DO YOU. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, PLEASE NOTE THAT AB
2187 BRIAN AB 3129 WOULD HAVE
BEEN PULLED FROM TODAY'S
HEARING. THE RULES OF WITNESS
TESTIMONY ARE THERE. EACH SIDE
WILL BE ALLOWED TWO MAIN
WITNESSES EACH WITNESSES WILL
HAVE APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF OR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAMES, ORGANIZATION
OF ANY AND THEIR POSITION ONLY
AS YOU PROCEED WITH WITNESS AND
PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE
COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING, AND WE WILL
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, SINCE
WE DO NOT HAVE QUORUM AT THE
MOMENT WITH THE VICE CHAIR HERE
BRIGHT AND EARLY, AND WE'LL GO
TO FILE ITEM ONE, AB 2089,
HOLDEN.
RIGHT.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING. I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT,
ASSEMBLY BILL 220 2089, TODAY,
AS SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL, A FEW
YEARS AGO, I INTRODUCED AB 105,
THE UPWARD MOBILITY ACT OF 2021,
WHICH CONTAINED A PROVISION THAT
REQUIRED ANY STATE AGENCY, BOARD
OR COMMISSION THAT DIRECTLY OR
BY CONTRACT, COLLECTS
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AS TO THE
ANCESTRY OR ETHNIC ORIGIN OF
CALIFORNIANS TO USE SEPARATE
COLLECTION CATEGORIES AND
TABULATIONS FOR SPECIFIED
AFRICAN AMERICAN GROUPS, SIMILAR
TO THE DATA COLLECTED FOR
CALIFORNIA PERSONS OF ASIAN
DESCENT. THIS DATA IS CRITICAL
TO ACCURATELY REPORTING WHO,
AMONG CALIFORNIANS AFRICAN
AMERICAN AFRICAN DESCENT IS
EXPERIENCING BARRIERS OF UPWARD
MOBILITY IN OUR STATE'S CIVIL
SERVICE SYSTEM, WHILE AB 105 DID
NOT BECOME LAW, THE DATA
COLLECTION PROVISION WAS
INCORPORATED INTO THE BUDGET
UNDER SB 189 AND 2002 Ã 2022.
AB 2009 CONTINUES THIS DATA
COLLECTION TREND BY REQUIRING A
CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY
WHEN COLLECTING DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
AS TO THE ANCESTRY OF ETHNIC
ORIGIN OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES
AND TABULATION FOR SPECIFIED
AFRICAN AMERICAN GROUPS. THIS
DATA CAN BE USED TO TARGET
POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL AS
SERVICES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED
WITH ME TO TESTIFY. AND I
BELIEVE HE'S MAKING HIS WAY HERE
IF HE'S NOT ALREADY, IS CHARLES
LOGSDON, A LEAD ORGANIZER FOR
THE COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
MAYBE YOUR WITNESSES MAKING.
WELL, WHY DON'T WE, FOR NOW, SEE
IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT
WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST EXPRESS A
SUPPORT OF AB 2089. OKAY IS
THERE OKAY? SUPPORT YEAH. JUST
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION,
IF ANY, AND YOUR POSITION ON AB
2089. YES. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS DARLENE CROMARTIE. I AM A
MEMBER OF THE COALITION FOR A
JUST AND EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA
KGEC, AS WELL AS THE AMERICAN
REDRESS COALITION OF CALIFORNIA,
BAY AREA, ARC BAY AREA. I'M IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF AB 2089. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
EVERYONE. MY NAME IS RAFEAL
PLUNKETT. I AM A BOARD MEMBER
WITH LEAP, THE LEONARD LINEAGE
EQUITY ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, AND
I CAME TO VISIT YOU FROM DIAMOND
BAR. I WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR
FULL SUPPORT FOR AB 2089. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
KIM MIMS. I'M WITH THE COALITION
FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA KGEC AMERICAN REDRESS
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA ARC,
SACRAMENTO BRANCH AND AMEND THE
MASS MEDIA. I AM IN FULL SUPPORT
OF AB 2089. PLEASE VOTE. I THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2089 SEEING NO
ONE? WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM AT
THE MOMENT. MR. HOLDEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? WELL, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. I THINK THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT, TOPIC. IT'S TAKEN TO
THE LOCAL LEVEL. WHAT WE'VE
ALREADY INCORPORATED IN STATE
LAW VIA THE BUDGET. AND WHEN YOU
DO RECEIVE YOUR QUORUM, I ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. ITEM FIVE AB
2223 AGUIAR-CURRY. AND THERE'S
TWO BILLS. I THINK YOU'LL BE
STARTING WITH AB 2223.
IT'S EMBARRASSING. I PROPOSED.
MR. CHAIR IS THE RIGHT. IF I,
PROVIDE SOME PROPS. YEAH. NO
PROBLEM. IS THAT FOR BREAKFAST?
THAT'S FOR YOUR 4:00 MEETING,
MR. STILL SITTING HERE? GOOD
MORNING, EVERYONE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK WITH US ON
THIS BILL. I STARTED WORKING IN
THIS SPACE BECAUSE OF THE 2018
FARM BILL UNLEASHED A LARGELY
UNREGULATED INDUSTRY. NO
PRODUCTS WERE SUBJECT TO
THOROUGH TESTING AND
INTOXICATING PRODUCTS WERE
STARTING TO POP UP IN SMOKE
SHOPS AND GAS STATIONS, WITH NO
AGE LIMITS OR PROTECTIONS, MY
TOP PRIORITY HAS ALWAYS TO BE
PROTECTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS. BUT I
ALSO WANTED TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO
CONTINUE USING NON INTOXICATE
HEALTH AND WELLNESS PRODUCTS,
AND THE DISCUSSION WAS FOCUSED
ON CBD, AB 45, WHICH WAS THE
STRICTEST HEMP LAW IN THE
COUNTRY WHEN IT WAS ENACTED. IT
CLOSED LOOPHOLES FROM THE
FEDERAL FARM BILL BY
IMPLEMENTING THC CONCENTRATION
LIMITS PROHIBITED INTOXICATING
AND SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS, AND
SETTING RIGOROUS TESTING
PROTOCOLS AND LABELING STANDARDS
. I'M WORKING ON AB 2223 TO
TACKLE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
HAVE COME UP DURING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 45. AS THE
HEMP MARKET GROWS, WE'RE SEEING
MORE INTOXICATING HEMP PRODUCTS
THAT ARE SOLD OUTSIDE OF
DISPENSARIES WITHOUT AGE LIMITS,
WHICH SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. THIS
BILL IS ANOTHER HUGE UNDERTAKING
THAT TAKES ON THREE ISSUES
CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGAL HEMP
PRODUCTS WITH LOCAL ENFORCEMENT,
CLOSING LOOPHOLES THAT ALLOW
INTOXICATING HEMP PRODUCTS, AND
INTEGRATING HEMP INTO THE
CANNABIS SUPPLY CHAIN. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS, STATE AGENCIES AND
COMMITTEE STAFF AS WE ADDRESS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO
IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGES. WITH ME
TODAY ARE AMY JENKINS,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
CANNABIS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
AND KRISTIN HEIDELBACH OF THE
UFCW WESTERN STATES COUNCIL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS. AMY JENKINS ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR CHAMPIONING
THIS VERY, VERY CRITICAL ISSUE
FOR CALIFORNIA'S LEGAL CANNABIS
INDUSTRY. THE CANNABIS LICENSE
FEELS LESS LIKE A PRIVILEGE AND
MORE LIKE A BURDEN. TODAY IN
ADDITION TO NAVIGATING THE
UNRELENTLESS SALE OF CANNABIS
PRODUCTS IN A LEGAL CHANNELS,
THE PROLIFERATION OF UNCHECKED
AND DUTY FREE HEMP PRODUCTS
AVAILABLE ONLINE AND GAS
STATIONS AND SMOKE SHOPS HAS
REACHED A FEVER PITCH. THREE
WEEKS AGO, TOTAL WINE AND MORE
MADE A WIDELY AVAILABLE TO
CONSUMERS HEMP BEVERAGE PRODUCT
THAT'S TEN MILLIGRAMS OR MORE,
AS WELL AS FIVE MILLIGRAM EDIBLE
PRODUCTS. YOU CAN BUY THESE IN
TOTAL WINE AND MORE. THERE'S
SEVEN PAGES OF SKUS, THAT
PROVIDE THESE PRODUCTS AND ALLOW
THEM TO BE SOLD AS DETAILED IN
CSI'S LETTER. EVERY SALE OF THC
BEVERAGES AND EDIBLE PRODUCTS
OUTSIDE OF DISPENSARIES ROBS THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS TAX FUND OF
ROUGHLY $6.08. WORSE STILL, THAT
REVENUE LOSS PUTS THE INDUSTRY
AT RISK OF A DRAMATIC TAX
INCREASE. THE PROP 64 FRAMEWORK
IS BROKEN, AND THAT IS WHY SO
MANY CONTINUE TO SEEK
OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE THE
REGULATED CHANNEL UNTIL
POLICYMAKERS TACKLE THE SYSTEMIC
PROBLEMS BAKED INTO THE STATE'S
CANNABIS LAW, WE WILL FOREVER BE
ADDRESSING THREAT AFTER
EXISTENTIAL THREAT. AB 2223 LAYS
THE IMPORTANT GROUNDWORK NEEDED
TO REIMAGINE HOW WE REGULATE
CANNABINOIDS FOR INTOXICATION,
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY COME
FROM. FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF MORE
THAN 15 OTHER STATES, THIS BILL
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES THE USE OF
HEMP INTO THE CANNABIS SUPPLY
CHAIN AND PERMITS DUAL USE IN
CANNABIS FACILITIES. IT ALSO
INCLUDES VERY, VERY IMPORTANT
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS THAT
AUTHORIZE CERTAIN STATE
EMPLOYEES AND PEACE OFFICERS TO
SEIZE OR EMBARGO HEMP PRODUCTS,
ELIMINATE THE SAFE HARBOR
PROVISION FOR HEMP MANUFACTURERS
TO REGISTER AND MANDATES IN AND
OUT OF STATE HEMP MANUFACTURERS.
TO REGISTER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PUBLIC
HEALTH CANNABIS PRODUCTS ARE
EXCESSIVELY REGULATED AND
OVERTAXED. IN CONTRAST,
INTOXICATING HEMP PRODUCTS ARE
UNREGULATED, AND I APPRECIATE
THE WORK OF THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN
AND URGE I VOTE TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
KRISTIN SADDLEBACK HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED FOOD AND
COMMERCIAL WORKERS, WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL HERE IN PROUD
SUPPORT OF AB 2223. FIRST OF
ALL, I WANT TO THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER AGAR CURRY FOR AUTHORING
THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION THAT,
IF PASSED, WILL PROTECT NOT ONLY
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS BUT THE
WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS THAT UFCW
REPRESENTS IN THE CANNABIS
INDUSTRY. HIGH TAXES IN A
BOOMING ILLICIT MARKET CREATE
ALMOST UNTENABLE CHALLENGES FOR
A HIGHLY REGULATED CANNABIS
INDUSTRY. ADD TO THAT AN
UNCHECKED, HEMP DERIVED THC
ALTERNATIVE THAT IS VIRTUALLY
UNREGULATED, AND YOU HAVE AN
INDUSTRY THAT IS ON THE BRINK OF
COLLAPSE. THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY
HAS SUCH HIGH GUARDRAILS IN
PLACE THAT MANAGE HOW THEY
CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESSES, WHO
THEY CAN SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO,
HOW PRODUCT IS MOVED, AND HOW
THEY CAN ADVERTISE. I DON'T NEED
TO TELL ANYONE IN THIS ROOM THAT
THE PROLIFERATION OF HEMP BASED
INTOXICATING PRODUCTS,
SOLICITATIONS THAT FLOOD OUR
INBOXES OR ARE SOLD EASILY
ONLINE OR OFFERED TO UNKNOWN
AUDIENCES ON SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS AS A THREAT TO
CONSUMER SAFETY. NEITHER THE
VOTERS NOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE
INTENDED FOR THE HEMP MARKET TO
EVOLVE INTO A SHADOW MARKET
WHERE INTOXICATING CANNABINOIDS
ARE CHEAP, POTENT, UNTESTED, AND
UNTAXED. RATHER, THE HEMP MARKET
WAS INTENDED TO BE A WELLNESS
MARKET BASED ON NON-INTOXICATING
THERAPEUTIC CANNABINOIDS DERIVED
NATURALLY FOR LOW THC PLANTS
FROM U OF C PERSPECTIVE, THE
MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS
BILL IS ENFORCEMENT. THIS BILL
WILL GIVE LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICIALS A BETTER CHANCE AT
FIGHTING BAD ACTORS THAT FLOOD
OUR STREETS WITH HIGH THC
PRODUCTS, THREATEN CONSUMER
SAFETY, AND AID IN LOWERING THE
TAXES THAT CALIFORNIA COLLECTS.
AND WITH THIS, WE URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE MORE
ITEM. YEAH I HATE TO ADMIT THIS
IN COMMITTEE, BUT MY 14 YEAR OLD
DAUGHTER BROUGHT THIS INTO SHE.
OUR KIDS, RIGHT? WHEN WE WORK
FROM HOME, LISTEN TO WHAT WE DO
ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. AND SHE
PURCHASED THESE AS A HEALTHY
SMOKING ALTERNATIVE. IT SAYS ON
THE PACKAGE ZERO NICOTINE AND
ZERO TOBACCO. AND SHE BROUGHT IT
IN TO ME AND SHE SAID, I WANT
YOU TO KNOW, I BOUGHT THIS ON
AMAZON. SHE'S 14. AND ON THE
SIDE IT SAYS THAT IT HAS
CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 50MG OF
CBD AND LESS THAN 0.3% OF THC.
SO THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT OUR
CHILDREN ARE GETTING THEIR HANDS
ON THIS PRODUCT. IT'S NOT THE
REGULATED CANNABIS INDUSTRY
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IT'S THESE
HEMP PRODUCTS. THIS IS FROM LAS
VEGAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2223? TALIA D'AMATO. ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA NORML AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALICIA
PRIEGO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND
KIVA CONFECTIONS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
SAM RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF GOOD
FARMERS, GREAT NEIGHBORS BASED
IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY AND
STRONG SUPPORT. AND WE APPLAUD
THE EFFORTS OF THE MAJORITY
LEADER. GOOD MORNING, JASON.
BRIAN, ON BEHALF OF THE CANNABIS
DISTRIBUTION ASSOCIATION, WE'RE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, ALBERTO
TORRICO, ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT
LABOR MANAGEMENT CANNABIS
COMMITTEE FOR SAN DIEGO AND
IMPERIAL COUNTIES, MADE UP OF
MARCHING ASH AND UFCW LOCAL 135.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. RYAN.
ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS JOE DEVINE, ON
BEHALF OF THE ONE HEMP COALITION
AND CHARLOTTE'S WEB IN SUPPORT,
WE DO HAVE ONE TWEAK THAT WE'D
LIKE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR ON,
BUT, WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DOES
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2223, YOU CAN JUST SAY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
MARK SMITH. I'M HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF ORIGINS COUNCIL TO
OPPOSE AB 2223 UNLESS AMENDED.
ORIGINS COUNCIL IS A STATEWIDE
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTING 800 MEMBERS ACROSS
THE FULL CANNABIS SUPPLY CHAIN,
MOST OF WHOM ARE SMALL,
INDEPENDENT, LICENSED CANNABIS
CULTIVATORS. PART OF THIS BILL
IS TRYING TO STOP INTOXICATING
SYNTHETIC SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS
WITHIN THE HEMP MARKET, AS
DEMONSTRATED BY THESE PRODUCT
ACTS AND THE PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION, WE SUPPORT THIS.
HOWEVER, THE INTEGRATION
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL AS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS OPENING THE
DOOR WIDE OPEN FOR THOSE SAME
INTOXICATING SYNTHETIC SYNTHETIC
CANNABINOIDS TO TAKE OVER THE
REGULATED CANNABIS MARKET. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO
UNDERSTAND THAT HEMP AND THE
MARKETPLACE IS AWASH IN
CHEMICALLY SYNTHESIZED, THC LIKE
COMPOUNDS, INCLUDING THINGS THAT
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT DELTA EIGHT,
DELTA TEN, HHC, 11 HYDROXY THC.
THAT LAST ONE IS TEN TIMES
STRONGER THAN THE THC THAT IS
DERIVED FROM A CANNABIS PLANT.
AS WRITTEN, 2223 PROPOSES A
PROHIBITION ON SYNTHETIC
CONVERSIONS THAT WOULD APPLY
ONLY TO DELTA NINE THC, NOT TO
THESE DOZENS OF OTHER
INTOXICATING SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS
. THE BILL SHOULD BE AMENDED TO
PROHIBIT THC, OR A COMPARABLE
CANNABINOID THAT HAS BEEN
SYNTHETICALLY CONVERTED FROM A
HEMP DERIVED CANNABINOID. THIS
IS OUR TOP PRIORITY. HOWEVER,
THERE ARE OTHER SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES REGARDING INTEGRATION
THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED. THESE
INCLUDE ASSURING QUALITY CONTROL
ON INTEGRATED HEMP PRODUCTS BY
REQUIRING THAT INTEGRATION TAKE
PLACE THROUGH LICENSED CANNABIS
DISTRIBUTION, CAPPING THC WELL
BELOW ONE MILLIGRAM FOR HEMP
PRODUCTS SOLD IN EITHER THE HEMP
OR CANNABIS MARKET, AND
IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATION
REGULATIONS THROUGH A NORMAL
RATHER THAN AN EMERGENCY
RULEMAKING PROCESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2223. MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, BRAND MARTIN
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE US HEMP
ROUNDTABLE, WE DO NOT HAVE A
POSITION ON THE BILL. WE DO HAVE
CONCERNS AT THIS POINT ABOUT THE
LOW LEVEL OF MILLIGRAMS IN THE
BILL, AND LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND
A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. YES, VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU CHAIR. GOOD MORNING.
AND THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYWOMAN. I
NEED SOME EDUCATION. OKAY. I'VE
GOT THE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IF I
UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR
PRESENTATION AND ALL OF YOU THAT
THE MARKET FOR CANNABIS IS
REGULATED, AND THEN WHEN THAT
LAW WAS ESTABLISHED A FEW YEARS
AGO, HEMP WAS NOT INCLUDED. SO
HEMP IS NOT REGULATED. IS THAT
CORRECT? YEAH. GO AHEAD. THE
2018 FARM BILL LEGALIZED
INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN. BUT IT IT
OPENED UP A LOOPHOLE WHERE FOLKS
ARE NOW TAKING THAT PRODUCT AND
CONVERTING IT INTO DELTA EIGHT
AND DELTA NINE. DO YOU WANT TO
ADD IS HEMP IN A PART IN THE
CONVERSION? IS IT INCLUDED IN
CANNABIS? IS IT A PART OF A
CANNABIS PRODUCT? SO IF I MAY,
IF YOU WANT TO GROW HEMP IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, YOU NEED TO
PAY A $900 FEE TO CDFA. AND YOU
CAN GROW HEMP LIKE ANY OTHER
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT. CANNABIS
IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND IT'S
TREATED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF
ITS INTOXICATING EFFECTS, RIGHT?
CANNABIS HEMP HAS LOW LEVELS OF
THC, BUT AT THE LEVEL GROWN
NATURALLY IN THE PLANT, IT'S NOT
INTOXICATING. SO WE TREAT THEM
DIFFERENTLY. RIGHT NOW, THOSE
PRODUCTS, THC DERIVED FROM HEMP,
ARE INFILTRATING THE MARKETPLACE
AND BEING SOLD OUTSIDE OF THE
CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
BUT IT'S A SIMILAR COMPOUND AND
HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON THE BODY.
IT HAS AN INTOXICATING EFFECT,
THIS BILL PROPOSES INTEGRATING
THÀNH THAT ALLOWS HEMP TO BE
BROUGHT INTO THE CANNABIS SUPPLY
CHAIN. WE, AS CANNABIS FARMERS,
DON'T OPPOSE ALL OF THAT. WE ARE
OPEN TO CBD. CBN OTHER TYPES OF
COMPOUNDS. WE JUST DON'T WANT
THE INTOXICATING COMPOUNDS FROM
HEMP TO BE CONCENTRATED OR
SYNTHETICALLY CONVERTED AND
BROUGHT INTO THE CANNABIS SUPPLY
CHAIN. SO DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT
OR WHAT IS YOUR I WOULD LIKE ME
TO COMMENT TO IT. SURE. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, FOR THE
QUESTION, LET ME TRY TO CLARIFY
IT THIS WAY. SO RIGHT NOW
CANNABIS AND HEMP IS THE SAME
PLANT. CANNABIS HAS A HIGHER
NATURALLY OCCURRING PRODUCTION
OF THC. OKAY, HOWEVER, THERE IS
THC THAT IS CONTAINED IN HEMP
PLANTS. THE WAY I TRY TO
SIMPLIFY THIS IS KIND OF THREE
BUCKETS. AND I WANT TO RESPOND
TO THE OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS.
