I'M FIGHTING FOR
THIS DATA BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIAL
TO INFORM BROADBAND POLICY
DECISIONS. WITHOUT IT. THE LARGE
PROVIDERS WILL CONTINUE TO
EXAGGERATE SERVICE TERRITORY ON
R AND R MAPS WILL FAIL TO
QUANTIFY THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE THAT WE KNOW IS
UNFAIRLY HOLDING BACK
CALIFORNIANS. WE NEED A B 27 52
TO IDENTIFY WORK CONNECTIONS ARE
WHERE THEY ARE NOT, AND SO WE
CAN GET PEOPLE TO SERVICE THEY
NEED AND DESERVE. THE STATUS QUO
IS UNACCEPTABLE. RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. AND I DO HAVE
A WITNESS HERE WITH ME. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
REPRESENTING COMMON SENSE NEXT.
10, CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR DIGITAL
EQUITY AND MANY MORE
STAKEHOLDERS IN SUPPORT OF 27
52. ACROSS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THERE IS A PATCHWORK
OF BROADBAND ADOPTION RATES,
INTERNET SPEEDS, PRICING AND
TECHNOLOGIES USED TO DELIVER
INTERNET SERVICE. THESE
VARIATIONS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE THAT WE ARE
ALL AWARE OF, AND THIS BILL
ADDRESSES THE DEMONSTRATED NEED
THE MAJOR ISPS. WE HAVE TRUSTED
TO SUPPORT AND PROVIDE BROADBAND
TO OUR COMMUNITIES. A B 27 52
WOULD EMPOWER THE CPUC TO
COLLECT INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
DATA. UM AT THE ADDRESS LEVEL
MORE GRANULAR. DATA LIKE THIS
WILL ENSURE STATE AGENCIES AND
CALIFORNIANS HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF CONNECTIVITY.
AND COULD HIGHLIGHT POTENTIAL
GAPS IN HOUSEHOLD INTERNET
SERVICE FOR SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES
, THUS CLOSING THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE IN RESULTING IN GREATER
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
FROM SPS. AH FROM A PRIVACY
PERSPECTIVE THAT HAS ALREADY
MENTIONED THE STATE IS
CONSIDERED OPERATIONAL DATA, AND
AT MOST, IT MIGHT BE DEEMED
DIRECTORY INFORMATION. UM THIS
DATA IS PROTECTED AND THERE IS
NO VIOLATION OF PRIVACY WITH THE
SERVICEABLE FABRIC NOR THE HUMAN
, EXPERIENTIAL FABRIC OF
AFFORDABILITY, QUALITY AND
USAGE. SO AS MANY OF YOU KNOW,
THIS PRIVACY PERSPECTIVE IS A
CLOAK FOR AN ANTI COMPETITIVE
POSTURE THAT HINDERS INVESTING
IN CONNECTIVITY THAT NEED
BROADBAND, THE MOST. THE
CALIFORNIA LINES FOR DIGITAL
EQUITY AND THE MANY
ORGANIZATIONS I LISTED ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT AND AFFORDABLE
INTERNET SERVICES AND STRONGLY
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
WITH THAT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO
TAKE A MOMENT TO ESTABLISH
QUORUM. MADAM SECRETARY.
GABRIEL. KYLIE. BAUER-KAHAN
BENNETT. BERMAN. CUNNINGHAM.
THONG. IRWIN VALID AIRES WICKS
WILSON. THE BILL. WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND WITH THAT. DO
WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
IN THE ROOM IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? REMEMBERS CATALINA SANCHEZ
WITH CORBYN AND KAISER ON BEHALF
OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. JOSHUA DEBATE ON
BEHALF OF THE UTILITY REFORM
NETWORK AND STRONG SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH
THAT WE WILL TURN TO OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. GOOD EVENING, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS BERNIE ROSCOE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CABLE AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION.
SO WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
MEASURE. CURRENTLY AS WRITTEN
ARE WE OPPOSED TO THE PRACTICE?
ABSOLUTELY NOT, UH, EVERYONE AT
THIS POINT IS FOCUSED ON
DEVELOPING INTERACTIVE BROADBAND
MAPS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
DOING IT. 41 FROM LAST YEAR IS A
DUPLICATIVE AND WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS DOING ALREADY, BUT
THAT'S FINE. CALIFORNIA WANTS TO
DO IT AT HOME. WE GOT A LOT OF
MONEY TO SPEND WILL MAKE TWO
MAPS. SO WE HAVE FCC MAP WHICH
WILL DETERMINE HOW BROADBAND
FUNDS ARE DEPLOYED, AND THEN WE
WILL HAVE CALIFORNIA'S MAP. SO
WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUTTHIS BILL? THE CONCERN
ABOUT THE BILL IS IT'S WRITTEN.