THE FIRST BUCKET IS, NATURALLY
OCCURRING THAT THAT MANIFEST
HIGH, HIGH QUANTITIES. AND
THAT'S, THAT'S THC AND CBD AND
THAT IS THE CANNABIS PLANT AS
WELL AS IN SOME CASES, THE HEMP
PLANT, ALTHOUGH IT'S MUCH HIGHER
IN CBD. THEN THERE ARE THERE ARE
ALSO NATURALLY OCCURRING
CANNABINOIDS THAT ARE THEY DON'T
MANIFEST IN MEANINGFUL
QUANTITIES. AND WE CALL THOSE
MINOR CANNABINOIDS. SO CBN OTHER
MINOR CANNABINOIDS. THEN THERE
ARE THESE FRANKENSTEIN,
SYNTHETICS THAT ARE MANUFACTURED
THAT ARE NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING
IN THE PLANT. THEY'RE
MANUFACTURED. YOU KNOW, THROUGH
A CHEMICAL PROCESS. SO THEY ARE
NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING. SO
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, YOU ARE
SEEING THESE NON NATURALLY
OCCURRING SYNTHETIC THC
COMPOUNDS INCORPORATED INTO HEMP
PRODUCTS AND IN SOME CASES
CANNABIS PRODUCTS. AND I WANT TO
CLARIFY, OUR BILL DOES NOT ALLOW
FOR ANY INTEGRATION OF SYNTHETIC
CANNABINOIDS. AND I HAVE
COMMITTED THAT IF THERE IS ANY
AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE THAT
WE WILL ADDRESS, THAT OUR BILL
DOES ALLOW NOW FOR THE ABILITY
TO INCORPORATE THROUGH
INTEGRATION THE NATURALLY
OCCURRING CANNABINOIDS LIKE CBD,
LIKE CBN, THAT ARE
NON-INTOXICATING, AND IT DOES
ALLOW SOME INTOXICANTS. WE ARE
ALSO WORKING TO ADDRESS THAT
CONCERN, BUT THOSE ARE
ESSENTIALLY THE THREE BUCKETS
THAT WE'RE SEEING. THANK YOU FOR
EXPLAINING. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
BUT THANK YOU. IT'S COMPLICATED.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
MADAM MAJORITY LEADER, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I SURE WOULD, YOU
KNOW, MEMBERS, I'VE BEEN WORKING
ON THIS ISSUE FOR SIX YEARS, AND
IT'S CONSTANTLY EVOLVING.
MARKETPLACE AS I PRESENT THIS
BILL TODAY, I IT WILL MAKE
PRODUCTS AND PRACTICES SAFER AND
MAKE IT HARDER FOR CRIMINALS TO
SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS. BUT THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THIS WORK IS DONE.
I ASSURE YOU THAT I WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS, AND TO IMPLEMENT
INTEGRATION IN A WAY THAT
SUPPORTS OUR LEGAL HEMP AND
CANNABIS INDUSTRIES, FURTHER
EMPOWERS OUR REGULATORS TO
ATTACK ILLEGAL PRODUCTS AND
PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH. AND I
WILL COMMIT TO ALL OF YOU THAT I
WILL UPDATE THE COMMITTEE. AS
THOSE CONVERSATIONS PROGRESS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHEN WE
GET A QUORUM ESTABLISHED, WE CAN
TAKE UP YOUR MATTER FORMALLY.
THANK YOU. AND YOU HAVE ONE
OTHER ITEM, ONE PLANT TO ANOTHER
, ONE DRUG TO ANOTHER. AB 2606.
HUSING. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO TAKE THIS UP
RIGHT AWAY. I APPRECIATE IT,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, TODAY, CALIFORNIA'S
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY IS
EXPERIENCING MARKET INSTABILITY,
THE INCREASING IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE AND PERSISTENT
DROUGHTS HAVE REDUCED WATER
AVAILABILITY THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, PLACING
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PRESSURE ON
THE STATE'S AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
AND AGRICULTURAL DEPENDENT
REGIONS. AGAVE IS A PROMISING
ALTERNATIVE TO TRADITIONAL CROPS
BECAUSE IT REQUIRES 10% OR LESS
OF THE WATER NEEDED BY MANY
CROPS WHILE PRODUCING NEW HIGH
VALUE PRODUCTS LIKE CALIFORNIA
GROWN AGAVE SPIRITS. THIS BILL
WILL HELP OUR FARMERS TO BE MORE
COMPETITIVE IN DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL MARKETS BY
CREATING THE FIRST AGAVE
COMMISSION IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS COMMISSION WILL
BE MADE UP OF GROWERS,
PRODUCERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
SUPPORTING OF SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTION, PROCESSING,
MARKETING OF CALIFORNIA AGAVE
SPIRITS. WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE
CRAIG REYNOLDS. HE DIDN'T BRING
ANY AGAVE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT,
BUT HE I LET ME GO, PUT THIS
AWAY. GET THAT AWAY FROM ME.
MEMBERS, PLEASE JOIN ME IN
SUPPORTING, OUR BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. AND MR. CHAIR,
GRATEFUL TO YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR A THOROUGH ANALYSIS. AND TO
OUR MAJORITY LEADER FOR CARRYING
OUR BILL, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF
THE CALIFORNIA AGAVE COUNCIL,
SPONSORS OF THE LEGISLATION. AND
WE'RE A COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
AGAVE GROWERS, DISTILLERS,
RETAILERS AND OTHERS WHO'VE COME
TOGETHER TO SUPPORT THIS,
EMERGING CROP IN CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION IS A
CRITICAL STEP FOR OUR NEW
INDUSTRY THAT'S RAPIDLY GROWING.
AND AS THE MAJORITY LEADER SAID,
THE, WATER LIMITATIONS,
CONFRONTING AGRICULTURE TODAY
ARE SEVERE. AND THIS IS A REAL
PROMISING CROP, AND WE'RE
GROWING RAPIDLY. I'LL JUST END
WITH A FEW QUICK NUMBERS. FUN
FACTS. TWO YEARS AGO, WE STARTED
OUR COUNCIL WITH JUST 15
MEMBERS, AND TODAY WE HAVE OVER
80. WE'RE IN 32 COUNTIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE FROM SAN
DIEGO IMPERIAL, ALL THE WAY UP
TO TEHAMA AND LAKE. A 175.
THAT'S HOW MANY ATTENDEES CAME
TO OUR RECENT AGAVE SYMPOSIUM
SPONSORED BY UC DAVIS AND THEIR
AGAVE RESEARCH CENTER, THREE
INCHES PER ACRE. THAT'S THE
TYPICAL ANNUAL REQUIREMENT TO
GROW AGAVE IN CALIFORNIA,
COMPARED TO 48IN FOR ALMONDS,
PISTACHIOS, AND OTHER, MAJOR
CROPS. AND THAT'S WHY MANY OF
OUR GROWERS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN
AND IMPACTED WATER DISTRICTS ARE
MOVING INTO AGAVE AND
SIGNIFICANT WAYS, AND FINALLY,
ZERO. THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF WATER
REQUIRED TO KEEP AGAVE ALIVE
DURING A SEVERE DROUGHT. NOT SO.
THANKS AGAIN TO OUR MAJORITY
LEADER AND TO YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2606? ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2606? ALL
RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL TAKE
THAT UP WHEN WE GET AN
OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE AND, ASSEMBLYMAN
NGUYEN'S BEEN VERY KIND TO ALLOW
SOME OF OUR WOOD TO GO NEXT.
THANK I THINK THE HORSE TRADING
BACK HERE. I APPRECIATE IT. SO I
KNOW SOMEONE WAS HERE, BRIGHT
AND EARLY. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
PATIENCE BEING PROMPT. THANK
THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM
21 AB 3218. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. I WOULD
FIRST LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND STAFF FOR THEIR
EFFORTS ON THIS MEASURE. STATE
LAW PROHIBITS TOBACCO PRODUCTS
IN CALIFORNIA FLAVORED TOBACCO
PRODUCTS IN CALIFORNIA, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY THEY REMAIN
READILY AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. THE HIGH RATE OF FLAVORED
TOBACCO USE AMONG YOUTH IS
ESPECIALLY CONCERNING. A 2023
STUDY BY THE CDC INDICATES THAT
AMONG MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS USE OF WHO USE TOBACCO,
NEARLY 90% USE FLAVORED
PRODUCTS. AB 3218 CREATES A
PATHWAY TO ENSURE FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE NO LONGER
AVAILABLE ON THE SHELVES OF
RETAILERS, AND IN OUR COMMUNITY.
BY CREATING AN AFFIRMATIVE
LISTING OF UNFLAVORED TOBACCO
PRODUCTS LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA.
THIS APPROACH WILL HELP
RETAILERS DETERMINE AT A GLANCE
WHETHER A PRODUCT DELIVERED TO
THEIR STORES IS LEGAL OR NOT.
ADDITIONALLY THE BILL AUTHORIZES
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PENALIZE
DISTRIBUTORS THAT SELL ILLEGAL
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND
MANUFACTURERS THAT FALSELY
CERTIFY THAT THEIR PRODUCTS ARE
UNFLAVORED. AND FINALLY, THE
BILL AUTHORIZES LAW ENFORCEMENT
TO SEIZE ILLEGAL TOBACCO
PRODUCTS FROM DISTRIBUTORS.
THESE COMPREHENSIVE ENFORCEMENT
STEPS WILL HELP IMPLEMENT THE
FLAVORED TOBACCO BAN THAT WAY,
IT WAS INTENDED HERE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT IS DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL TIFFANY MATTHEWS, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL BYRON MILLER IS
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THANK THANK
YOU. CHAIR HI. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS TIFFANY
MATTHEWS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE
AT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. I'M HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB
BONTA, WHO IS A PROUD SPONSOR OF
AB 3218, ALONG WITH CO-SPONSORS
CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO FREE KIDS,
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION,
THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, AND
THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION.
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BONTA WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JIM WOOD, AND
THE PRINCIPAL COAUTHOR, ASSEMBLY
SPEAKER ROBERT RIVAS, FOR
CARRYING THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT WILL ENSURE THE
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
FLAVORED TOBACCO BAN. WHEN THE
BAN WENT INTO EFFECT, OUR OFFICE
RECEIVED A NUMBER OF INQUIRIES
ASKING FOR GUIDANCE AND
ASSISTANCE WITH THE ROLLOUT OF
THE LAW. OUR OFFICE DRAFTED AB
3218. IN RESPONSE TO THESE
INQUIRIES AND AS A NEXT STEP IN
ACCOMPLISHING THE BAND'S POLICY
GOALS OF GETTING THESE FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS OUT OF THE
HANDS OF OUR YOUTH, AB 3218 WILL
DO FIVE MAIN THINGS. IT WILL
ESTABLISH A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
LIST OF ALL TOBACCO PRODUCTS
THAT ARE PERMISSIBLY, UNFLAVORED
AND ALLOWED TO BE SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA. IT WILL RENDER
ILLEGAL FLAVORED TOBACCO
PRODUCTS IN ELIGIBLE FOR TAX
STAMPS, SO THAT SUCH PRODUCTS
CAN BE QUICKLY REMOVED FROM
COMMERCE AND NEVER REACH OUR
KIDS. IT WILL HOLD THE
DISTRIBUTION CHAIN ACCOUNTABLE
AT A HIGHER LEVEL. IT WILL
CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF
CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR TO
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT PRODUCTS
THAT IMPART MENTHOL LIKE COOLING
SENSATION. AND THE LAST MAIN
COMPONENT IS THAT WE WOULD
AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO OMIT FROM THE LIST UNFLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS THAT LACK THE
REQUIRING FDA AUTHORIZATION. AB
3218 WILL HOLD SELLERS OF LEGAL
PRODUCTS ACCOUNTABLE, AND IT
WILL REDUCE ACCESS TO FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS, PARTICULARLY
AMONG YOUTH WHO TEND TO
GRAVITATE TOWARDS THESE PRODUCTS
AND HELP PREVENT THEM FROM
ENTERING A LIFETIME OF ADDICTION
. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 3218? PRISCILLA
KUDO'S HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. KEITH BRUCE, ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANKS, TIM GIBBS.
CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO FREE KIDS
IN SUPPORT. KELLY BROOKS, ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY HEALTH
EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HERE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SO ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB, AB
3218. MR. BREWER MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. JOHN WENGER, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA FUELS AND
CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE, WE
REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF GAS
STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES
IN THE STATE CURRENTLY HAVE AN
OPPOSING LOSS AMENDED POSITION,
BUT WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND
THE SPONSORS FOR THE CONTINUED
DIALOG. APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS
ON THE BILL, POINTING OUT THE
PENALTY OF PERJURY CONCERN THAT
WE HAVE. WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS
WITH BROADENING THE DEFINITION
OF CHARACTERIZING FLAVORS, WE
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT
DOESN'T BOLSTER THE ILLICIT
MARKET, WHICH IS CONTINUING TO
BE A PROBLEM FOR US. WE DO
SUPPORT THE DIRECTORY IN
CONCEPT. SOME STATEWIDE,
GUIDANCE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL
FOR US. WE'VE SEEN A PATCHWORK
OF ENFORCEMENT AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL, AND SO WE'D LOVE TO SEE
THAT GET CLEANED UP. AND SO LOOK
FORWARD TO ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATIONS ON THAT. BUT RIGHT
NOW WE DO HAVE AN OPPOSING THIS
AMENDED THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 3218.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS. YES
MADAM VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
CHAIR A QUICK QUESTION. SO DOES
THIS COME DOWN TO AN ENFORCEMENT
ISSUE? I IT SEEMS TO ME AS A LAY
PERSON THAT MAY BE VERY
COMPLICATED OUT THERE IN THE
MARKETPLACE BETWEEN FLAVORED
TOBACCO AND UNFLAVORED TOBACCO.
SO THE OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE SURE
WE PROTECT THE UNFLAVORED
TOBACCO AND PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION. SO IT'S KNOWN TO
THE MARKETPLACE. WHAT IS LEGAL
AND NOT LEGAL IS AM I
UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY?
THIS IS ABOUT CLARIFICATION.
IT'S YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY I
AND I AGREE, I THINK RETAILERS
HAVE A HARD TIME KNOWING WHAT'S
LEGAL, WHAT'S NOT LEGAL, SO THIS
IS PROBABLY CREATING A
DEFINITIVE LIST OF WHAT IS A
LEGAL, UNFLAVORED PRODUCT YOU
CAN SELL IN YOUR STORE, WE HOPE
THAT THAT WILL WE KNOW THAT THAT
WILL PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION.
THE CHALLENGE WE'RE FACING NOW
IS THAT, AND YOU KNOW, WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT TO THE OPPOSITION,
THIS A LOT OF THE ENFORCEMENT IS
DIRECTED AT DISTRIBUTORS, NOT
THE LOCAL RETAILERS, BECAUSE AS
CHALLENGES SOMETIMES FOR
RETAILERS, THEY THEY GO ON THE
BASIS THEIR DISTRIBUTOR SAYS,
WELL, THIS IS A FINE PRODUCT.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SELL THAT.
THEY'VE GOT A MILLION OTHER
THINGS GOING ON. THEY DO THAT
AND THEN THEY FIND THEMSELVES
OUT OF COMPLIANCE. AND SO THIS
IS ABOUT CLARIFICATION AND
MAKING SURE THAT THAT WE ARE
ACTUALLY HAVING A LAW THAT
ACTUALLY REFLECTS WHAT WHAT WAS
INTENDED HERE. BACK WHEN SB 793
PASSED. WELL, I COMMEND YOU FOR
THIS. I JUST SO IT REALLY GOES
TO THE DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION
PART OF THE MARKET. AND SO THEY
COULD ACCESS THIS LIST FROM THE
FROM THE, THE FDA AND ACTUALLY
KNOW IT WILL BE A LIST HERE
GENERATED IN CALIFORNIA OR JUST
CALIFORNIA BY WHICH AGENCY. BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
OKAY ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAY IT
WILL STOP ALL THE ILLEGAL
FLAVORED TOBACCO. THAT'S OUR
HOPE TO PROTECT KIDS. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE
IT. THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO
EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO THE
AUTHOR AND TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. AND I THINK EVEN AS WE
HEARD FROM OPPOSITION, THE
CLARITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I
THINK A LOT OF THE I HAVE FAMILY
THAT OWNS A CONVENIENCE STORE,
AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT
RULES. AND, YOU KNOW,
DISTRIBUTORS ARE JUST TRYING TO
GET THEIR PRODUCTS ON THE
SHELVES. AND SOMETIMES,
UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM, YOU KNOW,
UNBEKNOWNST TO THE TO THEMSELVES
AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THEY GET IN
TROUBLE AND THEY WANT TO FOLLOW
THE RULES. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S
GOING TO BE SOME BAD ACTORS, BUT
AT THE END OF THE DAY, MOST OF
THESE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GOING
TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE RULES IF
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. AND SO
I APPRECIATE THIS BILL COMING
FORWARD TO HELP CREATE THAT
CLARITY, AND, YOU KNOW, GO AFTER
SOME OF THE BAD ACTORS THAT ARE
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE STORE
OWNERS JUST TO GET THEIR
PRODUCTS ON THE SHELVES. SO I
APPRECIATE THIS EFFORT. AND AND,
AND I'M CONFIDENT AND KNOW THAT
YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION ON SOME OF THOSE
DETAILS AS WELL, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I'LL TAKE THAT AS MY CLOSING AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. I
VOTE WHEN YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UP
NEXT, ITEM TWO AB 2148. LO
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS IN WILL BE
PRESENTING. AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR NGUYEN, FOR ALLOWING US
TO JUMP AHEAD. THERE.
ABSOLUTELY. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT AB 2148 ON
BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER EVAN
LOWE, AB 2148 PROTECTS
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS BY
REQUIRING ENTITIES FORMED BY
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
FIDUCIARIES ACTING IN A
FIDUCIARY CAPACITY TO REGISTER
WITH AND, AND BE SUBJECT TO
REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT BY
THE PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY
BUREAU. HERE WITH ME TODAY IS
JERRY DESMOND, REPRESENTING
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARIES
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. JERRY DESMOND,
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. WE BELIEVE
IT REALLY WILL PROTECT CONSUMERS
IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THEY
ENGAGE A AN ENTITY TO PROVIDE
FIDUCIARY SERVICES AND ACT IN
THAT CAPACITY, AND THAT HAPPENS
IN TRUST DOCUMENTS. IT HAPPENS
IN COURT APPOINTMENTS. AND WE
THINK THIS CLOSES A LOOPHOLE,
AND WE SUPPORT THE MEASURE AND
APPRECIATE THE MEASURE BEING
INTRODUCED. THANK YOU, ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2148?
ANYONE, ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2148? ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SUMMER
NGUYEN, THANK YOU FOR, STEPPING
IN FOR SUMMER LO. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE WHEN THERE'S A
QUORUM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 19 AB 3155
SUMMER FRIEDMAN.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THE EXCELLENT AND
THOROUGH ANALYSIS. AB 3155
PROTECTS VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
LOCATED NEAR OIL AND GAS WELLS
BY HOLDING OIL COMPANIES
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HEALTH
RAMIFICATIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD
DRILLING. WHILE INCENTIVIZING
OIL COMPANIES TO USE THE BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE
POLLUTION AND PROTECT THEIR
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES OF THE
APPROXIMATELY 5.5 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS WHO LIVE WITHIN A
MILE OR OF ONE OR MORE OIL AND
GAS WELLS, ONE THIRD LIVE IN
AREAS THAT ARE THE MOST BURDENED
BY ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION. THIS
PROXIMITY BRINGS DISASTROUS
HEALTH IMPLICATIONS, INCLUDING
INCREASED RISK OF ASTHMA AND
OTHER RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES.
PRETUM BIRTHS, BIRTHS AND HIGH
RISK PREGNANCIES AND CANCER. IN
2015, THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEWED
EXISTING SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND
DETERMINED THAT FROM A PUBLIC
HEALTH PERSPECTIVE, THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO TOXIC
AIR CONTAMINANTS OCCUR WITHIN
ONE HALF MILE OF A WELL. THEY
RECOMMENDED THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEVELOP SCIENCE
BACKED SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
WELLS TO LIMIT THESE EXPOSURES.
THE LEGISLATURE FOLLOWED THAT
GUIDANCE WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB
1137. IN 2022. IN CALIFORNIA,
MORE THAN 28,367 OPERATIONAL OIL
AND GAS WELLS ARE LOCATED WITHIN
3200FT OF A HOME HOSPITAL,
SCHOOL, OR OTHER SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS. THE NUMBER OF
EXISTING WELLS, AND A
POTENTIALLY NEW WELLS NEAR THESE
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IS A SERIOUS
PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN. FOR THIS
REASON, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
IMPLEMENT THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT FUTURE
HARM TO CALIFORNIA'S VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS. AND TO BE CLEAR,
THIS BILL DOES NOT GET THESE
WELLS TO SHUT DOWN. IT DOESN'T
COMPEL THEM TO STOP BEING
OPERATIONAL. IT JUST TRIES TO
ENCOURAGE THEM TO USE THE BEST
POLLUTION REDUCING TECHNOLOGY TO
PROTECT THOSE SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS. THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE NEGATIVE
HEALTH OUTCOMES CAUSED DUE TO
THEIR OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND
HEALTH PROTECTIVE ZONES. AB 3155
CREATES A LIABILITY PRESUMPTION
TO HOLD THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HARM THEY'VE
CAUSED TO CALIFORNIANS THAT
RESIDE WITHIN 3200FT², 3200FT OF
THEIR WELLHEADS AND PRODUCTION
FACILITIES, SPECIFICALLY SB, SB,
SORRY, AB 3155 PROVIDES THAT
AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 2025, AN
OWNER, OPERATOR, OR BOARD MEMBER
OF THESE WELLS AND FACILITIES BE
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR
A RESPIRATORY AILMENT DIAGNOSED
AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 2025. SO NOT
GOING BACK, BUT GOING FORWARD IN
A SENIOR OR CHILD, A PRETUM
BIRTH OR HIGH RISK PREGNANCY
SUFFERED BY A PREGNANT PERSON
AND A CHILD AND A PERSON'S
CANCER DIAGNOSIS. NOW, THE
IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THIS
PRESUMPTION APPLIES JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY TO AN OPERATOR, OWNER,
OR BOARD MEMBER, BUT ONLY
APPLIES, AND THIS IS THE
IMPORTANT PART OF IT ONLY
APPLIES FIRST IF THE FACILITY OR
WELL IS LOCATED IN THE SAME
HEALTH PROTECTION ZONE WHERE
THESE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
RESIDE FOR MORE THAN 24
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE MONTHS TWO
THE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS AND
SENIORS AND CHILDREN PRETUM OR
HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES AND
CANCERS. AND THREE AND THIS I
THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE.
ONLY IF THE OIL AND GAS FACILITY
LOCATED IN SUCH A ZONE HAS
FAILED TO OPERATIONALIZE THE
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL AND
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY TO
PROTECT ITS VULNERABLE NEIGHBORS
. NOW, SOME MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WHO AREN'T HERE HAVE
EXPRESSED A CONCERN ABOUT THE
INCLUSION OF PRETUM BIRTHS AND
HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES. THEY
ASKED THAT WE SHOW EVIDENCE THAT
THEY'RE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE
OR TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE, AND
WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT TO THE
COMMITTEE'S SATISFACTION THAT IF
THERE'S DATA TO PROVE THIS, THEY
WERE FINE. IF WE'RE JUST
THROWING THAT IN, WE'RE FINE TO
REMOVE THAT AND WE'LL WORK WITH
THE COMMITTEE. SHOULD WE LEAVE
THE COMMITTEE TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF OUR SPONSOR? CONSUMER
WATCHDOG IS JAMIE CURT AND
NAYELI COBOS, FOUNDER OF PEOPLE
NOT POZOS. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. HI HI, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
NAYELI COBO. I'M AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST AND
STORYTELLER. I GREW UP 30FT
ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN ACTIVE
OIL AND GAS. WELL, WE COULDN'T
OPEN THE WINDOWS IN OUR HOME OF
OUR SOUTH L.A. HOME BECAUSE OF
WHAT WAS IN THE AIR. I COULDN'T
PLAY OUTSIDE FOR MORE THAN A FEW
MINUTES WITHOUT FEELING SICK,
AND I BEGAN ORGANIZING TO SHUT
DOWN THIS OIL WELL AT THE AGE OF
NINE. BY THE TIME I WAS 11, I
WAS DIAGNOSED WITH ASTHMA,
SOMETHING I'M ALWAYS GOING TO
HAVE TO LIVE WITH NOW. SORRY.
AND BY THE TIME I TURNED 19, I
WAS DIAGNOSED WITH STAGE TWO
REPRODUCTIVE CANCER AND I LOST.
SORRY AND I LOST MY ABILITY TO
BEAR CHILDREN AS A RESULT. MY
EXPERIENCE, LIKE THAT OF OTHERS
WHO LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS
POLLUTED BY OIL DRILLING, IS A
CONSTANT REMINDER THAT THOSE IN
POWER DO NOT VALUE OUR HEALTH
AND OUR WELL-BEING. IT'S A
SIGNAL THAT SOME COMMUNITIES ARE
EXPENDABLE, THAT OUR LIVES DON'T
MATTER AS MUCH AS THE FOSSIL
FUEL, AS THE FOSSIL INDUSTRY'S
PROFITS. IT'S TIME FOR THIS
LEGISLATURE TO GO FURTHER. A
BILL THAT WOULD HELP HOLD OIL
DRILLERS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE HARMS THEY HAVE CAUSED BY
DRILLING SO CLOSE TO WHERE
PEOPLE LIVE. AB 3155 WOULD MAKE
OIL DRILLERS PRESUMPTIVELY
LIABLE FOR THE ILLNESSES LINKED
TO THE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE
SETBACK ZONE. SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SETBACK
LEGISLATION SHOWS THAT LIVING
NEAR OIL AND GAS WELLS HAS
INCREASED RISKS OF ASTHMA.
PRETUM BIRTHS AND CANCER. JUST
LIKE I HAD, THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD ESSENTIALLY SHIFT THE
BURDEN OF PROOF FROM COMMUNITIES
TO POLLUTERS. IF THE OIL
INDUSTRY, IF THE OIL DRILLERS
CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THEIR
SICKENING SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES, THEY WOULD ASSUME
THE RISK OF SIGNIFICANT LEGAL
AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES.
PROTECTING US, THE COMMUNITY,
WITH LAWS LIKE AB 3155 IS THE
JOB WE ELECTED LAWMAKERS TO DO.
ALL CALIFORNIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO
BREATHE CLEAN AIR, DRINK CLEAN
WATER AND LIVE IN A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT. BUT THOSE WITH THE
LEAST RESOURCES AND POLITICAL
POWER ARE LIKELY TO BEAR THE
BRUNT OF POLLUTION AND CLIMATE
CHANGE. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO
PRIORITIZE CORPORATE PROFITS
OVER THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
OF CALIFORNIANS. THE FIGHT TO
PUT PEOPLE OVER FOSSIL PERSISTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M JAMIE
COURT. I'M PRESIDENT CONSUMER
WATCHDOG. NAYELI COBO IS NOT THE
ONLY ONE. THERE ARE 2.7 MILLION
PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN A HALF
MILE OF A WELL. AND IN 2021, IN
A LETTER TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM, THE
CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC ENERGY
MANAGEMENT DIVISION SCIENTIFIC
ADVISORY PANEL, WHO STUDIED THE
PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF
LIVING NEAR OIL FACILITIES, SAID
VERY CLEARLY, QUOTE, OUR PANEL
CONCLUDES WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF
CERTAINTY THAT THE EPITHELIUM
LOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT
THE THAT CLOSE REGIONAL
PROXIMITY TO OIL AND GAS
DEVELOPMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH
ADVERSE PERINATAL AND
RESPIRATORY OUTCOMES. VERY
CLEAR. FIVE OF THE TOP 12 TOXICS
COMMONLY USED IN LÀ OIL FIELDS
ARE CARCINOGENS, MEANING THEY
CAUSE CANCER, AND WE HAVE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT
PROXIMITY TO OIL PRODUCTION
FACILITIES IS LINKED TO CANCER.
AND ONE STUDY FOUND, QUOTE, THE
PROXIMITY TO AN OIL PRODUCTION
FACILITY WAS ASSOCIATED WITH
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
INCREASED RISK OF INCIDENT
CANCER DIAGNOSIS ACROSS ALL
CANCER TYPES. SO ALL COMPANIES
HAVE TO DO TO AVOID THIS
LIABILITY IS USE THE BEST
POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
THAT IS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE,
IT'S A SIMPLE THING TO DO. IT'S
SOMETHING WE ASK THE FIREARMS
INDUSTRY TO DO. GUN MAKERS, GUN
MAKERS HAVE TO USE THE FOLLOW
THE CODE OF CONDUCT, OR THEY ARE
PRESUMPTIVELY LIABLE WHEN PEOPLE
DIE OR ARE KILLED AND THIS IS NO
DIFFERENT. DRILLING IN OIL
FIELDS IS NO SAFER. IT'S I THINK
IT'S MORE DANGEROUS THAN MAKING
GUNS. SO SB 1137 WAS A LAW THAT
THIS LEGISLATURE PASSED IN ORDER
TO SEIZE ON THIS EVIDENCE WE
HAVE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF LIVING
IN THE ZONES. AND IT TOLD
DRILLERS NOT TO DRILL. THEY
SAID, NO, WE'RE GOING TO
REFERENDUM THAT, AND WE'RE GOING
TO DRILL. SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO
DRILL, THE VERY LEAST THEY CAN
DO IS MAKE SURE THEY USE THE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO NOT
HURT OR KILL PEOPLE. I WANT TO
SAY ONE LAST THING. I SAW SOME
POSTERS OUT BY IN SUPPORT OF SB
1137 SAYING ENERGY PROUD, ENERGY
PROUD AND EXCUSE ME, IN AGAINST,
SB AB AB 33155 POSTERS AGAINST
AB 3155 SAYING ENERGY PROUD. I
SAW THEM IN THE HALLWAY, ARE IS
THE ENERGY INDUSTRY PROUD OF
WHAT'S HAPPENED TO NIALL COBO?
IS THE ENERGY INDUSTRY PROUD
THAT THEY HAVE WELLS THAT HAVE
LEAKS AND THEY'RE CAUSING HARM
IN THE COMMUNITY? THE ENERGY
INDUSTRY CAN BE PROUD ONCE THEY
START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THEIR WELLS, AND THIS BILL MAKES
THEM TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THEIR WELLS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A PAUSE
FOR A MOMENT TO ESTABLISH QUORUM
CALLER HERE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
HERE, BRIAN CONNOLLY HERE. HANEY
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. PACHECO.
PRESENT REYES. SANCHEZ. WALDRIP
WE HAVE A QUORUM ESTABLISHED, IF
ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB
3155. GOOD MORNING. DAN BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS IN
SUPPORT. HELLO. KAYLA KARIMI,
STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE FOR
THE CENTER ON RACE, POVERTY AND
THE ENVIRONMENT, CO-SPONSOR OF
THE BILL IN ENTHUSIASTIC
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. JACOB EVANS WITH
SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
HI KIM STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY
FOR CONSUMER WATCHDOG, AND I
HAVE A LARGE LIST OF SUPPORTERS
THAT I'LL READ AS FAST AS I CAN
1000 GRANDMOTHERS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. 350 BAY AREA ACTION
350 CONEJO SAN FERNANDO VALLEY
350 SOUTH BAY, LOS ANGELES 350
VENTURA COUNTY CLIMATE HUB AZUL
BREAST CANCER ACTION BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS,
CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
NURSING, CALPIRG CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CENTER FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
NETWORK, CENTRAL VALLEY AIR
QUALITY COALITION, CITIZENS
CLIMATE LOBBY, SANTA CRUZ
CLIMATE ACTION, CALIFORNIA
CLIMATE FIRST, CLIMATE HAWKS
VOTE COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT, AND CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA ELDERS
CLIMATE ACTION, NORTHERN AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ELECTED
OFFICIALS TO PROTECT AMERICA.
CODE BLUE ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP,
EXTINCTION REBELLION, SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA FOOD AND
WATER WATCH, FOSSIL FREE
CALIFORNIA FRACTRACKER ALLIANCE,
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION,
GREENPEACE USA, INDIVISIBLE,
MARIN, LABOR, RISE, CLIMATE JOBS
ACTION GROUP, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL, OIL AND GAS
ACTION NETWORK, PARENTS AGAINST
SSFL, PATAGONIA, PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, LOS
ANGELES. PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY, SACRAMENTO,
PRESENTE.ORG, PROTECT PLAYA NOW,
REDEEMER COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP,
RESOURCE RENEWAL INSTITUTE, SAN
FRANCISCO BAY. PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SAN
FRANCISCO, N N, SANTA CRUZ
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, SAVE
EPA, SOCAL 350. CLIMATE ACTION,
SOLIDARITY INFO SERVICE,
STAND.EARTH, SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE,
SUSTAINABLE MILL VALLEY, THE
CLIMATE CENTER, TRANSFORMATIVE
WEALTH MANAGEMENT, VOTE SOLAR
AND WEST BERKELEY ALLIANCE FOR
CLEAN AIR AND SAFE JOBS NOW
VERY, VERY IMPRESSIVE. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3155.
WELL.
GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MR. CHAIR, MY NAME IS
MICHAEL MCDONOUGH. I'M A PARTNER
WITH PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN, AND I'M HERE FOR THE
WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY,
MEMBERS, WE STAND OPPOSED TO AB
3155. WE BELIEVE IT SETS A
DANGEROUS LEGAL PRECEDENT
BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY IN PROVING
CAUSATION AND COMPLEX,
MULTIFACTORIAL HEALTH CONDITIONS
LIKE CANCER AND HIGH RISK
PREGNANCIES. THIS BILL'S
PRESUMPTION OF LIABILITY FOR OIL
AND GAS OPERATIONS WOULD
FUNCTION AS A DE FACTO STRICT
LIABILITY, OR A FORM OF GUILTY
UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. NOW, THE
PROPONENTS ARGUE THAT FACILITIES
CAN TRY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
AGAINST A PRESUMPTION OF 100%
LIABILITY. BUT THE FACTS ARE
THIS EVEN EXPERT EPIDEMIOLOGISTS
AGREE THAT CANCER AND HIGH RISK
PREGNANCIES CAN BE INFLUENCED
AND ARE INFLUENCED BY NUMEROUS
GENETIC, DIETARY, BEHAVIORAL,
PHYSIOLOGICAL, AND OTHER
SITUATIONAL FACTORS. EVEN THE
REPORTS THE BILL CITES ONLY
CORRELATE ENVIRONMENTAL
INFLUENCES WITH HEALTH
CONDITIONS. THEY DON'T PROVE
CAUSATION. NOW WHEN IT COMES TO
CORRELATION, PROXIMITY TO HIGH
VEHICLE TRAFFIC AREAS IS ANOTHER
FACTOR CORRELATED WITH CANCER.
SO IS A FAMILY HISTORY OF
CERTAIN TYPES OF CANCERS OR
GENETIC ANOMALIES, BOTH OF WHICH
CAN ALSO BE A LEADING CAUSE OF
HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES. OBESITY
AND EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL DRINKING
ARE CORRELATED WITH LIVER
CANCER. HORMONE REPLACEMENT
THERAPY IS CORRELATED WITH
BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER, BUT
NONE OF THOSE CORRELATIONS TELL
US ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT FACTORS
CAUSED ANY INDIVIDUAL'S CANCER.
HOW MUCH HARDER, THEN, WILL IT
BE FOR A DEFENDANT TO DISPROVE
THAT A SINGLE FACTOR HAD ANY
CONTRIBUTION WHATSOEVER? PERHAPS
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE AND THAT
SEEMS TO BE, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL TO DESIGNATE
A SINGLE DEEP POCKET INDUSTRY
THAT THE BILL'S AUTHOR HERSELF
HAS DECIDED IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
100% OF THE CASES OF CANCER AND
100% OF THE HIGH RISK
PREGNANCIES WITHIN A CERTAIN
RADIUS OF A PRODUCTION FACILITY.
EVEN THOUGH THOSE TWO
CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT ONES SHARED
BY ANY REPUTABLE EPIDEMIOLOGIST
JUST NOW, THAT'S NOT THE WAY
CALIFORNIA'S JUSTICE SYSTEM
SHOULD WORK. AND WE SUBMIT THAT
IT'S THIS THAT SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR THE ASSEMBLY. SO
WHEN WILL YOU HOLD ALCOHOL
MAKERS RESPONSIBLE FOR 100% OF
THE MEDICAL COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH CIRRHOSIS AND LIVER CANCER?
WHEN WERE YOU GOING TO HOLD FOOD
MANUFACTURERS 100% LIABLE FOR
HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES CAUSED BY
DIABETES? AND WHEN IS THE
ASSEMBLY GOING TO PASS A BILL
THAT HOLDS STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL CANCERS OCCURRING WITHIN
3200FT OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY OR
STREET? SO YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A
TREACHEROUS ROAD FOR THE STATE
TO GO DOWN. IT SETS THE STATE
FOR ANY LEGISLATURE TO TARGET
THEIR DISFAVORED INDUSTRY OF
CHOICE FOR THE NEXT PRESUMPTION
IN PAYING FOR THE NEXT
MULTIFACTOR DISEASE. WE URGE YOU
NOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD AND
ALLOW FACTS AND EVIDENCE TO
CONTINUE TO GOVERN. WHO'S GOING
TO BE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
MY NAME IS CHARLES HENDERSON,
IT'S AN HONOR TO BE SITTING
HERE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN
AND COMMITTEE. AT EARLY AGE. I
GREW UP IN SOUTH CENTRAL LOS
ANGELES. AT 16, I WAS CONVICTED
FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER. I SPENT
28 YEARS OF MY LIFE INCARCERATED
IN PRISON, WHICH I PERFORMED
MYSELF. I CAME HOME, THE OIL
INDUSTRY WAS THE ONLY INDUSTRY
THAT ALLOWED ME TO BECOME A
PERSON, TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE
FOR MY FAMILY. I LOOK FOR JOBS.
I COULDN'T FIND NONE BECAUSE I
DIDN'T HAVE NO WORK HISTORY. I
DIDN'T HAVE NO TYPE OF SKILLS OR
ANYTHING. BUT THE OIL INDUSTRY
TOOK ME IN. THEY GAVE ME WHAT
THEY CALLED LIKE OJT, WHICH IS
ON THE JOB TRAINING. I WAS ABLE
TO START OFF AS A ROUSTABOUT,
MOVE MY WAY UP INTO OPERATOR TO
WHERE I'M MAKING NOW A
SUBSTANTIAL LIVING TO WHERE I
NOW I OWN MY HOUSE, I HAVE A
WIFE, I HAVE KIDS, WE IN THIS
FIELD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A SAFE
ENVIRONMENT. I TAKE MY KIDS TO
WORK WITH ME. I HAVE THAT MUCH
CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE DO AT THIS
PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN. I SIT HERE
NOT ONLY REPRESENTING MYSELF,
BUT 50,000 COWORKERS IN MY
INDUSTRY THAT ALSO HAVE KIDS.
THAT ALSO HAS BEEN GIVEN WHAT WE
BELIEVE AS A SECOND CHANCE TO
BECOME TAXPAYING CITIZENS. I
URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO PLEASE
VOTE NO ON THIS BILL BECAUSE IT
WILL DESTROY OUR INDUSTRY. AND
NOT ONLY IT WOULD DESTROY OUR
INDUSTRY, WOULD DESTROY
EVERYTHING THAT I COME OUT AND I
BUILT AND I HAD ESTABLISHED FOR
MYSELF AND MY KIDS. I MEAN, IF
WE'RE NOT DOING WHAT WE'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, THEN I
UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE ARE SO
STRICTLY REGULATED WHERE WE'RE
AT THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO WORK
AROUND GAS, OIL WELLS WITHOUT
WITHOUT HAVING TO WEAR
RESPIRATORS, WITHOUT HAVING TO
WEAR OUR TYVEK AND PPE AND ALL
THE REST OF THAT, BECAUSE IT'S
NO DANGER THERE. I'VE BEEN IN
THE FIELD FOR 14 YEARS NOW. I
APPRECIATE YOU, SIR, AND I
COMMEND YOU FOR TURNING YOUR
LIFE ON IN SUCH A PRODUCTIVE
MANNER. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. OKAY IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 3155?
SEAN WALLENTINE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING 350
OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS SERVICE
AND SUPPLY COMPANIES AND ROYALTY
OWNERS, AND 50,000 OIL WORKERS,
JUST LIKE CHARLES IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. THANK
YOU. MALLORY LUMSDEN,
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA. AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE. 3155 THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ROBERT
SAUCEDO. I'M PRESIDENT AND CEO
OF COMMUNITY BUILD. I'M AN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL BECAUSE
I THINK SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF
PROOF TO A DEFENDANT IS WRONG.
IT'S AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION.
THANK YOU. AND EVERY, EVERY
MEASURE WE COULD CONSIDER THANK
YOU. FOR THE CALIFORNIA AFRICAN
AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. HEY,
STEVEN EVANS, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. HI. TED
CORDOVA, REPRESENTING IMB
NATURAL RESOURCES, OVER 250
OILFIELD WORKERS AND THOUSANDS
AND THOUSANDS OF ROYALTY OWNERS
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, RICH BUEHLER, ENGINEER FROM
BAKERSFIELD, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. MATTHEW
PILZ, ENGINEER FROM BAKERSFIELD.
AND I OPPOSE AB 3155. THANK YOU.
ROBIN WOODWARD, I AM ENERGY
PROUD. AND I CAN SAY THAT
BECAUSE WHAT I GET TO DO IS HELP
MANAGE A PORTFOLIO OF $4
MILLION. THANK YOU. COMMUNITIES
IN MONTEREY, KERN AND FRESNO
COUNTY. THANK YOU. HI. COUNCIL.
KERRY SUMMERALL, MOTHER,
RESIDENT OF THE VALLEY, LIVE IN
BAKERSFIELD, A MANAGER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL FOR AERA ENERGY
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS SHALONDA DAVIS LADEN. I WAS
BORN AND RAISED IN BAKERSFIELD.
I HAVE WORKED IN THIS INDUSTRY
FOR OVER 17 YEARS AS A ROTATING
EQUIPMENT ENGINEER AND I'M PROUD
TO WORK FOR THE ENERGY. AND I
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING TO MY ENGINEER FROM
BAKERSFIELD AND I OPPOSE THANK
YOU, BERNARDO BARRIENTOS,
RESIDENT ENGINEER FROM
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY. I
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
DANIELLE OCHOA, ENGINEER FROM
BAKERSFIELD. I AM IN OPPOSITION
OF AB 3155. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. LEAH ATKINS FROM
BAKERSFIELD, AND I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
JOSE ROCHA, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
AND BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA. AND
I OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MARK PARHAM,
FATHER OF FOUR, MASTER OF NONE,
TEN YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY AND
BAKERSFIELD. AND I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ALEJANDRO
RUIZ, AND I WORK FOR CHEVRON,
AND I AM I WORK WITH THE
COMMUNITIES IN KERN, MONTEREY
AND, FRESNO COUNTY. AND I KNOW
THEY'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE. AND I
THINK IF YOU WILL SEE THE PEOPLE
THAT ACTUALLY LIVE IN THESE
COUNTIES, IF FOR EVERYONE THAT'S
LYING. JUST YOUR POSITION ON THE
BILL. THANK YOU. WE'VE ALREADY
HEARD TESTIMONY. BRITNEY
BLANKENSHIP, KERN COUNTY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME MUSIC. I'M A
PHYSICIST WITH CALIFORNIA
RESOURCES CORPORATION. I OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MIGUEL
CRUZ I WORK IN THE SUBURBAN
AREA. LÀ I OPPOSE I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. ORPHALI AND NATURAL
RESOURCES. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ALEXANDER
KIM, REPRESENTING THE ASIAN FOOD
TRADE ASSOCIATION AND THE AFGHAN
AMERICAN BUSINESS ALLIANCE. AND
WE REPRESENT LA COUNTY, ORANGE
COUNTY, SAN DIEGO AND INLAND
EMPIRE. WE OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, SORRY.