SO, UM THERE'S SO MUCH AMBIGUITY
TO IT THAT IT WILL GIVE THE PUC
BROAD AUTHORITY TO GO BEYOND
WHAT IT NEEDS TO COLLECT TO
CREATE AN INTERACTIVE BROADBAND
MAP. AH YOU KNOW, I COULD GO
INTO A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT
HOPEFULLY I KNOW EVERYONE'S BUSY
, BUT THEY BROUGHT THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS IS THE BEST ANALYSIS OF
THE PRIVACY ISSUES FOR THE CABLE
INDUSTRY. THAT HAS EVER BEEN
WRITTEN SO EVEN MATTER WHAT
HAPPENS TODAY? TAKE A COPY OF
THIS ANALYSIS AND READ IT ON
YOUR BREAK BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN
A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING FROM THE
LEGISLATURE ABOUT HOW PRIVACY
WORKS FOR CABLE OPERATORS VERSUS
TELE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION. THE AUTHOR HAS SAID
THAT OTHER ISPS HAVE PROVIDED
BROADBAND DATA THAT'S REQUESTED
AT THE ADDRESS LEVEL. THOSE ARE
TELEPHONE CORPORATIONS ARE THOSE
ARE ENTITIES THAT ARE NOT CABLE
OPERATORS. I'M INTERESTED TO
HEAR THAT WE HAD ONE MEMBER WHO
ALLEGEDLY TURNED IN THIS
INFORMATION TO THE PUC. I DON'T
KNOW WHO THAT IS. SO I'M GOING
TO BE ANXIOUS TO HEAR WHO IN MY
MEMBERSHIP DID THAT. BUT THE
CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS THE
PENAL CODE IN CALIFORNIA
STRICTLY PROHIBITS THE CABLE
INDUSTRY FROM SHARING ANY
SPECIFIC CONSUMER DATA WITH
ANYONE, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES. AND IF WE DO WE HAVE
TO HAVE A SUBPOENA OR THAT
CONSUMER HAS TO, UH, AGREED TO
LET US SHARE THAT INFORMATION.
SO THAT IS PINOCCHIO SECTION
67.5, WHICH IS IN YOUR ANALYSIS
, AND THE CABLE ACT ALSO HAS
THAT SIMILAR REQUIREMENT THAT WE
CANNOT SHARE THAT INFORMATION
UNLESS WE HAVE A SUBPOENA. OR
THAT CONSUMER AGREES TO THAT. SO
READING THE ANALYSIS ON PAGE 11
IF YOU READ NOTHING, JUST READ
PAGE 11. WELL, SIMILARLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHOR'S
INTENTION, GIVEN THE AMBIGUITY
IN THE SCOPE OF INFORMATION THIS
BILL AUTHORIZED THE PUC TO
COLLECT FROM BROADBAND
PROVIDERS. A PARTICULARLY
GENEROUS INTERPRETATION OF THE
BILL COULD THEORETICALLY
AUTHORIZED THE CPUC TO COLLECT
POTENTIALLY EVASIVE INFORMATION
CONCERNING SUBSCRIBERS FROM
BROADBAND PROVIDERS AT THE
ADDRESS LEVELS. THAT'S THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. THAT'S NOT
ME. SO HOPEFULLY YOU GOT A
CHANCE TO READ THAT. THEN
ADDITION IN THE CLOSING
NONETHELESS, SHOULD THIS BILL
BECOMES LAW THE LEGISLATURE MAY
WISH TO CONSIDER FUTURE
LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL CLARITY AS THE SCOPE
OF THIS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO
THE BUCS AUTHORITY TO COLLECT
ADDRESS LEVEL INFORMATION FROM
BROADBAND PROVIDERS PURSUANT TO
THIS BILL AGAIN. THIS IS YOUR
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. THAT IS NOT
ME, SO THOSE ARE STRONG
RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU. MHM
AMBIGUITY AND NEED FOR FURTHER
CLARIFICATION. WE OFFERED THE
OFFER FIVE EASY WORDS TO CLARIFY
THIS. HE HAS REFUSED THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS. IT WAS JUST TO
SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT. DATA AT A
SERVICEABLE ADDRESS LEVEL. SO
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WE COULD
TELL YOU IF THIS HOUSE HAS THE
ABILITY TO GET BROADBAND, BUT WE
WON'T SHARE WITH YOU ANYTHING
ELSE IF YOU'RE JUST MAKING AN
INTERACTIVE BROADBAND MAP,
THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO DO FOR
THAT BILL, AND FOR THESE REASONS
WERE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? CNN WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE
EMOTION A SECOND. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
SOMETHING EVERYBODY ADORES.