MY NAME IS JERRY POLLAN. I'M THE
PRESIDENT OF THE COALITION OF
FILIPINO AMERICAN CHAMBERS OF
COMMERCE. IT'S A NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION OF 42 CHAMBERS ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY. AND WE OPPOSE
THE BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS NÓI
FLORES. I'M REPRESENTING THE
CENTRAL VALLEY YEMENI
ASSOCIATION, AND WE ARE OPPOSED
TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, DOCTOR RUBEN GUERRA,
CHAIRMAN OF THE LATIN BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING OVER
700,000 LATINO OWNED BUSINESSES
FOR THE LAST 49 YEARS IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. AND WE
OPPOSE THE BILL. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS JESS GONZALEZ, AND I'M
WITH THE ORGANIZATION OUT OF
FRESNO, THE CENTRAL VALLEY, AND
WE OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
MIKE MONAHAN FROM STATE BUILDING
TRADES IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU,
DENNIS ALBIANI WITH PLAINS ALL
AMERICAN PIPELINE COMPANY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MATTHEW
CAPAZZOLI FROM BAKERSFIELD IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. CASEY
TWIST, BIOLOGIST FROM
BAKERSFIELD. I OPPOSE IT. THANK
YOU. KELLY HARRINGTON FROM
BAKERSFIELD. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. DEAN TALLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GREAT EVENING. CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MORNING,
DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF KERN, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JAMIE
HUFF, CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. ED SANDERS, GROUNDSWELL
FOR WATER AND HOUSING JUSTICE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
CEDRIC FARMER, LÀ SANDERS,
METROPOLITAN CHURCHES
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CLINT OLIVIER FROM THE
CENTRAL VALLEY BUSINESS
FEDERATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. SETH OLSON, COGENERATION
ENGINEER FROM BAKERSFIELD IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, SENATOR BAUER-KAHAN,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. I WANT
TO START BY SAYING HOW SORRY I
AM FOR YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR
HEALTH ISSUES. I HAVE A DAUGHTER
AND YOU DESERVE SO MUCH MORE
THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT. AND I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT. AND, CHARLES,
I THINK IT IS, I WANT TO COMMEND
YOU FOR BOTH EVERYTHING YOU'VE
DONE. AND I'M SURE YOUR KIDS ARE
INCREDIBLY PROUD OF YOU. AND FOR
BEING UP HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS PROCESS, IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE
WHO ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED, YOU
KNOW, I HAVE BEEN I AM A
HARDCORE ENVIRONMENTALIST, AND
YET I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN
CRITICAL OF POLICIES IN THE
LEGISLATURE THAT FOCUS ON SUPPLY
SIDE, BECAUSE I THINK OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A GLOBAL ISSUE. AND I
THINK SHIPPING OIL IN FROM
FOREIGN COUNTRIES THAT HAVE
DIRTIER STANDARDS THAN WE DO
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES ISN'T
NECESSARILY BENEFICIAL TO THE
GLOBE AND TO THE FUTURE, AND I
KNOW THAT THAT WAS HOW THIS WAS
FRAMED BY THE OPPOSITION, BUT
THAT'S NOT HOW I SEE THIS BILL,
YOU KNOW, YOU LAID OUT LIKE A
BRILLIANT DEFENSE ATTORNEY THE
CASE THAT DEFENDANTS LAY OUT
EVERY TIME SOMEONE LIKE THIS
COMES INTO A COURTROOM, IT COULD
BE SOMETHING ELSE. AND JUST LIKE
YOU SAID, IT IS INCREDIBLY HARD
TO PROVE THE CAUSATION OF THESE
ILLNESSES. AND SO RIGHT NOW,
THAT'S ON THE PLAINTIFF. AND
YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S HARD. AND SO
YOU JUST LAID OUT WHY IT WOULD
BE HARD FOR THE OIL COMPANIES TO
PROVE CAUSATION. BUT RIGHT NOW
WE'RE EXPECTING THE PLAINTIFFS
TO DO IT. AND SO I HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR,
AND I KNOW SHE'S COMMITTED TO
WORKING ON SOME THINGS IN THE
BILL. I HAD CONCERNS WITH SOME
OF THE BREADTH OF THE ILLNESSES
LISTED HERE. I CONFESS, I HAD
ONE OF MY CHILDREN OVER 35,
WHICH CONSIDERED HIGH RISK
PREGNANCY. OBVIOUSLY, NOT EVERY
HIGH RISK PREGNANCY IS RELATED
TO THE OIL WELLS, SO I DO THINK
THE BILL NEEDS TO BE NARROWED TO
THE ILLNESSES THAT WE KNOW ARE
CORRELATED WITH LIVING CLOSE TO
THESE FACILITIES. ASTHMA, I
THINK, IS A PRETTY CLEAR ONE,
AND I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS.
AND I KNOW THAT THE AUTHOR IS
COMMITTED TO NARROWING THE BILL,
TO WORKING ON MAKING SURE THAT
THE SHIFT IN THE BURDEN IS WHERE
WE KNOW THERE IS EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE CLUSTERS
AND THINGS CAUSED BY THESE OIL
WELLS. AND WITH THAT, I'M
COMFORTABLE WITH THE BILL
BECAUSE I THINK THE QUESTION
THAT WE GET TO DECIDE HERE TODAY
IS WHO BEARS THAT BURDEN? IS IT
THE PLAINTIFF OR IS IT THE
DEFENDANT? AND I DON'T THINK
THAT SHUTS DOWN OIL WELLS
BECAUSE I THINK IT JUST DECIDES
WHO HAS TO WALK INTO COURT AND
PROVE THAT IT WASN'T THE OIL
WELLS. RIGHT. AND WHERE WE KNOW
THE OIL WELLS COULD BE CAUSING
THESE DISEASES IS I THINK IT'S
FAIR TO SAY THAT IT IS ON THESE
COMPANIES TO PROVE THAT IT
WASN'T. AND IF YOU CAN, IT ISN'T
STRICT LIABILITY. THERE'S
NOTHING THAT PUTS A STRICT
LIABILITY IN HERE. IT JUST TALKS
ABOUT WHO BEARS THAT BURDEN. AND
TO BE HONEST, AS A FORMER
DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MYSELF, I KNOW
THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE, YOU WILL
DO IT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK
THAT WE ARE SHIFTING THE BURDEN
IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR
JUSTICE AND FOR THESE
COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE BORNE TOO
MUCH TO DATE. I THINK IT SHOULD
BE DONE IN A WAY THAT CONNECTS
TO THE SCIENCE. AND I TRUST THE
AUTHOR WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TO
REFINE THE BILL TO DO JUST THAT.
BUT I JUST THINK THIS IS NOT A
BILL THAT WILL SHUT DOWN OIL
COMPANIES OR OIL PRODUCTION IN
CALIFORNIA. I THINK IT WILL
BRING RELIEF TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
BEARING. ONE THING WE DIDN'T
TALK MUCH ABOUT HERE TODAY IS
THE COST. THE COST ON THESE
FAMILIES OF THE HEALTH CARE
BILLS THAT COME ALONG WITH
LIVING IN THESE COMMUNITIES, OF
HAVING HIGHER RATES OF ASTHMA.
AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THAT
SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY BORNE BY
THESE COMMUNITIES. AND IF IT
MEANS CLEANER PRACTICES BECAUSE
YOU WANT TO AVOID THAT
LIABILITY, THAT'S A WIN FOR
THESE COMMUNITIES. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IS THERE
A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND AND
WE HAVE A SECOND? I APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS FROM FROM OUR
COLLEAGUE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, I
THINK, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE
MAIN COMPONENTS THAT THAT ALSO
MAKES ME COMFORTABLE IS THE IS
USING THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY TO PROTECT ITS MOST
VULNERABLE NEIGHBORS. THAT'S NOT
ONLY GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS,
IT'S GOOD FOR THE WORKERS, TOO.
AND FRANKLY, IF YOU'RE OPERATING
AN OIL WELL THAT'S IN
NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU SHOULD BE
DOING THAT ANYWAY. AND SO THAT'S
ONE EASY WAY TO REMOVE THE
LIABILITY SHIFTING IS JUST USE
THE BEST TECHNOLOGY THAT'S
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE TO RUN
THE CLEANEST OPERATION YOU CAN.
AND SO THAT'S I WOULD SAY AN
EASY OUT BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU
KNOW, THE SOCIETAL COST, NOT
JUST TO THE FAMILIES BUT THE
OVERALL SOCIETAL COSTS, HEALTH
CARE COSTS, THE OBVIOUS PERSONAL
COST IS ENORMOUS. AND IF WE CAN
AVOID THAT AND AVOID SHIFTING
THAT LIABILITY, THAT'S A WIN
WIN. AND SO I THINK THAT
PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY. AND
EVEN WITH IT'S NOT I UNDERSTAND
THE ARGUMENT FROM OPPOSITION. IT
IS NOT STRICT LIABILITY. IT
STILL ALLOWS YOU TO OFFER UP
EVIDENCE, BUT TO REBUT THE
PRESUMPTION, AND THERE'S STILL
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. THERE'S
STILL A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS
THAT CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
THROUGH THE LITIGATION PROCESS.
BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
DEBATE. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE
BEING HERE, BOTH IN SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION. THE LONG LIST OF
SUPPORT THAT WE HEARD FROM MISS
STONE, AND THEN ALL THE EVERYONE
THAT TOOK THE TIME TO BE HERE,
JUST KNOW THAT WE DO APPRECIATE
THE INDUSTRY. WE JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE IT'S AS SAFE AS
POSSIBLE FOR THOSE THAT ACTUALLY
LIVE 24 SEVEN NEXT TO SOME OF
SOME OF THESE FACILITIES. AND I
THINK WE CAN DO THAT. AND SO
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE THE MEMO? FREEMAN. JUST I
ALSO WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO
CAME UP TO TESTIFY, THIS IS NOT
A BILL THAT IS AIMED AT PUTTING
THE OIL INDUSTRY OUT OF
BUSINESS. IT'S A BILL THAT'S
AIMED AT GIVING A VOICE TO SOME
OF THESE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
BEEN IMPACTED, AND MOSTLY AND A
REALLY FINDING A WAY TO
ENCOURAGE THE INDUSTRY TO USE
THE BEST TECHNOLOGY. AND IT WAS
INTERESTING TO ME THAT NO ONE
FROM THE OPPOSITION MENTIONED
THAT COST BEING OVERWHELMING,
THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE TO DO AND IMPOSSIBLE
STANDARD. AND IT SEEMS LIKE IF,
YOU KNOW, IN CERTAINLY IN AREAS
THAT ARE MORE DENSE, THAT USING
THAT BETTER TECHNOLOGY IS A
SIMPLE WAY TO SORT OF GET OUT
FROM WITHIN THE, THE
STIPULATIONS OF THIS BILL. AND
SO AGAIN, IT IS A WIN WIN. AND I
DO APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION. I WOULD REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE SO WE CAN CONTINUE THAT
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM SECRETARY, ROLL CALL
ON THE VOTE, PLEASE. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO NATURAL RESOURCES.
CALL FOR A CALL. AYE. DIXON NÓ
DIXON. NØ BAUER. KHN BAUER.
KHN AYE. BRIAN CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. PACHECO.
REYES. SANCHEZ NO. SANCHEZ. NO.
WALDRON. NO. WALDRON. NO THANK
YOU. WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU. SO. SAYING ITEM
SEVEN, AB 2244. YEAH HE WAS HE
WAS THERE. HE WAS. HE MISSED US.
HE WANTED TO COME BACK AFTER
SPENDING TIME WITH US LAST WEEK.
YES LOVE IT HERE. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIR, MAYBE 24, 22, 44 WOULD
PROHIBIT THE USE OF BISPHENOL A,
BPA IN PAPER RECEIPTS BY JANUARY
1ST, 2025. AND ALL BISPHENOL
CHEMICALS AND PAPER RECEIPTS BY
JANUARY 1ST, 2026. I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
THAT CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS ON PENALTIES AND
REALLY APPRECIATE YOURS AND YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF'S HELP ON THAT,
AS WE ALL KNOW, WE COME INTO
CONTACT WITH PAPER RECEIPTS
EVERY DAY A NUMBER OF TIMES A
DAY, MOST OF THAT PAPER MATERIAL
IS MADE WITH BPA OR BISPHENOLS.
AND ACTUALLY, THE WAY THAT THAT
IS TRANSFERRED INTO OUR BODY
ISN'T BY BREATHING INTO IT,
WHICH IS WHAT I HAD ALWAYS
ASSUMED. IT'S ACTUALLY BY
TOUCHING THE RECEIPT. SO THE
SECOND YOU GRAB THE RECEIPT, YOU
TOUCH IT, YOU ARE COMING IN AND
BEING TRANSFERRED A VERY, VERY
TOXIC AND DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS
CHEMICAL, THE BILL IS GOING TO
BE IMPLEMENTED, ENFORCED BY
DTSC, AND GIVES THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
COUNTY COUNSEL, OR CITY ATTORNEY
THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THIS
LEGISLATION AS WELL, WE BELIEVE
THAT TAKING BPA AND BISPHENOLS
OUT OF THE RECEIPTS WILL REALLY
BE SOMETHING THAT WILL HELP
PROTECT THE PUBLIC. SO WITH
THAT, I HAVE NANCY BURGMEIER TO
BE MY PRIMARY WITNESS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
NANCY BURGMEIER, ON BEHALF OF
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. AND
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER TANG,
FOR YOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP ON
THIS BILL, WHICH WOULD BAN ALL
BISPHENOLS IN THERMAL RECEIPT
PAPER, BCP IS A SCIENCE BASED
ORGANIZATION WORKING TO PREVENT
BREAST CANCER BY REDUCING OUR
EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS LINKED TO
THE DISEASE. BISPHENOL A, OR
BPA, IS FOR GOOD REASON. ONE OF
THE BETTER KNOWN HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS. AND TODAY YOU WILL
SEE BPA FREE STICKERS ON
NUMEROUS PRODUCTS. UNFORTUNATE
WE ALL TOO OFTEN BPA HAS BEEN
REPLACED WITH AN ALPHABET SOUP
OF BISPHENOL SUBSTITUTES BPF,
BPA, F AND SO ON. THAT IS. THAT
IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED
WITH THERMAL PAPER. A 2023
REPORT FOUND THAT BPA HAS
LARGELY BEEN REPLACED BY ANOTHER
CASE OF REGRETTABLE SUBSTITUTION
OF THE RECEIPTS TESTED. LESS
THAN 1% CONTAINED BPA AND NEARLY
80% CONTAINED BPPS, WHILE THESE
SUBSTITUTES ARE OFTEN LESS WELL
STUDIED, THE MORE WE LEARN, THE
BETTER WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
ENTIRE CLASS OF BISPHENOLS HAS
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR HEALTH,
INCLUDING RISK OF ASTHMA AND
HYPERACTIVE IN CHILDREN AND
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE,
FERTILITY PROBLEMS, OBESITY,
DIABETES, AND INCREASED RISK OF
BREAST AND OTHER CANCERS IN
ADULTS. BPA AND BPPS ARE LISTED
ON CALIFORNIA'S PROP 65 AS
REPRODUCTIVE TOXICANTS, AND THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS
DESIGNATED BPA AND BPF AS
CHEMICALS OF HIGH CONCERN FOR
CHILDREN. BISPHENOLS ARE
ABSORBED THROUGH THE SKIN WHEN
HANDLING THERMAL RECEIPT PAPER.
THIS EXPOSURE IS CONCERNING FOR
ALL CONSUMERS. HOWEVER, THE
GREATEST RISK IS FOR CASHIERS,
OVER 70% OF WHICH ARE WOMEN AND
OCCUPATIONAL STUDIES HAVE
CONFIRMED THAT BPA LEVELS ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN IN
CASHIERS, THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT
THE REPORT THAT I REFERENCED
EARLIER ALSO SHOWED THAT 20% OF
THE RECEIPTS TESTED ARE FREE OF
ALL BISPHENOLS. CLEARLY,
ALTERNATIVES ARE CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE AND IN USE. I ALSO
WANT TO NOTE AND THANK THAT
WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
AND THE COMMITTEE'S EFFORTS TO
ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION'S
POSITION, WE DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND ARE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH ALL PARTIES TO ENSURE A
WORKABLE SOLUTION IS FOUND THAT
DOESN'T UNDERMINE THE INTENT AND
GOALS OF THE BILL. IT'S TIME TO
REMOVE THIS ENTIRE CLASS OF
TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM THERMAL
RECEIPT PAPER BY PASSING AB
2244. I URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. SO THE MOTION AND A
SECOND. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2244?
GOOD MORNING. AND CLAPS WITH
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE. WE
HAVE A SUPPORTING CONCEPT WITH
THE SAME UNDERSTANDING AS THE
LEAD WITNESS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, EMILY GARCIA
WITH NRDC IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2244? CHAIR MEMBERS R.J.
CERVANTES HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER
ASSOCIATION, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR HIS CONTINUED WORK
WITH US. WE'RE 99% THERE. WE
HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW WITH
WITH HIS STAFF JUST TO GO OVER
REMAINING CONCERNS. SO
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION? AB 2248 2244,
BRINGING BACK TO COMMITTEE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SUMMER,
IF YOU HAD ASKED FOR A PROP OF A
STAFF MEMBER WEARING A LARGER
SEAT WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT OF THAT STAFF MEMBER, I
WOULD HAVE APPROVED IT, THAT
BEING SAID, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? NOT NOT THIS YEAR, BUT
APPRECIATE THAT. REALLY
APPRECIATE, YOUR HELP WITH THE
BILL, ONE FINAL NOTE THAT I
FORGOT TO MENTION IN MY OPENING
COMMENT WAS THAT, BECAUSE THE
RECEIPTS HAVE BPA OR BISPHENOL,
THEY CAN'T BE COMPOSTED. IT
MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO
RECYCLE, AND SO IT JUST MAKES IT
ONE PIECE OF THE WASTE STREAM
THAT REALLY CANNOT BE REUSED. SO
AGAIN, WITH THAT, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR I VOTE FOR AB 2244.
THANK YOU. TAKE A ROLL CALL,
PLEASE. ON AB 2244 MOTIONS DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALLER. AYE. DIXON. DIXON. NO
BAUER-KAHAN. B¢O. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. BRIAN AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. PACHECO.
AYE. PACHECO. AYE. REYES
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO. WALDEN
OKAY. WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. PATTERSON
THAT'S. YEAH, I KNOW WE SAW YOU
THERE IN THE SECOND ROW, AB
2255. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT MY BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. TWO. TWO. FIVE.
FIVE, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE BILL.
OR RIGHT NOW, OUR LAWS CREATE A
DISINCENTIVE TO ADOPT CHILDREN
FROM FOSTER CARE TO CERTAIN AGE,
MY BILL DOES A LOT OF THINGS.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT REMOVES
THAT DISINCENTIVE TO MAKE SURE
THAT PARENTS CAN, YOU KNOW,
ADOPT THEIR CHILDREN. AND I HAVE
WITH ME, MY, I TOLD HER I DIDN'T
HAVE A WITNESS TODAY BECAUSE
THIS BILL IS ACTUALLY BROUGHT BY
PLACER COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, A MEMBER, BY THE
WAY, WHO'S ALSO A FOSTER MOM.
AND SO I TOLD MY CHIEF OF STAFF,
WHO'S ALSO A FOSTER, TO ADOPT
MOM, THAT SHE'S ON DECK, THIS
MORNING, THIS MORNING. SO SHE
HAS VERY PREPARED STATEMENT FOR
YOU, YOU KNOW, READY IN SEASON
AND OUT. RIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE
WERE JUST CHATTING LAST NIGHT,
AND I WAS DOING THE MATH, WE
HAVE ADOPTED TWO OF OUR FOUR
CHILDREN AND OUR OLDEST THAT WE
ADOPTED. WE ACTUALLY ADOPTED HIM
13 DAYS SHORT OF HIM TURNING 16.
BECAUSE OF THAT, HE LOST OUT ON
ALL OF THESE BENEFITS. AND THAT
DIDN'T PERSUADE US IN THE
MOMENT. BUT I LOOK AT THAT, AND
I STILL REMEMBER IT WAS THE
COURT THAT CALLED US AND ASKED
US TO ADOPT TWO CHILDREN BECAUSE
THEY'D BEEN SPLIT UP IN THE
FOSTER CARE SYSTEM. NOBODY AT
THAT TIME WAS INTERESTED IN
ADOPTING TWO OLDER CHILDREN, AND
SO WE OPENED UP OUR HOME AND
WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE ADOPTION AFTER THEY HAD BEEN
IN FOSTER CARE FOR FIVE YEARS
AND HAD LIVED IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT HOMES, AND SO AS WE
WERE LOOKING AT THIS BILL AND,
MISS LANDON BROUGHT IT FORWARD,
MY HEART MELTED A LITTLE BIT
BECAUSE I THOUGHT OF ALSO MY
DAUGHTER, WHO WE ADOPTED, WHO
TURNED 18 AT THE BEGINNING OF
HER SENIOR YEAR. I COULDN'T
IMAGINE AN 18 YEAR OLD STARTING
THEIR SENIOR YEAR AND LOSING ALL
OF THEIR BENEFITS AND THEIR
SUPPORT, AND SO ALTHOUGH WE WERE
ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM,
THERE'S MANY, MANY CHILDREN THAT
DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND
I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE'S
A CRISIS RIGHT NOW OF OLDER
CHILDREN NEEDING TO BE ADOPTED.
AND SO I'M HONORED TO BE ABLE TO
SPEAK ON THE FLY IN THE MOMENT
FOR THIS REALLY IMPORTANT BILL.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2055? ANNIE
THOMAS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2255? ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. WE DO HAVE A MOTION
ON THE TABLE. ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SENATOR
BRYANT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE
LOOKING FOR COAUTHORS, MR.
PATTERSON, BUT I'M HAPPY TO JOIN
YOU, YOU KNOW, I THINK, AS YOU
KNOW, MY PARENTS WERE FOSTER
PARENTS FOR 26 YEARS AND ADOPTED
NINE OF US, INCLUDING MYSELF, I
THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS
RIGHTEOUS, AND IMPORTANT. AND I
HEAR THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION,
BUT I'D LIKE TO SECOND, THIRD OR
FOURTH. IT THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. I'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU AS
A COAUTHOR. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ON THE SPOT
TESTIMONY. I THINK THAT
SOMETIMES WHEN IT COMES FROM THE
HEART LIKE THAT, IT'S MORE
POWERFUL, AND SO APPRECIATE YOU.
MADAM SECRETARY, IF I TAKE ROLL
CALL ON AB. OH, SORRY. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I ASKED FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ROLL CALL ON AB 2055. DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL
FOR AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN BECKER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. AYE. BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA PACHECO.
AYE. PACHECO. AYE. REYES.
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. AYE. WALDRON
ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT. UP NEXT ITEM, TEN
SUMMER CHAU. AND IN THE MEANTIME
, CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR? SECOND, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TAKE
ROLL CALL, PLEASE. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. THOSE BILLS
ARE AB 2459 WILSON AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2664 BRIAN TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2677. CHEN, AS
AMENDED TO THE FLOOR AB 2925.
FRIEDMAN, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2948 RAMOS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 3004. MIKE
FONG TO APPROPRIATIONS, AB 3049.
BRYANT AS AMENDED TO HUMAN
SERVICES AB 3100, LOW TO THE
FLOOR AB 3196 NGUYEN TO THE
FLOOR AB 3282. JUDICIARY TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL.
AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BRIAN. HI. BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. AYE. HEANEY.
MAINCHAIN. MCKENNA PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. REYES. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ. AYE. WALDRON WRITE.
CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT. AND SO,
SUMMER, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
YES GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M
GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THE AB 2499 TO YOU TODAY
, SO, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT
NO PERSON SHOULD LOSE A JOB
BECAUSE THEY NEED TIME TO
RECOVER FROM A TRAUMATIC EVENT.
AB 2499 WILL ENSURE THAT FAMILY
MEMBERS OF LIVING DIRECT VICTIMS
AND SURVIVORS OF TRAUMA CAN TAKE
UNPAID LEAVE AND TIME OFF TO
ADDRESS SAFETY CONCERNS, HEAL OR
SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY. 1 IN 6
SURVIVORS OF VIOLENT CRIME
REPORT LOSING THEIR JOBS OR
BEING DEMOTED BECAUSE THEY NEED
TO TAKE TIME OFF FOR THEIR
TRAUMATIC EVENT. 53% OF
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
REPORT LOSING A JOB BECAUSE OF
THE ABUSE. SEVEN OUT OF TEN
VICTIMS DESCRIBE FEELING UNSAFE
OR SCARED FOLLOWING
VICTIMIZATION. LOW WAGE WORKERS,
INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS, WOMEN,
NON-BINARY WORKERS AND WORKERS
OF COLOR WHO ARE ESPECIALLY
VULNERABLE TO VICTIMIZATION, ARE
ALSO LEAST LIKELY TO HAVE
EXISTING FLEXIBILITY OR LEAVE
PROTECTIONS IN THEIR JOBS.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME
PROTECTIONS, MANY GAPS THAT
LEAVE SURVIVORS VULNERABLE AND
UNPROTECTED REMAIN. AB 2499 WILL
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REASONS
SURVIVORS NEED TO TAKE UNPAID
TIME OFF FROM WORK AND ALLOW
FAMILY MEMBERS OF SURVIVORS TO
TAKE TIME OFF TO SUPPORT LOVED
ONES. EMPLOYERS WILL BENEFIT AS
WELL. THEIR EMPLOYEES WILL BE
LESS LIKELY TO RETURN,
UNPRODUCTIVE OR DISTRACTED AND
GIVEN GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE TIME
TO RECOVER. OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE
SURE PEOPLE HAVE GREATER
STABILITY AND PROTECTIONS TO
HEAL. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO
DECIDE BETWEEN THEIR THEIR
HEALTH, THEIR WELL-BEING AND
HAVING A JOB. WE ARE NOT
REQUESTING MORE SICK DAYS OR
FASTER ACCUMULATION. THE CAP IS
FOR UNPAID LEAVE AND WILL STAY
AT 12 WEEKS, AND EMPLOYEES WILL
NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXTEND BEYOND
THAT. AND WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT
IN NEW AMENDMENTS. I'D LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE AS WELL THAT IF THE
EMPLOYEE WERE TO TRY TO TAKE
UNPAID LEAVE FOR REASONS THAT
ARE NOT LISTED IN THE BILL OR
CURRENT LAW, THEN THE EMPLOYER
HAS NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP THE
JOB OPEN FOR THAT EMPLOYEE.
ALSO, CURRENTLY WE YOU KNOW, WE
KNOW THAT EMPLOYERS I KNOW THAT
THERE ARE CONCERNS AROUND,
MOVING THE THRESHOLD DOWN FROM
25 TO 5 EMPLOYEES. EMPLOYERS
ALREADY HAVE TO MAKE
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THINGS LIKE
THE FMLA, WHICH APPLIES TO FIVE
EMPLOYEES OR MORE. SO EMPLOYERS
OF FIVE EMPLOYEES ARE MORE
ALREADY ACCUSTOMED TO MAKING
ACCOMMODATIONS, AND THAT IS THE
MAXIMUM. NO ONE EXPECTS THAT
PEOPLE ARE AUTOMATICALLY GOING
TO TAKE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
TIME OFF, BUT JOINING ME TODAY
TO ALSO TESTIFY IS STEPHANIE
HATTON FROM CRIME SURVIVORS. AND
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND ALSO
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY KATHERINE
WHITSETT WITH LEGAL AID AT WORK.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I'M
STEPHANIE HATTON FROM STOCKTON,
CALIFORNIA. I'M HERE TO
RESPECTFULLY SUPPORT AB 2499 ON
JULY 15TH, MY SON ANTOINE WAS
GUNNED DOWN IN FRONT OF TWO OF
HIS SEVEN CHILDREN, AT HIS HOME,
THE FOLLOWING DAY, MULTIPLE
THINGS IN OUR LIVES CHANGED. HIS
WIFE AND CHILDREN HAD THREE DAYS
TO MOVE. WE HADN'T DONE FUNERAL
ARRANGEMENTS, AND OTHER THINGS
NEEDED TO BE DONE. AND I WAS
TAKING CARE OF HIS SEVEN
CHILDREN. THAT WERE SO
TRAUMATIZED, THAT NO ONE ELSE
COULD EVEN DEAL WITH THEM. AND
THERE WERE ALSO OTHER FAMILY
MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE THAT I HAD
TO MEET THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND
CARE FROM THEM. STILL, HAVING TO
DO EVERYTHING CONCERNING HIS
DEATH, MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS.
AND THEN HIS WIFE WAS NOTIFIED
AFTER 16 YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT
THAT SHE WAS TERMINATED. AND,
HAD THIS BILL BEEN IN PLACE,
NONE OF US, INCLUDING MYSELF,
WHO'S BEEN EMPLOYED FOR MULTIPLE
OVER 30 YEARS AS AN ADDICTION
SPECIALIST IN OUR CITY, AND MY
DAUGHTER, WHO IS A REGISTERED
NURSE WHO GIVES OUT MEDICATION
AND THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ERROR IN
THEIR LAW, WE REALLY COULD HAVE
USED THAT ADDITIONAL TIME AND
JOB, PROTECTION TO TAKE CARE OF
OUR FAMILIES AND OUR OTHER
FAMILY MEMBERS WOULD HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO STEP IN AND HELP US AS
WELL, I AM HERE TODAY TO, TO
RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU
CONSIDER, FOR THE ADDITIONAL
TIME AND PROTECTION THIS
RESULTED IN US PROFESSIONAL
PEOPLE HAVING TO GO APPLY FOR
FOOD STAMPS AFTER WE WORKED HARD
IN COLLEGE AND ESTABLISHED
CAREERS SO THAT WE WOULDN'T BE A
BURDEN. AND WHAT I'VE SEEN IN
OTHER FAMILIES, IT'S RESULTING
IN IN THAT. SO I ASK THAT YOU
CONSIDER THIS BILL SO THAT WE
CAN STAY FUNCTIONAL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS KATHERINE WIDGET, AND I'M A
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT LEGAL
AID AT WORK, AN ORGANIZATION
DEDICATED TO ADVANCING WORKERS
RIGHTS. AND AT OUR ORGANIZATION,
WE HAVE A SURVIVE HELP LINE
WHERE WE GET CALLS FROM
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT WHO ARE
CALLING BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED
ABOUT THEIR SAFETY, BUT THEY
CAN'T LEAVE THEIR JOB. AND IT'S
NOT SURPRISING, GIVEN THAT 1 IN
2 SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND 1 IN 6 SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE
END UP LOSING THEIR JOB EITHER
BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS OF
VIOLENCE OR NEEDING TO TAKE TIME
OFF. RELATED TO IT. WHILE
CALIFORNIA HAS SOME PROTECTIONS
IN PLACE FOR THESE SURVIVORS,
THEY DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH, AND
THIS BILL FILLS IN THOSE CRACKS.
SO FIRST, IT ALLOWS FAMILY
MEMBERS OF SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE
TO ACCESS LEAVE FROM WORK FOR
SPECIFIC REASONS. SO IT'S UNPAID
LEAVE CAPPED AT 12 WEEKS. AND
IT'S NOT JUST THAT SOMEONE CAN
SAY, MY DAUGHTER IS EXPERIENCING
DOMESTIC ABUSE. I'M GOING TO
TAKE 12 WEEKS OFF FROM WORK.
IT'S MY DAUGHTER'S EXPERIENCING
ABUSE. I'M GOING TO TAKE A DAY
TO HELP HER MOVE FROM A
DANGEROUS HOME. I'M GOING TO
TAKE AN AFTERNOON OFF TO GO TO
COURT WITH HER, EMPLOYERS ARE
ALSO ALLOWED TO ASK FOR WRITTEN
CERTIFICATION OF THE REASON,
ADDITIONALLY, THE BILL ALLOWS
MORE FOLKS TO ACCESS REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH ARE
CHANGES AT WORK FOR THE SAKE OF
SAFETY. NO EMPLOYER HAS TO
PROVIDE THEM IF THEY'RE AN UNDUE
BURDEN, AND THEY'RE ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING SURE THAT
SOMEBODY WILL BE SAFE. AND THEN
FINALLY, THE BILL STREAMLINES
THE PROCESS FOR ENFORCING THESE
RIGHTS BY ALLOWING SURVIVORS TO
FILE WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT, BY ALLOWING
SURVIVORS TO FILE WITH THIS
DEPARTMENT THAT ALREADY ENFORCES
OTHER LEAVE AND ACCOMMODATION
LAWS. IT WILL SIMPLIFY THE
PROCESS INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM
FILE WHICH WITH TWO AGENCIES AS
MANY CURRENTLY HAVE TO, WHICH
CAN BE CONFUSING AND IN HARM
PEOPLE IN ASSERTING THEIR
RIGHTS. NOBODY SHOULD GO THROUGH
WHAT MISS HATTON'S FAMILY DID,
AND NOBODY SHOULD BE FIRED FOR
TAKING TIME OFF FROM WORK TO
FIND CHILD CARE FOR A GRANDCHILD
AFTER THEIR PARENT IS GUNNED
DOWN IN FRONT OF THEM. THESE ARE
SOME OF THE REASONS THAT WE ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2499, GOOD
MORNING, SETH BRAMBLE HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
MAGALI SEGAL WITH GREENBERG
TRAURIG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STRONG
SUPPORT, ALSO TESTIFYING IN
SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOWING
ORGANIZATIONS CALIFORNIA WORK
AND FAMILY COALITION, ASIAN LAW
ALLIANCE, BREASTFEED, LA
CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING
COALITION, CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION,
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, CENTER
FOR WORKER'S RIGHTS, CITIZENS
FOR CHOICE, AND COMMUNITY LEGAL
SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KEVIN
INSKO FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA FOR
ALSO TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
ELECTRIC UNIVERSE LÀ ALLIANCE
FOR A NEW ECONOMY, LA BEST
BABIES NETWORK, THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, LOS
ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY EQUALITY
COALITION, PARENT VOICES,
CALIFORNIA WOMAN INCORPORATED,
WORKING PARTNERSHIPS USA,
WORKSAFE, AND THE UFCW WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS BRIAN
MIRAMONTEZ WITH ASK ME
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS
ANTHONY DEMARTINO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND CRIME SURVIVORS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE. PROUD
CO-SPONSORS ALSO IN SUPPORT
SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
MEMBERS YVONNE FERNANDEZ WITH
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DOES
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2499.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, WE AGREE THAT THIS
IS A VERY, VERY SERIOUS AND
IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, CALIFORNIA HAS AND
HAS HAD FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS VERY
ROBUST PROTECTIONS WHERE AN
EMPLOYEE IS A VICTIM OR IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE VICTIMS
OF CRIMES. WE AGREE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE PROTECTION WHERE
SAFETY IS AN ISSUE. ONE OF OUR
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL IS THAT
THAT QUALIFYING REASONS THAT, IT
ADDS, OFTENTIMES RELATES TO
SCENARIOS WHERE SAFETY IS NOT AN
ISSUE OR THERE'S NOT AN URGENCY.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, CURRENT LAW
COVERS SCENARIOS WHERE THE
EMPLOYEE IS CONCERNED ABOUT
SAFETY PLANNING OR NEEDS TO TAKE
STEPS TO ENSURE THEIR SAFETY IN
THE FUTURE. THE SAFETY OF A
CHILD, ETC, SO OUR CONCERN HERE
IS THAT WE ARE ALSO EXPANDING
INTO SCENARIOS THAT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY URGENT, AND THAT IS
COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT THIS
LEAVE WOULD APPLY TO SMALLER
BUSINESSES WITH JUST FIVE OR
MORE EMPLOYEES, TO THE AUTHOR'S
POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FMLA.
YES. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO,
CALIFORNIA DID EXPAND
CALIFORNIA'S VERSION OF FMLA,
WHICH IS SEPHORA, TO EMPLOYERS
WITH JUST FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES. AND I THINK THAT
ACTUALLY ILLUSTRATES OUR CONCERN
, AS OUR COLLEAGUE WILL EXPAND
UPON SMALL BUSINESSES, HAVE BEEN
SUBJECT TO NINE NEW LEAVES IN
JUST THE LAST FOUR YEARS,
INCLUDING THAT 12 WEEK LEAVE
UNDER SEPHORA. SO THIS WOULD BE
THE SECOND TIME IN JUST A COUPLE
OF YEARS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
WOULD BE IMPOSING A 12 WEEK
LEAVE ON BUSINESSES WITH JUST
FIVE WORKERS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. YOU'RE DONE.
YOU'RE DONE. YES. SORRY IT'S
TIME'S UP. AFTER ALL THAT, I
THINK THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T TALK.
EXACTLY I'VE BEEN CUT OUT RIGHT
THERE, GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
CHRIS. MICHAELA WITH LA AREA
CHAMBER AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION AND SORRY ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS FROM MY BACK TO YOU, AS
MISS HOFFMAN INDICATED, OUR
FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN IS THE
ADDITIONAL OF ANOTHER UNCAPPED
LEAVE AS MISS HOFFMAN INDICATED,
THE LAST FOUR YEARS, WE'VE HAD
MORE THAN A HALF A DOZEN
ADDITIONAL LEAVES. WHETHER IT'S
THE EXPANSION OF SEPHORA DOWN TO
FIVE, BEREAVEMENT LEAVE,
SUPPLEMENTAL PAID SICK LEAVE,
ETC. A BILL LIKE THIS CANNOT BE
VIEWED IN ISOLATION BY THIS
COMMITTEE. YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN
THAT PERSPECTIVE AND NOT JUST
THOSE NINE LEAVES IN THE LAST
FOUR YEARS, BUT THE NUMBER OF
LABOR CODE REVISIONS,
AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS THAT OCCUR
EACH AND EVERY YEAR, THE LAST
DOZEN OR SO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN
TRACKING IT, WE'RE DOING
ANYWHERE FROM 35 TO 65 NEW AND
EXPANDED LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT OR
LABOR CODE PROVISIONS EACH AND
EVERY YEAR. YOU KNOW, FOR LARGE
CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE HR AND
IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL, QUESTION
WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN HANDLE
IT. BUT FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS,
THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN. SO
WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT
THIS MEASURE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ALL THE OTHER LEAVES AND LABOR
CODE PROVISIONS THAT YOU'VE
ENACTED EACH AND EVERY YEAR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2499? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. SKYLAR WONACOTT
WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. JAMIE HUFF WITH THE
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. RYAN ELAINE WITH
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
BEN ABBINK WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, DENNIS ALBIANI WITH THE
FAMILY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. HI, NATALIE BOUSE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
DEAN TALLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, MADAM ASSEMBLYWOMAN, HOW
DID YOU COME UP AGAIN WITH THE
12 WEEKS AND GO DOWN TO FIVE
EMPLOYEES? WHAT WAS THE
RATIONALE? CHAU SO PART OF THE
REASON TO MOVE TO FIVE
EMPLOYEES, EXCUSE ME, IS THAT
THAT'S THE STANDARD FOR OTHER
LEAVES THAT ARE COVERED BY THE
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT,
SO WE YOU KNOW, IT'S CONFUSING.
I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT
STANDARDS AND DIFFERENT AND
DIFFERENT THINGS FOR BOTH
EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS TO
UNDERSTAND. AND SO WE WANTED TO
MAKE THAT CONSISTENT, AND, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING RIGHT
NOW AROUND RETAIL THEFT, AROUND
PEOPLE EXPERIENCING TRAUMA WHEN
THAT HAPPENS IN THEIR STORES.
AND A NUMBER OF YOU KNOW,
BUSINESSES ARE SMALLER WHERE
THESE THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.
RIGHT? AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVERYONE WHO COULD BE
IMPACTED IS, IS COVERED AND IS
AFFECTED, I KNOW THAT THERE, YOU
KNOW, ADDITIONALLY, I HEAR THE
OPPOSITION AND THEY'RE TRYING TO
KIND OF COMBINE THIS WITH A
NUMBER OF OTHER POLICIES THAT
HAVE HAPPENED, RIGHT, TO MAKE IT
A LOT BIGGER THAN IT IS. BUT I
THINK IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THAT BIG
BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY BEEN 215
COMPLAINTS TO THE LABOR
COMMISSION IN THE LAST THREE
YEARS AROUND SURVIVOR BENEFITS.
THAT'S 70 A YEAR. THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO TANK
SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS IS NOT A HUGE
FORTUNATELY, NOT A HUGE ISSUE.
BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE SITUATIONS
LIKE THIS WHERE SOMEONE WHO IS A
PROFESSIONAL OR NOT, WHO HAS
LOST THEIR JOB AND THEIR ABILITY
TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILY
BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF
THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN
TRAUMATIZED BY A TERRIBLE EVENT.
SO SO WE DON'T THINK THAT THIS
IS A WIDESPREAD, EXCUSE ME,
NEED, BUT WHEN IT IS A NEED,
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THIS RIGHT TO
RETAIN THEIR JOB AND GET THE
CARE AND PROTECTION THAT THEY
NEED. WELL, I'M CERTAINLY
SYMPATHETIC TO ANY ADVERSE
SITUATION AND TRAUMATIC.
TRAUMATIC SITUATION. I DON'T
KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE HAVE
RUN A SMALL BUSINESS. FIVE
PEOPLE. ONE IS GONE FOR 12
WEEKS. I MEAN, YOU SAY DOESN'T
HARM BUSINESS UNLESS YOU'RE A
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. I DON'T
KNOW HOW ANYONE CAN SAY THAT.
I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
ACTUALLY AND MY AND I GREW UP IN
A FAMILY OF SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS. THEN YOU HAVE AN
APPRECIATION FOR THAT. AND I DO,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND YOUR
THAT WAS A FORTUNATE SITUATION
TO RECOVER IF SOMEONE WAS GONE.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT OTHER
EMPLOYEES DO HAVE SICK DAYS. I
MEAN, IN A SMALL AND A COMPANY
WITH ONLY FIVE EMPLOYEES
CONCEIVABLY CAN EVERYBODY'S OUT
WITH COVID OR MEASLES OR SOME
KIND OF COLD SITUATION. I MEAN,
FIVE DOESN'T GIVE YOU MUCH
LATITUDE TO REALLY HAVE A
WORKFORCE THAT IS CONSISTENT AND
SUSTAINED, AND THE 12 WEEKS, I
MEAN, I THINK FOR THE VICTIM.
ABSOLUTELY. ALSO, DON'T FORGET,
I DON'T FORGET THAT EMPLOYEES
HAVE VACATION TIME. THEY HAVE
FLEXIBLE DAY TIME. THEY MOST,
VACATION PERSONAL DAYS HAVE NOW
BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO A
FLEXIBLE WORK TIME. AND SO UP
SOMETIMES UP TO THREE WEEKS,
FOUR WEEKS, DEPENDING ON THE
SIZE OF THE COMPANY, OF COURSE,
AND THE WHEREWITHAL OF THE
COMPANY. AND THOSE BENEFITS. SO
I JUST PARTICULARLY IN A COMPANY
THAT HAS ONLY FIVE EMPLOYEES, A
SMALL BUSINESS, THERE'S REALLY A
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
EMPLOYER AND SITTING DOWN AND
SAYING, YOU KNOW, MY BROTHER OR
MY FAMILY, MY, THIS HAS THIS
TERRIBLE SITUATION. CAN I JUST
HAVE AN EXTENDED UNPAID LEAVE?
AND IT MAY JUST BE A WEEK OR TWO
WEEKS, BUT THERE'S MORE OF A
PERSONAL INTERACTION. GRANTED,
LARGE COMPANIES CAN PERHAPS
HANDLE THIS, BUT NONETHELESS,
IT'S STILL A COST. IT'S JUST ONE
MORE COST TO BUSINESS, AND IT'S
BECOMING SO APPARENT TO ME THAT
WE DO A LITTLE BIT HERE AND A
LITTLE BIT THERE, AND PRETTY
SOON THAT BUSINESS HAS GONE TO
ARIZONA AND THAT HAPPENS. I
MEAN, WE'VE SEEN IT AND WE KNOW
THAT THERE IS AN UNEMPLOYMENT
SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE
MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS HAVE LEFT
THE ONEROUS ANTI-BUSINESS
CLIMATE IN CALIFORNIA. SO I'M
SYMPATHETIC. I THINK IT DOESN'T
HAVE TO IN MY OPINION. IT
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 12 WEEKS. AND
I WOULD LIKE TO EXCLUDE SMALL
BUSINESS AND POSSIBLY CONSIDER
AN AMENDMENT TO MINIMUM OF 50 OR
100 EMPLOYEES. SMALL BUSINESSES
ARE BARELY HANGING ON TODAY WITH
ALL THESE REGULATIONS AND COSTS
OF DOING BUSINESS AND DOING
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ONE MORE
CHIP AWAY AT BEING A TRYING TO
BE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS THAT
PROVIDES JOBS FOR PEOPLE. SO I
APPRECIATE AND YOUR YOUR INTENT
AND THE EMPATHY THAT WE ALL HAVE
FOR PEOPLE IN TRAUMATIC AND
VICTIMS, PEOPLE IN TRAUMATIC
SITUATIONS. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO
BALANCE THAT WITH THE ECONOMIC
NEED OF A SMALL BUSINESS AND
JUST THE MANAGEMENT OF A SMALL
BUSINESS. AND I WOULD SAY THAT
IT IS REALLY TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANY EMPLOYER TO
DENY AN EMPLOYEE OR THEIR FAMILY
MEMBER TO GET THROUGH A VERY
DIFFICULT TIME WITH SOME RELIEF.