THANK YOU. I JUST LIKE TO KNOW
IF THE AUTHOR HAD ANY COMMENTS
ABOUT THE OPPOSITION WITNESS'S
TESTIMONY AND SPECIFICALLY IS
ADDING, YOU KNOW THESE THESE
FIVE WORDS? UM WELL, IT ACTUALLY
PROTECT CONSUMERS IN TERMS OF
THEIR PRIVACY. UM AND ALSO, UM,
LIMIT WHAT BROADBENT LIMIT WITH
THE C U P. WHAT INFORMATION SO
YOU CAN COLLECT FROM BROADBAND
SERVICES. UM WE BELIEVE THAT THE
BILL AS WRITTEN PROTECTS
CONSUMERS PROTECTS THE
INFORMATION THAT'S NECESSARY.
REMEMBERTHIS IS NOT GOING TO BE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. THIS IS
GOING TO BE ONLY FOR THE CPUC.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT ACTUALLY
HAVING ADDRESS LEVEL INFORMATION
IS IMPORTANT. TOO OFTEN. WE HEAR
THAT AREA SERVED AND WE JUST
WANT TO KNOW IS IT TRULY SERVED
AND NOT JUST ELIGIBLE TO BE
SERVED OR CAN BE SERVED. IT'S
IMPORTANT HISTORICALLY, THIS
INDUSTRY HAS OVER REPRESENTED
THERE. HOW HOW WELL AN AREA
SERVED, AND WE'RE TRYING TO
CREATE GRANULAR MAPS TO BE ABLE
TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER OF
PERSPECTIVES. ONE WE'RE TRYING
TO DRAW DROWNED AS MUCH FEDERAL
MONEY AS WE CAN TO BUILD OUT AND
GET ACCESS TO PEOPLE. UM AND, UM
YOU HAVE TO. IT'S PROTECTED
INFORMATION. THIS IS NOT I DON'T
BELIEVE IN ANY WAY THAT THIS IS
A IS A IS A PRIVACY ISSUE. UM
I'M NOT ASKING FOR PEOPLE'S
NAMES. YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST
ASKING FOR WHERE THE ADDRESSES
ARE SERVED. I WILL SAY, UM,
THAT, UH, THERE ARE ACTUALLY
FIVE CC TO MEMBERS WHO HAVE
COMPLIED WITH THIS 145. I S P
PROVIDERS ALTOGETHER. AND IF
MISS IF THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE
THE LIST OF THE MEMBERS WHO ARE
HAVE ALREADY COMPLIED, I'M HAPPY
TO PROVIDE IT WITH FOR HIM. THIS
DOES NOT IN ANY WAY VIOLATE THE
PENAL CODE. THAT IS,
UNFORTUNATELY, A FLAT OUT RIP
MISREPRESENTATION BY THE
OPPOSITION, AND THERE HAVE BEEN
A VARIETY OF OTHER
MISREPRESENTATIONS THROUGHOUT
THIS PROCESS, BUT THIS DOES NOT
IN ANY WAY VIOLATE THE PENAL
CODE. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DOCTOR
. WHAT? I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR
THE RECORD. WE HAD THE
OPPOSITION READ PART OF THE
ANALYSIS ON PAGE 11 AND READ
FROM A PARAGRAPH THAT HAS THREE
SENTENCES AND READ THE FIRST
SENTENCE IN THE THIRD SENTENCE
OF THAT PARAGRAPH, AND JUST FOR
THE RECORD, I WANT TO READ THE
SECOND SENTENCE. IT SAYS SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION IS UNLIKELY AND
SUCH A MITIGATION COLLECTION OF
INFORMATION EVEN MORE SO IN
LIGHT OF LIMITATIONS ON
COLLECTION OF PIE BY STATE
AGENCIES IMPOSED BY OTHER LAWS.
INCLUDING THE INFORMATION
PRACTICES ACT, WHICH LIMITS
COLLECTION TO THAT WHICH IS
NECESSARY TO FILL SO STATUARY
STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED DUTIES.