I JUST SAY IN A SMALL BUSINESS
YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER TO SORT
THESE THINGS OUT, IF NEEDED. BUT
ANYWAY, I JUST THINK IT'S
ONEROUS AND IT'S A BURDEN ON ALL
BUSINESSES, BUT ESPECIALLY SMALL
BUSINESS. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, YES. I AGREE IT'S
UNACCEPTABLE TO DENY LEAVE,
WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THIS BILL,
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE
YOU SAID, SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
HAVING TO FIGURE OUT PEOPLE
TAKING OFF FOR COVID, PEOPLE
TAKING OFF FOR FAMILY MEDICAL
LEAVE, PEOPLE TAKING OFF FOR ALL
KINDS OF OTHER THINGS. RIGHT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ALREADY
SMALL BUSINESSES FIGURE OUT. I
GREW UP IN A FAMILY WITH A SMALL
BUSINESS, AND SOMETIMES MY DAD
WAS THE ONLY EMPLOYEE AND
SOMETIMES HE HAD 10 OR 15
EMPLOYEES. RIGHT? EITHER WAY,
THAT WOULD DEFINITELY IMPACT HIM
AND BE A HARDSHIP. HE WAS. HE
HAD ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR,
BUSINESS AND FINDING
ELECTRICIANS IS NOT EASY TO
REPLACE. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT
AND I EMPATHIZE WITH THAT, BUT
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
FIGURED OUT ALL THE TIME. AND
LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THERE'S NO
BURNING BUILDING HERE. IT'S 70
COMPLAINTS A YEAR. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A STATE OF 39 MILLION
PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT A HUGE ISSUE
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE FACING
OR DEALING WITH. FORTUNATELY,
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE A
HUGE ISSUE THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS
FACING. AND SO IT'S REALLY
NEGLIGIBLE. WE TALK ABOUT BUDGET
DUST. THIS IS THIS IS TIME OFF
DUST THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN
THE IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND SO
I JUST DON'T SEE THIS, THIS,
THIS OVERWHELMING IMPACT OF
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT'S BEING
TALKED ABOUT BY OPPOSITION. CAN
I JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT?
SURE, I APPRECIATE THAT IN TERMS
OF THE FACTS AND THE PRIOR
EXPERIENCE, MY OBSERVATION IS
ONCE LAWS ARE CREATED, THEN
SUDDENLY EVERYBODY THINKS, OH,
WELL, WE COULD GO AFTER THAT. SO
I DO NOT RELY ON THE CONDITIONS
OR THE SITUATIONS THAT DROVE THE
70 REPORTS, BECAUSE ONCE YOU
CREATE A LAW, THEN IT JUST
CREATES A DESIRE TO UTILIZE THE
PROVISIONS OF THAT LAW. AND I
THINK THAT WILL JUST INVITE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO USE
THIS. AND, AND MAYBE RIGHTFULLY
SO, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, TO
MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT WHICH
WOULD BE ENCOURAGED OR
SUGGESTED, BUT NOT REQUIRED,
ONCE PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BAUER-KAHAN. THANK YOU. AND YOU
MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.
SO SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT,
BUT THE 70. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA
HOW BIG THOSE BUSINESSES WERE,
THAT INFORMATION IS IN THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. THAT'S
WHAT I THOUGHT. SO SORRY TO ASK
A QUESTION. YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE
ANSWER TO IT. I WAS JUST
CURIOUS, AND THEN MY SECOND
QUESTION IS, SO I WAS HERE WHEN
WE DID THE SEPHORA EXPANSION. I
WAS ONE OF THE VOTES THAT GOT IT
OVER THE LINE, TO BE HONEST WITH
YOU, BECAUSE I REALLY THOUGHT IT
WAS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT
PEOPLE, EVEN AT BUSINESSES OF
FIVE, HAD THAT LEAVE WHEN I MADE
THAT VOTE. I'LL BE HONEST WITH
YOU, I DIDN'T THINK I WAS
SETTING A PRECEDENT FOREVER. SO
HINDSIGHT IS 2020, AND I WANT TO
SAY WE WENT FURTHER AND WE
CREATED A MANDATORY MEDIATION
PROGRAM FOR SMALL BUSINESSES IN
THAT BILL BECAUSE AS A FORMER
ATTORNEY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
CONCERNED ME WAS, YES, 70
BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA ISN'T A
LOT. IF IT'S 70 SMALL
BUSINESSES, A LAWSUIT AGAINST A
SMALL BUSINESS CAN SHUT THEM
DOWN. AND SO WE ACTUALLY CREATED
THIS MANDATORY MEDIATION PROGRAM
THAT WE'RE EXTENDING THIS YEAR
BECAUSE IT WAS INCREDIBLY
SUCCESSFUL. THAT REQUIRED THAT
THERE WOULD BE A WAY TO AVOID
LAWSUITS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES,
THAT THE WORKERS COULD GET THEIR
RIGHTS VINDICATED. THEY COULD
GET ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS.
BUT SMALL BUSINESSES WHO DON'T
HAVE HR DEPARTMENTS WHO DON'T
HAVE EXPENSIVE LAWYERS, WHO
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MYRIAD OF
REGULATIONS WE PLACE ON THEM,
COULD HAVE A WAY TO AVOID THE
COST OF LITIGATION, WHICH IS
REAL, ESPECIALLY FOR A SMALL
BUSINESS, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE
AWARE. AND SO MY REAL CONCERN
HERE IS THAT WE'RE JUST PILING
ON TO THESE BUSINESSES OF FIVE
OR MORE THAT DON'T HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF
THESE LEGAL FRAMEWORKS. AND SO
YOU SAID WE'RE ALREADY DOING IT.
WE ARE. I KNOW I VOTED FOR THE
BILL THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE TO DO
THIS FOR FIVE EMPLOYEES, BUT,
BUT THERE ARE STILL PLACES WHERE
WE HAVE CAPTURED AT 25. I DON'T
THINK IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD AT
FIVE, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG. ANYBODY? YEAH. OKAY SO I
GUESS I, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE
LOWERING THIS TO FIVE EMPLOYEES
BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT FOR
THOSE 70 SMALL BUSINESSES, IT
COULD BE THE END OF THEM. AND
YES, THAT'S NOT A TON OF
BUSINESSES, BUT FOR ME, IT'S
ENOUGH. AND I THINK THAT WHAT I
BALANCE IN THESE BILLS IS AND I
WANT TO SAY, I'M SO SORRY YOU
HAVE BEEN THROUGH MORE THAN ANY
HUMAN SHOULD HAVE TO BEAR. AND,
AND THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
AND THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT
THAT. I ALSO KNOW THAT THE
LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES. AND IF WE DON'T KEEP
THAT ECOSYSTEM HEALTHY, THE
LIVELIHOOD OF THE PEOPLE THAT
WORK IN THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES
IS ALSO AT RISK. SO HOW DO WE
KEEP THAT ECOSYSTEM HEALTHY
WHILE ALSO ENSURING PEOPLE LIKE,
YOUR WITNESS HERE TODAY HAVE
WHAT THEY NEED. AND I GUESS I'VE
ALWAYS FELT AND MAYBE THIS IS
NAIVE OF ME, BUT IN MY
EXPERIENCE WITH SMALL
BUSINESSES, THEY'RE LIKE
FAMILIES. AND THE SMALL
BUSINESSES ARE PROBABLY THE
FIRST TO GO OUT AND ACCOMMODATE
PEOPLE. AND IT'S THE BIG
COMPANIES THAT ARE GOING TO SAY
NO, RIGHT? I MEAN, I GUESS
THAT'S MY GUT. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I JUST THINK THAT WE CAN DO BOTH
AND WE'RE NOT YET HERE IN THIS
BILL. AND SO I'M NOT THERE YET.
BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO. AND I AGREE WITH
YOU. I THINK THAT PEOPLE NEED TO
TAKE CARE OF THEIR LIVES, AND WE
NEED A WORKING ECOSYSTEM THAT
ALLOWS FOR THAT. BUT I THINK
THAT WE CAN HAVE A BILL WITH
BETTER BALANCE. SO I ALSO SHARE
THE SAME CONCERNS FOR OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES AND JUST FROM READING
THE ANALYSIS, I RIGHT NOW, IT'S
PROHIBITED THAT AN EMPLOYER WITH
25 OR MORE EMPLOYEES BE, YOU
KNOW, BE ALLOWED THEY SHOULD
ALLOW THEIR EMPLOYEES TO TAKE
SOME TIME OFF FROM WORK TO DEAL
WITH, CERTAIN CERTAIN ISSUES,
YOU KNOW, MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR
INJURIES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
SO THERE'S ALREADY PROTECTION
FOR THE VICTIM. AND I UNDERSTAND
THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW FAMILY
MEMBERS TO ALSO HAVE THE SAME
PROTECTION. BUT CURRENTLY IT'S
25 EMPLOYERS WITH 25 OR MORE
EMPLOYEES. SO IS THERE A REASON
TO DECREASE IT FROM 25 TO 5?
YEAH. LIKE I STATED EARLIER, I
THINK THAT IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW,
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT RETAIL THEFT, SOME OF
THOSE EMPLOYERS ARE SMALLER,
SMALLER EMPLOYERS. RIGHT, AND IF
YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS
IN A 7-ELEVEN. RIGHT. AND
THEY'RE VICTIMS OF, OR SURVIVORS
OF TRAUMA, THEN THEY SHOULD THEY
SHOULD HAVE THEIR JOBS PROTECTED
AS WELL. WHILE THEY'RE DOING
THINGS TO ADDRESS THEIR SAFETY
AND HEALTH, SO WE JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE NOT LOSING THEIR
JOBS BECAUSE THEY EXPERIENCED
TRAUMA IN THEIR LIVES. AND MY
CONCERN IS FOR THOSE SMALL
BUSINESSES, I HAD A SMALL
BUSINESS PRIOR TO COME UP HERE.
AS AN ATTORNEY. AND, MY, MY
EMPLOYEES WERE, WERE LIKE FAMILY
TO ME. GRANTED, I ONLY HAD TWO
EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY WERE LIKE
FAMILY. SO IF THEY NEEDED TIME
OFF AND IT WASN'T JUST FOR LIKE
AN EMERGENCY, SOMETIMES IT WAS
BECAUSE THEY HAD SCHOOL OR THEY
HAD TO STUDY FOR SCHOOL, I WOULD
LET THEM HAVE TIME OFF. SO, MY
CONCERN IS THIS IMPACT ON SMALL
BUSINESSES. AND I KNOW YOU YOU
SAID THERE'S A ABOUT, 70
COMPLAINTS PER YEAR. WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT KIND OF EMPLOYERS,
GIVEN THAT CURRENTLY IT ONLY
AFFECTS EMPLOYER WITH 25 OR MORE
EMPLOYEES. SO CURRENTLY THE LAW
WOULDN'T EVEN AFFECT SMALL
BUSINESSES. AND NOW WE'RE
DECREASING IT TO FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES. SO MY CONCERN IS MORE
ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES AND HOW
IT WOULD BE IMPACTED, GIVEN
THAT, NOW THEY'D BE REQUIRED TO
GIVE AT MAXIMUM 12 WEEKS. TIME
OFF. AND GRANTED, I KNOW, I KNOW
, THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT THEY
COULD, IT WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON
HOW MUCH TIME THE PERSON NEEDED,
BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFIED HERE. AND
I KNOW IT SAYS THAT IN THE
ANALYSIS, IT'S NOT SPECIFIED
THAT, THAT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IS
REASONABLE FOR WHATEVER IS
OCCURRING IN THAT PERSON'S, LIFE
OR IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR
FAMILY MEMBER'S LIFE. SO I DO
HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD BE
IMPACTED. AND, I MEAN, I GUESS
I'LL JUST SAY ONE THING BECAUSE
I HEAR PEOPLE BEING CONCERNED
ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES. BUT THEN
AT THE SAME TIME, I HEAR
EVERYONE SAYING SMALL BUSINESSES
ARE LIKE A FAMILY, WHICH HAS
BEEN MY EXPERIENCE TOO. AND YOU
GIVE PEOPLE TIME OFF FOR
HOMEWORK. AND SO WHY WOULDN'T WE
GIVE PEOPLE TIME OFF IF THEY
HAVE SUFFERED FROM TRAUMA, WHY
WOULD WE NOT GIVE THEM TIME OFF
TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR SONS
CHILDREN WHO ARE GOING THROUGH
TRAUMA, RIGHT? WHY WOULD WE NOT
DO THAT? AND SO I THINK THAT
THAT'S PROBABLY HAPPENING IS
WHAT'S HAPPENING. RIGHT? I THINK
THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT REALLY
A BIG ISSUE, I KNOW THAT, A LOT
OF TIMES, DISCUSSIONS WHEN IT
COMES TO THINGS THAT IMPACT
BUSINESSES ARE FOCUSED ON SMALL
BUSINESSES, BUT IN FACT, IT IS
THE LARGE CORPORATIONS WHO ARE
BEHIND A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION.
AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. AND I'M
NOT I THINK THAT THEY WILL BE
OKAY. I THINK THAT THE LARGE
BUSINESSES CAN GIVE LEAVE TO THE
FEW PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WHO ARE GOING TO NEED
LEAVE FOR THIS PURPOSE. I DON'T
THINK IT'S GOING TO OVERWHELM
ANYONE. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING
TO PUT ANYONE OUT OF BUSINESS.
AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY WHEN
IT COMES TO SMALL BUSINESSES
THAT THEY ARE ALREADY
ACCOMMODATING PEOPLE WHEN THEY
GO THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THIS,
BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A FAMILY
MEMBER WHO IS GOING THROUGH
TRAUMA AND YOU WANT TO SUPPORT
THEM, RIGHT? SO IN THOSE FEW
INSTANCES, LIZ, WHERE AN
EMPLOYER WILL ACTUALLY REPLACE
YOU FOR EXPERIENCING TRAUMA, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
PROTECTED. AND THAT IS WHAT THIS
BILL IS REALLY AIMING TO DO. AND
I WANT TO ALSO GIVE MY, MY
WITNESS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND IF SHE HAS ANYTHING
ADDITIONALLY TO. YEAH. THANK
YOU. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
THE BILL DOES SAY THAT YOUR JOB
IS PROTECTED ONLY IF YOU'RE
TAKING TIME OFF FOR THE COVERED
REASON. SO IT'S NOT THE STATUS
GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO 12 WEEKS.
IT'S THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
TAKE TIME OFF FOR THOSE SPECIFIC
REASONS. AND I THINK IT'S WORTH
NOTING AS WELL THAT IF SOMEBODY
IS GOING THROUGH ONE OF THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT THE BILL
DOES IS MAKES SURE IF THEY TAKE
TIME OFF, THAT THEY WON'T BE
FIRED. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO
GUARANTEE THAT THAT EMPLOYEE IS
GOING TO COME TO WORK ON THE DAY
THAT THEIR DAUGHTER IS BEING
ABUSED AT HOME, AND THEY NEED TO
GO HELP. IT'S JUST WHETHER OR
NOT THE EMPLOYER IS GOING TO
FIRE THEM FOR DOING THAT. AND TO
THE POINT OF THE CALIFORNIA
FAMILY RIGHTS ACT, MOVING FROM
50 EMPLOYEES TO FIVE, IT WAS A
WONDERFUL BILL. IT'S GOOD THAT
IT'S SUPPORTING THOSE WORKERS
AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT
THAT ENFORCES THAT PROVISION
TRACKS THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
THAT ARE MADE UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT
EACH YEAR. AND IN THE YEAR THAT
IT WENT TO FIVE EMPLOYEES FROM
50 EMPLOYEES, THE NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS DIDN'T ACTUALLY
INCREASE, WHICH TO US SAYS THAT
EMPLOYERS ARE CAPABLE OF
PROVIDING THIS LEAVE. THANK YOU,
ANY OTHER QUESTION, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS? MOVE THE BILL. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND,
THANK YOU EVERYONE, FOR THE FOR
THE IMPORTANT DEBATE ON THIS. I
YOU KNOW, IT DOES HAVE AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION, FOR THE REASONS
THAT THE AUTHOR STATED IN THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE
AN EXPANSION, I THINK THE VOLUME
OF INCIDENTS IN WHICH IT WOULD
ACTUALLY BE EXERCISED IS
PROBABLY PRETTY LOW. BUT IN THE
FEW CASES THAT IT WOULD BE, WE
CAN SEE EXAMPLES OF WHO IT'S
THERE TO PROTECT. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. I HOPE
THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS
THEM AND REALLY SHOW THAT THE
SCOPE OF THE IMPACT OF THIS
BILL, WHILE I THINK SMALL TO THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY, IS VERY BIG
AND FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS
LIVES WHO ARE THREATENED WITH
LOSING THEIR JOB BECAUSE THEY
HAVE EXPERIENCED TRAUMA OR
SUPPORTING A FAMILY MEMBER WITH
TRAUMA. AND SO RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
I CALL I DIXON. DIXON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN. BRIAN I
CONNELLY. CONNELLY I HANEY.
HANEY I MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
PACHECO. NOT VOTING. REYES REYES
I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NÓ. WALDRON.
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU. SUMMER. SANTIAGO ITEM SIX
AB 2224.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. YEAH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST
WAITING FOR YOUR DIRECTION.
APPRECIATE IT. FIRST, I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND
THE STAFF AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WHO HAVE, HELPED TO PUT INPUT
INTO THIS BILL. VERY SIMPLE AND
PLAIN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE
STATUS, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS,
SIJS, PROVIDES LIMITED,
IMMIGRATION RELIEF FOR
VULNERABLE UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN
AND YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
ABUSED, NEGLECTED, OR ABANDONED
BY ONE OR BOTH OF THEIR PARENTS.
THIS BILL JUST SIMPLY SEEKS TO
EXTEND SOCIAL SERVICES TO THIS
POPULATION. AND SECOND, IT SEEKS
TO COMBAT THE BACKLOG BY
ENSURING CLARITY AND EXPEDIENCY.
AND TWO SIMPLE WAYS, TO ENSURE
THAT, THIS POPULATION, GETS A
COURT ORDER THE SAME DAY IT'S
GRANTED, TO ENSURE, THE
REDUCTION OF DELAYS IN FILING
THEIR PETITION AND CLARIFIES
THAT THE COURT CAN APPOINT A
NON-ABUSIVE PARENT AS A CHILD'S
GUARDIAN, MR. CHAIR, I DECIDED
TO BE BRIEF, GIVEN THE LENGTH OF
THE OTHER ONE, BUT I CAN GIVE
YOU THE LONG VERSION IF YOU'D
LIKE. CERTAINLY. I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. I'M SURE
MEMBERS CAN ASK YOU TO ELABORATE
IF THEY FEEL THE NEED. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE? IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2224? WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. YES
PLEASE, PERSONAL KUDOS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2224? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION. ANY OTHER QUESTION OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE? THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY AND ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE AND AGAIN, DIDN'T WANT TO
BE DISRESPECTFUL THE COMMITTEE,
BUT I WANTED TO PRESENT IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME, A BRIEF
PRESENTATION. NO, I APPRECIATE
IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I CALL I
DIXON BAUER-KAHAN BAUER KHN. I
BRIAN CONNELLY. HANEY. HANEY I
MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
PACHECO I PACHECO I REYES REYES
I SANCHEZ. WALDRON. OKAY. THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM
ONE AB 2089? HOLDEN WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU TAKE ROLL ON
THE VOTE FOR AB 2089, PLEASE.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA I CALL I
DIXON. NÓ DIXON. NØ BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER. KHN. I BRIAN CONNELLY.
HANEY. HI. HANEY I MAINCHAIN
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA. PACHECO I
PACHECO. I REYES REYES I SANCHEZ
. I NOT VOTING WALDRON. WE'LL
PLACE THAT ON CALL. ITEM TWO AB
2148 LOW. YOU A MOTION A SECOND.
DO YOU PASS IT? DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA A KALRA I
DIXON A DIXON I BAUER. KHN.
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I HANEY. HANEY I
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
PACHECO I PACHECO. I REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I
WALDRON. WALDRON I THAT BILL IS
OUT. THAT WAS LOW. THAT WAS LOW.
NO ITEM FIVE AB 2223
AGUIAR-CURRY A MOTION AND A
SECOND DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
. KALRA A, KALRA I, DIXON A
DIXON I BAUER KHN BAUER. KHN I
BRIAN CONNELLY. CONNELLY I HANEY
A HANEY I MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I
MCKENNA. PACHECO I PACHECO I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ I SANCHEZ
I WALDRON I. WALDRON I LOW BLOWS
OUT. ITEM 12 AB 2606
AGUIAR-CURRY. SECOND, WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA A KALRA.
AYE. DIXON. DIXON AYE. BAUER.
KHN. BAUER. KHN. AYE. BRIAN.
CONNELLY CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY.
HI. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO AYE.
REYES. REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ AYE. WALDRON THAT'S.
AYE. 26 AB 2606 AGUIAR-CURRY
CALIFORNIA. AGAVE COMMISSION.
WALDRON. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM 21 WOULD AB 3218. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL.
AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY AYE.
HANEY. AYE. HANEY. AYE.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN AYE.
MCKENNA. PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO.
AYE. REYES REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ.
WALDRON OKAY. THAT. THAT BILL IS
OUT. AND. ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T
WE GO AHEAD TO GO TO SOME MEMBER
BILLS AND WE STILL HAVE SOME ADD
ONS AND ON CALLS THAT WE CAN GET
TO LATER. ASSEMBLYMAN CONNOLLY,
YOU READY TO GO? YEAH, YEAH,
HERE WE GO. IT'S TEAMWORK.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. YEAH.
SORRY. AND FOR THE RECORD.
ASSEMBLY. ASSEMBLY, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CONNOLLY WAS GIVEN A
PRIOR PERMISSION FOR USE OF
THESE DISPLAYS. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE
TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
ON THIS BILL. AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. MEMBERS, TODAY, I'M
PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2149, WHICH
WILL BE KNOWN AS ALEX'S LAW IN
2019. WE SUFFERED A TRAGEDY IN
MARIN COUNTY, SEVEN YEAR OLD
ALEX SCHWANBECK WAS AT HIS
SCHOOL PLAYING WITH HIS FRIENDS
AND WENT TO CLOSE A 300 POUND
GATE TO STOP THEIR FOOTBALL FROM
ROLLING INTO THE NEARBY ALLEY.
AS HE STARTED TO ROLL, THE GATE
CLOSED. THE GATE CAME OFF ITS
RAILS AND FELL AND CRUSHED ALEX,
KILLING HIM. THIS,
UNFORTUNATELY, IS A NOT UNCOMMON
OCCURRENCE IN CALIFORNIA AND
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. JUST
LAST NOVEMBER, TRAGEDY STRUCK
AGAIN IN TUCSON, ARIZONA, WHEN A
NINE YEAR OLD GIRL WAS HELPING
CLOSE A GATE AT HER SCHOOL,
WHICH CAME LOOSE FROM ITS
SUPPORT AND FELL AND KILLED HER.
THERE ARE NO EXISTING STATEWIDE
OR FEDERAL LAWS REQUIRING HEAVY
DUTY GATES TO BE INSPECTED OR
REPAIRED ON A REGULAR BASIS,
WITHOUT ANY PROTECTIONS. WHEN A
GATE IS POORLY DESIGNED, DAMAGED
OR JUST OVERUSED, IT HAS A RISK
OF DISCONNECTING FROM ITS
SUPPORTS AND FALLING. THESE
GATES CAN BE UP TO 20 OR 30FT
LONG, UP TO EIGHT FEET TALL.
THEY OFTEN WEIGH BETWEEN 300 TO
400 POUNDS, MAKING IT ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE CRUSHED
UNDERNEATH TO LIFT THE GATE AND
ESCAPE. AB 2149 CALLS FOR THESE
GATES TO BE INSTALLED WITH A
POSITIVE STOP, LITERALLY A $50
PIECE OF METAL THAT STOPS A GATE
FROM TOPPLING OVER. IF IT
BECOMES SEPARATED FROM ITS
TRACK. THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES TO
GATES THAT WEIGH MORE THAN 50
POUNDS AND LARGER THAN FOUR FEET
WIDE, OR SEVEN FEET TALL. IT
WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE GATE OWNER TO MAKE SURE
THEIR GATE IS INSPECTED EVERY
FIVE YEARS, AND LOCAL BUILDING
OFFICIALS WILL ONLY HAVE TO
BECOME INVOLVED IN EGREGIOUS
CASES. THE BILL ALSO GIVES LOCAL
BUILDING OFFICIALS AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENTS THE ABILITY TO
RECOUP THE COSTS OF THE BILL
THROUGH FINES AGAINST THE GATE
OWNER FOR FAILING TO HAVE THEIR
GATE INSPECTED AND REPAIRED IN A
TIMELY MANNER. WE HAVE WORKED TO
TRY AND APPLY THIS BILL TO THOSE
GATES THAT ARE LIKELY TO IMPACT
THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. I'M
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE
AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY TO FIND A
COMPROMISE THAT WILL RESPECT THE
UNIQUE NEEDS OF AGRICULTURE,
WHILE KEEPING EMPLOYEES AND THE
PUBLIC SAFE. WITH ME TO TESTIFY
TODAY IS ERIC KLEINBACH, THE
FATHER OF ALEX KLEINBACH AND
CO-OWNER OF THE HUMMINGBIRD
ALLIANCE, AND ROB EPSTEIN WITH
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WHICH
HAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED SOME OF
THE MEASURES OUTLINED IN THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY.
AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE
AND THE STAFF FOR GIVING ME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU. SO
I'D LIKE TO START WITH JUST
GIVING YOU A SENSE OF THE SIZE
AND SCALE OF THESE GATES. SO I
APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THE
PROPS. IT'S NOT TO BE DRAMATIC,
BUT THIS GATE HERE ON THE BOTTOM
LEFT, THIS IS THE GATE THAT FELL
ON MY SON. SO TO GIVE YOU A
SENSE, THIS FENCE AT MARK DAY
SCHOOL, WHICH IS A PRIVATE
SCHOOL IN SAN RAFAEL, WAS BUILT
IN RESPONSE TO SANDY HOOK. AS
YOU CAN IMAGINE, MANY SCHOOLS
ACROSS THE STATE IN CALIFORNIA
ARE PUTTING IN GATES AND FENCES
FOR SECURITY PERSPECTIVES.
HOWEVER, THE CHALLENGE IS WHEN
YOU DESIGN THESE GATES AND
FENCES, YOU OFTEN HAVE TO DESIGN
THEM FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. THE
FOOTBALL. THIS IS CONCRETE. HE
WASN'T PLAYING ON CONCRETE.
THERE WAS A GRASS FIELD WHERE HE
WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL. THE REASON
THIS FENCE AND SLASH GATE IS SO
LONG AND HIGH IS BECAUSE YOU
HAVE TO ENABLE FIRST RESPONDERS
TO BE ABLE TO GET ONTO A SCHOOL
GROUND. SO WHEN YOU BUILD A GATE
OF THIS SIZE AND MAGNITUDE, THE
WEIGHT BECOMES VERY DANGEROUS.
IF IT WERE TO FALL OFF OF THE
ACTUAL FENCE THAT IT'S ATTACHED
TO. SO IN THE CASE OF MY SON, AT
THE RISK OF BEING DRAMATIC, THIS
300 POUND GATE FELL OFF OF THE
FENCE. HE WAS A 60 POUND CHILD
AT THE TIME. HE WAS IN FIRST
GRADE. IT FELL ONTO HIS HEAD AND
HE WENT TO CARDIAC ARREST
IMMEDIATELY ON THE SCHOOL
PLAYGROUND. UNFORTUNATELY, ALEX
IS NOT ALONE. AND SO WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THIS MAP UP HERE, THIS
IS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. OTHER
INCIDENCES WHERE WE'VE SEEN
FATALITIES FROM FALLEN GATES.
NOW THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT
ARE THEY MANUAL GATES, ARE THEY
SWING GATES. ARE THEY AUTOMATIC?
UNFORTUNATELY AND THIS IS ONE
REASON WHY WE HAVE THE INDUSTRY
SUPPORT FROM THE AMERICAN FENCE
ASSOCIATION. ALL OF THESE
DIFFERENT DESIGNS FOR THESE
GATES HAVE LED TO FATALITIES. SO
I WON'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE
LIST, ALEX WAS OBVIOUSLY HERE IN
SAN RAFAEL. YOU SAW ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CONNELLY TALK ABOUT THE
CHILD WHO JUST DIED IN TUCSON.
THIS CASE IN MOAB. AT THE RISK
OF BEING A LITTLE TOO GRAPHIC,
THIS WAS A NATIONAL CASE WHERE A
WOMAN WAS DECAPITATED BY A
SWINGING GATE THAT CAME THROUGH
HER CAR WINDSHIELD WHEN SHE WAS
OUTSIDE OF ARCHES NATIONAL PARK,
HERE IN. EXCUSE ME, LAS VEGAS.
THIS WAS A BOY WHO WAS CRUSHED
BY AN AUTOMATIC GATE. THE MOTOR
OBVIOUSLY KEPT CLOSING THE GATE
WHEN THE CHILD WAS IN, BETWEEN
THE GATE AND THE FENCE. SO THE
TAKEAWAY HERE IS NOT OBVIOUSLY,
TO KEEP REMINISCING ABOUT ALL OF
THESE DEATHS, BUT TO SEE WHAT WE
CAN DO AS A SOCIETY TO MAKE
THESE GATES SAFER IF I TAKE ONE
THING FROM MY SON'S DEATH AND
THE REASON WE STARTED THE
HUMMINGBIRD ALLIANCE IS THE
ACTUAL FIX, RIGHT? TO PREVENT
THESE THESE GATES FROM CAUSING
FATALITIES IS BASICALLY $250
PARTS. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE
HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE. THIS IS
THE FALSE STOP POST. YOU CAN SEE
THIS IS A MANUAL GATE THAT WOULD
SLIDE BACK AND FORTH. HAD THIS
PART WHICH IS $50 BEEN ADHERED
TO THIS GATE. MY SON WOULD BE
HERE WITH ME TODAY AND I
WOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF YOU.
THIS MECHANISM RIGHT HERE, THIS
LITTLE WIRE CORD THAT GOES
AROUND A SWING GATE, THIS WOULD
HAVE KEPT THE WOMAN ALIVE IN
MOAB THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER
IN MY REMARKS. I HAVE CONFIDENCE
THAT THIS BILL AND THIS LAW WILL
SAVE PEOPLE. I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO
THE TUCSON POLICE OFFICER WHO
WAS IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING
THE DEATH IN TUCSON. HE SAID,
HAD THIS LAW BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN
TUCSON, SHE WOULD BE ALIVE
TODAY. AND THE LAST THING I'LL
CLOSE WITH, AND I KNOW I'M BEING
A LITTLE VERBOSE, IS THERE'S
ALREADY INDUSTRY STANDARDS FROM
ASTM AND UL 325 THAT WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT IN LAW AT
THE STATEWIDE LEVEL, AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE
INDUSTRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU FOR SHARING AND
FOR YOUR ADVOCACY. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU HERE
TODAY. I'M ROB EPSTEIN. I'VE
BEEN THE ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY
OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE PAST 17
YEARS. I'M JOINED HERE TODAY BY
DON JEPSON, OUR CHIEF BUILDING
OFFICIAL. ALSO IN THE AUDIENCE
IS ERIC BLEDSOE, A MEMBER OF THE
AMERICAN FENCE ASSOCIATION AND
THE MAN WHO IS CHARGED WITH THE
INITIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE
CAUSE OF ALEX'S DEATH AS A
NATIVE OF SAN RAFAEL AND A
ATTORNEY WORKING FOR THE CITY. I
WAS AWARE, OF COURSE, OF THIS
INCIDENT WHEN IT OCCURRED, BUT
WHAT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WAS
HOW IT OCCURRED AND WHEN I
LEARNED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SO,
SO, UNKNOWN. BECAUSE WHEN YOU
LOOK AT A GATE, IF YOU DON'T
KNOW, YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND
THAT WHEN IT SLIDES PAST THE
STOP POINT, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE,
THESE TOOLS ATTACHED TO IT,
IT'LL FALL AND HURT SOMEBODY.
AND ONCE I REALIZED IT, I
THOUGHT, OH MY GOD, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THAT MOST PEOPLE
WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND OR KNOW.
PEOPLE LIKE DON WOULD, BUT
PEOPLE LIKE ME WOULDN'T. AND
WHEN WE REALIZED THAT IN SAN
RAFAEL, WE SAID, WE GOT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND I'M
PROUD TO SAY WE WERE THE FIRST
CITY TO ENACT A LOCAL ORDINANCE
THAT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE DRAFTED
BY JOHN, WHO CAN TELL YOU ALL
THE TECHNICAL DETAILS. AND WE
THEN PERSUADED ALL OF OUR, OTHER
CITIES IN MARIN COUNTY TO DO THE
SAME. BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE
REALLY NEED A STATE LAW NOT ONLY
TO ENSURE THAT THIS ISSUE IS
ADDRESSED BY INSPECTION BY,
PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE,
ADDRESSING IT THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, BUT ALSO JUST TO INFORM
PEOPLE BY ENACTING A LAW LIKE
THIS WILL GET MORE PEOPLE
EDUCATED ABOUT THE ISSUE. I WANT
TO JUST CLOSE BY ANALOGIZING TO
SB 721, WHICH AROSE FROM AN
INCIDENT THAT YOU'LL ALL RECALL
IN BERKELEY WHEN A NUMBER OF
STUDENTS, WERE KILLED WHEN A
BALCONY FELL. IT'S SIMILAR TO ME
BECAUSE, AGAIN, AN ISSUE THAT US
LAYPEOPLE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE.
BUT THEN ONCE IT HAPPENED, WE
BECAME AWARE OF IT. AND THIS
LEGISLATURE ENACTED A LAW TO
ADDRESS IT. I THINK IT'S A
PERFECT ANALOGY HERE. I REALLY
URGE THE COMMITTEE TO PASS THIS
BILL SO THAT WE CAN MAKE IT
STATE LAW. DODD IS HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2149? GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ERIC
BLEDSOE. I INVESTIGATED THREE
CASES IN CALIFORNIA THAT LED TO
A DEATH AND TWO INJURIES. MEMBER
OF AMERICAN FENCE ASSOCIATION
THÀNH AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 120? AB 2149.
YEAH.
GOOD MORNING, I THINK. GOOD
MORNING. TRACY RYAN, WITH THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, WE REPRESENT THE 40
RURAL COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA,
REGRETTABLY, WE DO HAVE AN
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED ON THIS
BILL. SO, IN ADDITION TO
NUMEROUS TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH
HOW THE BILL IS DRAFTED RELATED
TO HOW LOCAL PERMITTING PROCESS
WORKS, THE BILL DOESN'T ACTUALLY
REQUIRE THESE IMPORTANT SAFETY
MEASURES IN THE MOST APPARENT
SETTING, WHICH IS SCHOOLS, OUR
CONCERN WITH THIS BILL,
ACTUALLY, THOUGH, IS MORE
ENCOMPASSING THAN THE TECHNICAL
ISSUES, THE REGULATED GATES IN
THIS BILL, AS STATED BY THE
AUTHOR, IS 50 POUNDS AND THEN 48
WIDE OR 84 HIGH, THAT WOULD BE
AN UNCOUNTABLE NUMBER OF GATES
IN OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE
RURAL ONES, AND IN ADDITION, THE
WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HAS BEEN
HEAVY GATES. HEAVY GATES ARE A
PROBLEM CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT
WHAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT. IT'S
200 TO 300 POUND GATES. WHAT'S
ACTUALLY REGULATED IN THIS BILL
IS 50 POUNDS. AND AGAIN, GOING
BACK TO THE NUMBER OF GATES THAT
THAT WOULD BE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, ABOUT THE WORKLOAD
FOR COUNTIES. AND THAT'S WHERE,
YOU KNOW, OUR CONSTITUENT SEE
WHERE THE OUR CONCERNS REALLY
LIE. AND WHAT WAS PUT IN THE
ANALYSIS IS TRUE THAT, YOU KNOW,
THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A LARGE
WORKLOAD AND THAT WE CAN BE
REIMBURSED FOR THE MONEY THAT IS
SPENT ON DOING THIS,
UNFORTUNATELY, THESE ARE THINGS
THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC, AND IS
ALREADY KNOWN TO HAVE ISSUES IN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH
PERMITTING. WE HAVE PERMITTING
BACKLOGS. IN FACT, THERE IS A
BILL GOING THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW THAT WILL
REQUIRE US TO HAVE PRIVATE
PARTIES DO INSPECTIONS BECAUSE
WE ARE SO BEHIND AS FAR AS BEING
REIMBURSED, REIMBURSED FOR THE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BILL.
AGAIN, THERE ARE NUMEROUS BILLS
GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE
RIGHT NOW THAT WILL, IN ONE WAY
OR ANOTHER, LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO
RECOUP COSTS. AND I WILL WRAP IT
UP TO SAY THAT WE JUST FEEL THAT
THIS OVERLY BROAD AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
MEMBER, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO
REMAIN OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOEL
KRAMER WITH WINE INSTITUTE,
FIRST, I WANT TO OFFER MY
CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY. THAT
WAS, A TRAGIC ACCIDENT THAT NO
ONE, NO ONE WOULD WANT TO GO
THROUGH, MOST OF CALIFORNIA'S
6200 WINERIES WOULD HAVE GATES
THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS
BILL, THOSE GATES ARE USED TO
LIMIT ACCESS TO FACILITIES FOR
EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND ALSO FOR
THEFT PREVENTION REASONS.
CALIFORNIA LAW ALREADY REQUIRES
THAT EMPLOYERS MAINTAIN A SAFE
AND HEALTHFUL WORKPLACE FOR
THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND THEY DO
THAT THROUGH A WRITTEN,
EFFECTIVE INJURY AND ILLNESS
PREVENTION PROGRAM AND SO IF THE
GATES ARE PRESENTING A POTENTIAL
RISK TO THEIR EMPLOYEES, THEY
ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO BE
ADDRESSING THOSE RISKS THROUGH
THEIR IIP. THIS BILL WOULD ADD
COSTS BOTH THROUGH THE
REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ALL GATES
WEIGHING OVER 50 POUNDS AND
WIDER THAN 48IN, OR TALLER THAN
84IN, INSPECTED EVERY FIVE
YEARS, BUT ALSO WINERIES WOULD
HAVE TO USE THEIR STAFF TIME TO
HIRE A PROFESSIONAL TO COME OUT
AND CONDUCT THE INSPECTION, A
COMPANY THAT PROFESSIONAL ON THE
INSPECTION. AND JUST TO GIVE A
SENSE, 4000. SO 4000 WINERIES IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE NINE OR FEWER
EMPLOYEES. SO THIS IS AN IMPACT
ON ON SMALL BUSINESSES, I
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ABOUT,
QUESTIONING WHETHER THIS APPLIES
TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. BUT
THE PLAIN DEFINITION OF
COMMERCIAL MEANS OCCUPIED OR
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. AND BECAUSE
AGRICULTURE IS RAISING SOMETHING
TO SELL AND PUT IN THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT
WOULD THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL.
AND FINALLY, AS MISS RHINE
NOTED, THE BILL APPEARS TO
EXCLUDE SCHOOLS FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS DESPITE A TRAGIC
ACCIDENT AT A SCHOOL BEING THE
IMPETUS, WE WOULD URGE THAT THE
BILL BE LIMITED JUST TO SCHOOLS
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND EXCLUDE
BUSINESSES AND LET CURRENT
STANDARDS BE, BUSINESS SAFETY
STANDARDS BE MEETING THAT
REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2149?
COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL DENNIS
ALBIANI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GRAIN AND FEED
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SEED
ASSOCIATION AND SEVERAL OTHER
AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS, BUT ALSO
THE FAMILY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. KATIE LITTLE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. NICO MOLINA, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA FORESTRY
ASSOCIATION, WITH AN OPPOSING
SUBMITTED POSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, AARON
ROBERT, ON BEHALF OF THE ALLMAN
ALLIANCE AND ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DANNY
MERKLEY WITH THE GOCO GROUP, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF WINE GRAPE
GROWERS, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MARK NEWBERGER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, REPRESENTING ALL 58
COUNTIES WE HAVE OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED, ALONG WITH OUR CRC.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. TRICIA GERINGER WITH
AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ANDREW
MENDOZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS
WITH CONCERNS. THANK YOU TO THE
SPONSOR FOR WORKING WITH US ON
THOSE. THANK YOU. DEAN TALLY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN. OKAY. LET'S CLEAR
THIS UP. OUR SCHOOLS EXEMPT
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT MY
UNDERSTANDING. AND IF IT IS I
ASSUME YOU WANT TO FIX THAT, MR.
CONNELLY. YEAH. SO SCHOOLS
OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT EXACT. SO I
APPRECIATE THAT ARGUMENT. BUT
THAT WAS AN ISSUE RAISED, BY THE
BILL ANALYSIS, WHICH I THOUGHT
WAS GREAT, THE BROADER ISSUE IS
WHAT WILL BE THE DEFINITION OF
GATE, THAT IS APPLIED HERE. WE
WILL CERTAINLY, TALK ABOUT
AMENDMENTS TO THE BROADER ISSUE
BEING PRESENTED AS WELL. MY
SENSE AND I'M JUST BRAINSTORMING
OUT LOUD HERE, IS IF YOU'RE AN
AGRICULTURAL ENTITY, IN A, IN A
FAR REACHING RURAL AREA, VERY
FEW MEMBERS OF THE COMING
TO YOUR SITE, AND PRECAUTIONS
ARE IN PLACE. THAT'S ONE THING.
IF YOU'RE A WINERY THAT IS OPEN
TO THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
COMING THROUGH AND YOU HAVE AN
UNSAFE GATE, I WOULD BE HARD
PRESSED TO UNDERSTAND WHY SOME
SIMPLE INSPECTION AND REPAIR
WORK WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE.
GREAT. SO WE WILL BE CONTINUING
THE DISCUSSION, MY SENSE IS
LARGELY IT WILL BE AROUND GATE
DEFINITION AND REST ASSURED,
SCHOOLS WILL BE INCLUDED, AND
THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT OTHER
ASPECTS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF
WHERE I COULD SEE IT GOING. SO
CAN I JUST FOLLOW UP? SO, I
AGREE, I ACTUALLY WANT TO GIVE A
SHOUT OUT TO COMMITTEE. I
THOUGHT THE ANALYSIS WAS
FABULOUS AS WELL, AND I THOUGHT
AND I AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE
WHAT'S BEEN SAID TODAY. I'M SO
SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. AND THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR HONING
IN ON THE SAFETY OF OUR KIDS.
THAT IS, I THINK, OUR NUMBER ONE
CHARGE HERE. RIGHT. SO YOU FOUND
A HOLE IN THAT. THAT'S REALLY
CRITICAL. BUT I DO THINK THE
ANALYSIS DID A REALLY GOOD JOB
OF SAYING, WELL, OSHA HAS GOT
WORKERS COVERED. YOU KNOW, IF
IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC,
DOES IT ADDRESS THE CONCERN YOU
HAVE HERE AND THAT THERE ARE
WAYS TO NARROW IT SUCH THAT IT
IS FOCUSED ON WHERE THE PUBLIC
HAS ACCESS AND THERE IS A REAL
RISK TO OUR KIDS IN THE PUBLIC.
AND SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M
HOPING THE BILL WILL GO. I GUESS
THERE'S ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT 50
POUNDS VERSUS 200 POUNDS. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT YOUR
EXPERT TO ADDRESS THAT. THAT
SEEMS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, BUT I DO THINK, THAT
I DO THINK THAT WE CAN DO WHAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE HERE AND
PROTECT THE PUBLIC WHILE ALSO
SAYING, IF YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, I
HAVE 50 PLUS WINERIES IN MY
DISTRICT. MOST ARE NOT OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC, MOST GROW GRAPES,
AND SELL WINERY. I MEAN, SOME
ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT NOT
ALL. SO THERE IS A DISTINCTION
EVEN IN THE WINE INDUSTRY, AS IT
RELATES TO WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS
ACCESS TO. SO I GUESS THAT
SOUNDS LIKE THE DIRECTION YOU'RE
GOING. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
YEAH. SORRY. JUST ONE THING I
WANT TO CLEAR UP. SO ON OSHA, I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR,
BUT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
JOSEPH ALIOTO, WHO'S ON THE
BOARD OF OSHA, FOR YOUR BENEFIT.