SO I THINK THAT ADDITIONAL
SENTENCE HELPS TO REALLY CLARIFY
. UM, THE FACT THAT THE PRIVACY
CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
EXIST, I THINK ARE PROBABLY IN
THE REALM OF THEORETICAL AND
THAT'S WHAT THE THAT'S WHAT THE
ANALYSIS SUGGESTS. I APPRECIATE
YOUR WORK ON COMBATING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE. IT'S AN
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR AND
APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED
EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT THE CPUC
HAS THE INFORMATION IT NEEDS TO
WORK TOWARDS THAT GOAL AS WE AS
THE SENTENCE I READ THE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT, WE HAVE EXISTING
PRIVACY LAWS LIKE THE
INFORMATION PRACTICE IS ACT,
WHICH CONSTRAIN THE SCOPE OF
COLLECTION TO WHAT IS NECESSARY
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE,
AND SO I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. IN
THIS COMMITTEE. WE'RE LOOKING
SPECIFICALLY THE PRIVACY
IMPLICATIONS. I THINK WE'VE HAD
SOME OF THE STRONGEST VALIDATORS
OF PRIVACY SAY THAT THEY DO NOT
HAVE CONCERNS FROM A PRIVACY
PERSPECTIVE. AND SO FROM THAT
PERSPECTIVE, I FEEL COMFORTABLE
UPPORTING THE BILL FEEL VERY
COMFORTABLE GIVING IT AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION AND WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. THE MOTION
IS TO CONCUR IN THE SENATE
AMENDMENTS. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. OH I'M
SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE
ANALYSIS AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR READING THAT FINAL CENSUS
CONTEXT MATTERS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH WE HAVE A WAS A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS AND A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN
BAUER-KAHAN. MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. GABRIEL
GABRIEL, I KYLIE KYLIE. I
BAUER-KAHAN BARRICADE. KH
BENNETT BENNETT I BERMAN
CUNNINGHAM THONG THONG. I IRWIN
VALID AIRES VALID AREAS, NOT
VOTING WICKS, WICKS I WILSON
WILSON. AYE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. YOUR BILL IS OUT. WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. ALRIGHT, AND WE ARE NOW
MOST FORTUNATE TO HAVE
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WILSON.
WHAT A WONDERFUL WAY TO START MY
TIME HERE AT THE COMMITTEE. DO
YOU WANT ME TO DO ANYTHING ELSE
BEFORE I SEE IS YOURS. GREAT
WELL, THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK
YOU. MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION. AND
THE SECOND THIS IS BACK FROM THE
SENATE, MAYBE 984 AMENDMENTS IN
THE SENATE SIMPLY NARROWED THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL TO REMOVE GPS
ENABLED DEVICES FROM THE BILL.
AMENDS HAVE REMOVED ALL
OPPOSITION AND THE BILL PASSED
THE SENATE LAST NIGHT WITH A 40.
20 VOTE. THANK YOU. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. AND THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN THE
HEARING ROOM AND SUPPORT N
ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION. BRINGING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A I
WILL JUST SHARE SOMETHING WITH
MUSLIM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS
TO EXTEND THE PILOT PROGRAM AND
TO MAKE IT PERMANENT. THIS IS
CERTAINLY THE MOST PRIVACY
PROTECTIVE OF THESE. I WANT TO
COMPLIMENT YOU FOR SO SKILLFULLY
NAVIGATING THIS ISSUE FOR
REMOVING ALL OPPOSITION OTHER
FOLKS BEFORE YOU HAVE TRIED AND
YOU'VE REALLY DONE A MARVELOUS
JOB HERE, SO THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THOSE AMENDMENTS HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. AH AND
HAPPY TO GIVE IT AN I RECKON
WITH THAT. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, JUST AS YOU NOTED.
IT'S BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF
TURNS, BUT WE HAVE GOT TO THE
FINISH LINE ALMOST ONCE WE GET
TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, IF YOU
WOULD SO CHOOSE TO HELP YOU GET
THERE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN
BAUER-KAHAN, A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLYWOMAN WORKS WITH THAT
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL AND THE MOTION IS CONCUR IN
THE SENATE AMENDMENTS. GABRIEL
GABRIEL, I KYLIE KYLIE. I
BARRACK AYHAN WORKING HAND I
BENNETT BENNETT. I BERMAN
CUNNINGHAM. THONG THONG. I
IRWIN. VALID ERAS. VALLADARES
AYE, WIX. WIX AYE, WILSON.
HAPPILY I LISTEN. I. THAT BILL
HAS NINE VOTES, AND IT'S OUT.
TRANSPORTATION HAS BEEN
ANSWERED.
SO UH, ON. ASSEMBLY BILL 984
BILL IS OUT 8 TO 0. AND ON
ASSEMBLY BILL 275 TO THAT BILL.
IS ALSO OUR 8 TO 0. I'M SORRY 70
THAT BAILS OUT. EXCUSE ME, BABY
52 THAT BILLS OUT 7 TO 0. AND
WITH THAT THE HEARING IS
ADJOURNED.