THERE'S BEEN THREE DEATHS WHICH
AREN'T ON THIS GRAPHIC IN
CALIFORNIA ALONE FROM FALLING
GATES AT OSHA REGULATED, WORK
SITES. SO TO YOUR POINT, THE
CHALLENGE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN
THE OSHA LAW IS IT'S QUITE VAGUE
IN TERMS OF DO THESE SAFETY
MECHANISMS THAT ARE NEEDED TO
KEEP GATES FROM FALLING, IN
FACT, THEY DON'T EXIST. SO OSHA,
I DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF MY
SKIS, IS HOPEFULLY GOING TO
AMEND SOME OF THEIR LANGUAGE AS
WELL TO COVER THIS AT THE RISK
OF BEING TOO GRAPHIC, WHERE I
WOULD PUSH BACK ON THE 50 VERSUS
200 POUND DEBATE, ALEX WAS A 60
POUND CHILD. I DON'T THINK ANY
PARENT HERE WOULD WANT TO TAKE
THE RISK OF SAYING THAT 100
POUND GATE DOESN'T NEED TO BE
REGULATED. IF IT FELL ON MY
CHILD, WHAT CAUSES THE ISSUE
HERE IS THE SPEED OF THESE GATES
AT THAT HEIGHT FALLING AT THE
SPEED OF GRAVITY. SO IT'S NOT SO
MUCH THE WEIGHT. IT'S EIGHT FEET
TALL, FALLING ON A FOUR FOOT
CHILD RIGHT AT THE SPEED OF
GRAVITY. THAT'S WHAT CAUSES THE
FATALITY, AND THEN THE OTHER
COMMENT, TOO, ABOUT SCHOOLS. THE
LAST THING I'LL SAY, IF YOU LOOK
AT THAT MAP, THERE'S ONLY TWO
INCIDENCES AT SCHOOLS. SO THE
BOY IN SACRAMENTO WAS AT HIS
HOME, THE KID IN MUKILTEO WAS AT
A CHURCH SYNAGOGUE. AND SO WHEN
YOU THINK ABOUT MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, PEOPLE BUILD THESE
GATES CONSTANTLY TO PROVIDE A
SENSE OF PROTECTION AND SAFETY.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY EXIST.
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS, RESIDENTIAL, ETC. AND
I WILL SAY THAT MY SYNAGOGUE
JUST PUT ONE UP. FOR REASONS
THAT WON'T SURPRISE ANYBODY IN
THIS ROOM. AND NOW YOU GAVE ME A
NEW THING TO BE AFRAID OF AS A
PARENT. YOU'RE GOING TO GO
INSPECT IT. AS I REMEMBER. BUT
THAT IS I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I
THINK OPEN TO THE PUBLIC REALLY
IS SORT OF A GOOD STANDARD. AND
I DO THINK THAT WORKPLACES
SHOULD BE PROTECTED. THERE'S NO
QUESTION. I DO THINK THAT IS THE
ROLE OF OSHA, AS NOTED BY THE
ANALYSIS AND I'VE DONE A BILL
MYSELF THAT INSTRUCTS OSHA TO
UPDATE REGULATIONS, WHICH WAS
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE, WHICH I THINK IS
ACTUALLY A GOOD ONE. SO I THINK
THAT WORK CAN BE DONE ON THIS
BILL TO GET AT THE PROTECTIONS
THAT CHILDREN NEED. AGAIN, I'M
NOT GOING TO WEIGH ON 50 VERSUS
300 BECAUSE I THINK YOU GUYS
KNOW BETTER. BUT I DO THINK THE
MOVE TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE
GATES THAT ARE MOST, AT RISK TO
THE PUBLIC IS WHERE WE SHOULD
GO. SO THANK YOU. DODD. SO, SAN
RAFAEL'S LOCAL AMENDMENT DOESN'T
HAVE A WEIGHT FACTOR. WE BASED
IT ON SIZE. THERE'S A COUPLE
REASONS FOR THAT. PRACTICALLY,
AN INSPECTOR OUT IN THE FIELD
DOESN'T HAVE AN ACCURATE WAY TO
WEIGH A GATE, SO WE BASED IT ON
SIZE, HOWEVER, IN THE AMENDMENT
PROCESS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT
PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE A SIZE.
AND I THINK, AS ERIC MENTIONED,
A 50 POUND GATE ACCELERATING AT
THE SPEED OF GRAVITY TO THE
GROUND COULD IMPACT SOMEBODY
NEGATIVELY, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT
THOSE OPTIONS. THANK YOU,
SENATOR PACHECO, SO I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT BILL, AND I'M SORRY
FOR YOUR LOSS. AND THANK YOU.
GLAD YOU'RE HERE TO, BE A
WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THIS BILL,
BUT I DID READ THE ANALYSIS.
VERY. IT'S GREAT ANALYSIS. AND I
HATE I HATE TO, REITERATE MY
COLLEAGUES POINTS, BUT I DID
NOTICE IN THE ANALYSIS IT
DISCUSSES ABOUT, HAVING IT APPLY
TO ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES THAT
ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. I LIKE
THAT IDEA OF, YOU KNOW,
NARROWING IT DOWN THE BILL. I DO
THINK IT'S A GREAT BILL. I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY,
BUT I THINK THAT THAT MAYBE
THAT'S AN AREA THAT CAN BE
WORKED UPON. SO THAT WAY, YOU
KNOW, OTHER INDUSTRIES WON'T BE
IMPACTED, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE
NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. BUT I
COMMEND THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. IT'S
IMPORTANT, BILL, ESPECIALLY IF
IT'S GOING TO SAVE CHILDREN'S
LIVES. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THIS BILL, I ALSO WANT TO
COMMEND THE AUTHOR. THE AUTHOR
HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY AMENABLE TO
SUGGESTIONS, THOUGHTS,
AMENDMENTS, AND I'M CONFIDENT
THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL
CONTINUE IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY IF
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD. I THINK
THIS BILL, CERTAINLY DESERVES
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT
CONTINUED DIALOG WITH OPPOSITION
. SOME OF THE ISSUES, CONCERNS
RAISED HERE, SOME OF THE ISSUES
OR THOUGHTS IN THE STAFF
ANALYSIS. AND SO I'M CONFIDENT
THAT OUR AUTHOR HERE IS GOING TO
CONTINUE, TO WORK ON THIS AND TO
ENSURE THE INTENTION OF THE BILL
, STILL REMAINS INTACT. AND
THAT'S REALLY TO PROTECT, NOT
JUST CHILDREN, BUT PROTECT THE
GENERAL PUBLIC FROM HAZARDS THAT
CAN BE AVOIDED, I THINK, I THINK
WE'LL WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIND OUR,
THE RIGHT SPOT FOR THIS. AND I
THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE, QUITE
FRANKLY, IS THERE A MOTION ON
THIS? I HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND, MADAM SECRETARY Ó,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? SENATOR
CONNELLY, I THINK YOU DID IT FOR
ME, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO
ALL THE MEMBERS FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFUL COMMENT. CGRTS THE
WITNESSES, WE CERTAINLY WILL
CONTINUE TO, TO WORK ON THIS AND
REALLY GO FORWARD WITH THE
ULTIMATE GOAL OF ENSURING THAT
NO OTHER FAMILIES HAVE TO FACE
THIS KIND OF TRAGEDY. AND I
PARTICULARLY WANT TO THANK, ERIC
ON BEHALF OF HIS FAMILY FOR
COMING TODAY, AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING WITH THE WORK
AHEAD ON THIS BILL AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I CALL I
DIXON BAUER-KAHAN BARRETT, KHN.
I BRIAN CONNELLY. CONNELLY I.
HANEY I. HANEY I. MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I. MCKENNA I.
MCKENNA I. PACHECO I PACHECO I.
REYES REYES I. SANCHEZ. WALDRON
I. WALDRON I. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANKS I THINK WE HAVE SOME
CARRILLOS HERE. AB 2699.
YEAH.
SINGLE USE PLASTIC. THANK YOU.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO START
OFF BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THANK YOUR STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH MINE TO
COMPLETE THOSE. AND I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 2699, WHICH WILL
OFFER REGULATORY CLARITY IN THE
CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
PROGRAM, OR CAL ARP, WHILE ALSO
RAISING THE PENALTIES ON THOSE
WHO ENDANGER COMMUNITIES WHEN
THEY VIOLATE THE LAW. THE
CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
PROGRAM BEGAN IN THE LATE 1990S
AND IS INTENDED TO KEEP
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES SAFE
FROM THE RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS FROM FACILITIES THAT
HANDLE, USE, STORE OR
MANUFACTURE THEM IN LARGE
QUANTITIES. THE PROGRAM REQUIRES
THAT THESE FACILITIES HAVE A
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE
EVENT OF A RELEASE, AND THAT IN
THE EVENT OF A RELEASE, THEY
ALSO INFORM THE STATE AND THE
UNIFIED PROGRAM. AGENCY
OFFICIALS AT THE LOCAL FIRE
DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY, SO THAT
APPROPRIATE MEASURES CAN BE
TAKEN AND NEEDED. INFORMATION
CAN BE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC.
HOWEVER, THE MAXIMUM DAILY FINE
FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
PROGRAM IS ONLY $5,000 FOR THESE
LARGE FACILITIES. AS A RESULT,
OUR FIRE OFFICIALS REPORT THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE
INSTANCES WHERE BAD ACTORS HAVE
DECIDED THAT $5,000 IS OKAY FOR
THEIR BOTTOM LINE AND AVOID TO
HAVE HAVING TO PUBLICLY REPORT A
RELEASE THAT COULD THREATEN
HEALTH AND SAFETY IN NEARBY
COMMUNITIES. THIS BILL WILL SET
A NEW MAXIMUM DAILY FINE OF
20,000 OR 30,000 IF A VIOLATION
IS COMMITTED KNOWINGLY, IN LINE
WITH FEDERAL AND OTHER UNIFIED
PROGRAM AGENCY IMPOSED FINES.
THIS BILL WILL ALSO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR COVERED ENTITIES TO
REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE BY
CLARIFYING THRESHOLDS OF WHEN
STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS NEED
TO BE NOTIFIED OF AN ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE, AS THE STATE WAS
DIRECTED TO DO SO WITH PASSED
LEGISLATION. TO BE CLEAR, THIS
BILL ISN'T ABOUT ACCESSING FINES
FOR A RELEASE ITSELF. IT'S ABOUT
ENSURING THAT THE PROPER STEPS
ARE FOLLOWED TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC. WHEN ONE OCCURS HERE TO
TALK MORE ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE
BILL AND ANSWER ANY QUESTION IS
DENNIS KARIDIS, CARITAS CARITAS
SUPERVISING ENVIRONMENTAL
SPECIALIST AT THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. IT'S MY HONOR TO
ADDRESS YOU TODAY AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA
CUPA FORUM BOARD AND THE 81
CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM
AGENCIES, KOOPAS AND THEIR
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES. WE ARE
PLEASED TO SPONSOR AND STRONGLY
SUPPORT AB 2699, WHICH SEEKS TO
EXPEDITE THE ADOPTION OF
REGULATIONS THAT WILL CLARIFY
THE THRESHOLDS FOR THE REPORTING
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASES
ACROSS THE STATE, PURSUED TO SB
1261, THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES OES WAS
DIRECTED TO ADOPT REGULATIONS BY
JANUARY 1ST, 2016, DETAILING
WHAT RELEASES ARE TO BE REPORTED
TO THE KOOPAS. THESE REGULATIONS
HAVE YET TO BE ADOPTED, LEAVING
BOTH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY AND
LOCAL REGULATORS UNSURE OF HOW
TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW. GIVEN THAT
THE SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
CAL EPA, OVERSEES THE ENTIRE
UNIFIED PROGRAM AND HAS ADOPTED
IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE UNIFIED
PROGRAM, AB 2699 WILL TRANSFER
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RULEMAKING
AND ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT FOR
RELEASE REPORTING FROM OES TO
CAL EPA ON JANUARY 1ST, 2025.
THE CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL
RELEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM, CAL
ART FACILITIES REPRESENT THE
HIGHEST RISK AND POSE THE
GREATEST POTENTIAL FOR THREAT OF
IMMEDIATE HARM TO PUBLIC AND THE
ENVIRONMENT FROM ACCIDENTAL
RELEASES OF EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. BECAUSE THE CURRENT
CAL ARP CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES DO NOT ADEQUATELY
REFLECT THIS THREAT AND ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN
PENALTIES FOR THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATOR PROGRAM AND US
EPA'S RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
RULE. THE CUPA FORUM BOARD
STRONGLY SUPPORTS A COMMENSURATE
INCREASE IN THESE PENALTIES, TO
ENSURE THAT THE REGULATED
COMMUNITY HAS TIME TO ADJUST TO
THE NEW REGULATIONS, AB 2699
WOULD DELAY THE INCREASE IN THE
PENALTIES FOR THE RELEASE,
REPORTING UNDER HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE 25510 FOR 12 MONTHS
AFTER THE FINAL ADOPTION OF THE
REGULATIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE,
THE COOPER FORUM BOARD AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTORS
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, AND I'M
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB
2699? IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2699? ALL RIGHT
. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ARE THERE EMOTIONS,
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND AND
A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
MOVING NOW. THERE WE GO.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CARRILLO, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU.
MEMBERS THIS BILL IS ABOUT
ENSURING THAT RELEASES OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COULD
REQUIRE FIRST RESPONDERS AND THE
PUBLIC TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS ARE
COMMUNICATED TO STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTIONS DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALL. AYE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN.
HI. BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN
BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY. HANEY Ã.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE HI AND
AYE. PACHECO. HI PACHECO. AYE.
REYES SANCHEZ. NO. NO. SANCHEZ.
NO. WALDRON WALDRON. NO. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 14 AB 2705.
ORTEGA.
OKAY LET'S SEE. OH, YEAH. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
THANK YOU. MY TECHNICAL SUPPORT
IS ON THEIR WAY. OKAY, I'LL GET
GOING. THANK YOU. YEAH GO AHEAD,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 2705, WHICH WILL
ENSURE THAT THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER HAS TIME TO RECOVER
UNPAID WAGES FOR WORKERS WHO ARE
SUBJECT TO WAGE THEFT ON PUBLIC
WORK PROJECTS. WE KNOW THAT WAGE
THEFT IN THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY IS A SIGNIFICANT
PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM THE PUBLIC
WORKS UNIT OF THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S BUREAU OF FIELD
ENFORCEMENT, CHARGED WITH
INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS ARISING
FROM VIOLATIONS OF PREVAILING
WAGE AND APPRENTICESHIP LAWS,
OPENED NEARLY 2000 CASES FOR
BACK WAGE OWED TO WORKERS IN
2020 AND 21 AND ASSESSED OVER
$10.6 MILLION IN PENALTIES UNDER
EXISTING LAW. WHEN THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER FINDS A VIOLATION
OF PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS
ON A PROJECT, THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER HAS 18 MONTHS TO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF FINES
AND PENALTIES TO BE ASSESSED,
BUT ONLY SIX MONTHS TO SUE THE
COMPANY THAT BONDED THE PROJECT.
THIS INCONSISTENCY IN THE TWO
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MEANS THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER COULD BE IN
THE MIDDLE OF AN ASSESSMENT AND
RUN OUT OF TIME TO RECOVER THE
WAGES OWED TO THE WORKERS FROM
THE BONDING COMPANY. WORKERS
SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF
WAGES DUE TO AN UNINFORMED
TENSIONAL INCONSISTENCY IN THE
LAW, AB TWO 705 SIMPLY ALIGNS
THE TWO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
SO THAT THE LABOR COMMISSIONER
HAS UP TO 18 MONTHS TO BOTH MAKE
THE ASSESSMENT AND SUE THE
BONDING COMPANY TO RECOVER WAGE
WORKERS WAGES. I DON'T HAVE ANY
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY. IN
CLOSING, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB
2705? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MARTIN VENDIOLA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PIPE TRADES COUNCIL, AND THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS, AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS, MIKE MONNING, ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE BUILDING TRADES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS, MATT
CREMEANS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2705?
IT'S LONELY UP HERE, MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. SCOTT. GOVERNOR ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, WE ARE
THE LARGEST GROUP OF UNION
SIGNATORY BUILDING CONTRACTORS
IN THE STATE. WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO THE
MEASURE. IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO BE HEARING AB
2135 ON THE FLOOR SOON. THAT
EXTENDS THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS TO 24 MONTHS OR
INDEFINITELY, AT THE DISCRETION
OF DIR. SO UNDER THIS MEASURE,
YOU'D HAVE AN INDEFINITE BOND.
THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR A HOST OF
REASONS. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
FOR MY MEMBERS WHO ARE VERY
LARGE CONTRACTORS WILL BE QUITE
SMALL. BUT n
OFTEN TALKS ABOUT THE
IMPEDIMENTS FOR SMALL AND
EMERGING CONTRACTORS AND PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS, IT'S NÓ. IT'S
WORTH NOTING THAT BONDING
CAPACITY IS THE NUMBER ONE
IMPEDIMENT. SO WITH THIS
MEASURE, YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE
IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THESE
SMALL AND EMERGING CONTRACTORS
TO BOND. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO
PERFORM THIS WORK. SO IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND BEFORE
WE PURSUE THIS, OF THE 85% OF
PREVAILING WAGE WAGES THAT ARE
ACTUALLY COLLECTED BY DIR, WHICH
IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH
PERCENTAGE, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF
THOSE ARE COLLECTED AGAINST THE
BOND AGAINST THE ACTUAL EMPLOYER
OR PURSUANT TO JOINT AND SEVERAL
LIABILITY, BECAUSE IF I WOULD
GUESS, MOST ARE COLLECTED BY THE
THROUGH THE EMPLOYER OR THROUGH
JOINT AND SEVERAL IN WHICH CASE
THE BONDING REALLY WON'T HAVE
MUCH OF AN IMPACT HERE. SO
BEFORE WE CREATE YET ANOTHER
IMPEDIMENT FOR SMALL AND
EMERGING CONTRACTORS, I SAY WE
UNDERSTAND WHERE THE
DEFICIENCIES LIE AND ADDRESS
THAT THEN. SO FOR THESE REASONS,
WE ARE OPPOSED. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2705? OKAY.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. WE DO HAVE A MOTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? SUMNER
ORTEGA I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. ROLL CALL ON AB 2705.
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
FOR A CALL. AYE. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE HANEY. AYE. HANEY.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN
AYE. MCKENNA I. MCKENNA. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE PACHECO. AYE.
REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ AYE.
WALDRON. NO. WALDRON. NO. NAY
THAT BILL IS OUT. UP NEXT. ITEM
15 AB 2761. HEART.
THANK YOU. REBECCA DO YOU WANT
TO SECOND MY MOTION?
OF COURSE, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S A
MOTION. YOU THE CHAIR? YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU. MISS MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I'M PLEASED
TO PRESENT AB 2761, A BILL TO
REDUCE TOXICS IN PACKAGING IN
2021. THE US PLASTICS PACT, A
COALITION OF OVER 100 INDUSTRY
LEADERS AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS,
INCLUDING WELL-KNOWN COMPANIES
SUCH AS NESTLE, UNILEVER,
WALMART AND TARGET, HAVE
IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS UNNECESSARY
PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIALS AND
ADDITIVES. THESE INCLUDE
SUBSTANCES SUCH AS PFAS, PVC AND
PVDC. INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS HAVE
ALSO VOLUNTARILY PLEDGED TO
ELIMINATE THESE HARMFUL
MATERIALS FROM THEIR PRODUCTS BY
2025. DESPITE THIS GOAL, THE USE
OF PFAS, PVC AND PVDC IN
PACKAGING IS STILL PREVALENT IN
CALIFORNIA, WITH YOUR WITH YOUR
PERMISSION, MADAM CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO USE SOME PROPS AND
PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES, HERE'S A
SAMPLE OF POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
PACKAGING FOR THE AVERAGE
CONSUMER, THE TOUGHER PLASTIC IS
SIMPLY AN INCONVENIENCE TO CUT
THROUGH. NOW COMPARE THIS WITH
PACKAGING FROM THE SAME COMPANY
BUT PACKAGED IN PET. IT'S
IDENTICAL. THE DISTINCTIONS
MIGHT NOT BE IMMEDIATELY
APPARENT, BUT THE CRUCIAL
DIFFERENCE LIES IN THE CHEMICALS
USED DURING THE PRODUCTION
PROCESS AND THE TOXINS RELEASED
DURING THE DISPOSAL. THE
PRODUCTION OF PVC INVOLVES THE
USE OF VINYL CHLORIDE, ASBESTOS,
AND PHTHALATES. TOXIC COMPOUNDS
THAT HAVE BEEN LINKED TO CANCER
AND NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE. PET ON
THE OTHER HAND, IS A SAFER, LESS
TOXIC, AND RECYCLABLE
ALTERNATIVE. I ALSO HAVE TWO
PAPER PLATES, ONE COATED IN PFAS
AND THE OTHER WITHOUT. THEY LOOK
VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL, AND THE
UNDERLYING HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ARE VARIED,
VERY DIFFERENT AS THE COMMITTEE
IS WELL AWARE, PFAS HAS BEEN
LINKED TO DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES
IN CHILDREN, VARIOUS FORMS OF
CANCER, IMMUNE SYSTEM
SUPPRESSION, AND OTHER
DETRIMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS.
RECOGNIZING THE HEALTH IMPACTS
OF PFAS, FIVE STATES HAVE
PROACTIVELY BANNED PFAS AND FOOD
PACKAGING TO ENSURE CALIFORNIA
DOES NOT TRAIL BEHIND OTHER
STATES. AB 2761 WILL REDUCE
EXPOSURE TO TOXIC CHEMICALS BY
BANNING THE SALE OF PFAS, PVC
AND PVDC IN PACKAGING STARTING
IN 2026. THE MEASURE WILL
REQUIRE THE USE OF SAFER
ALTERNATIVES, ENCOURAGE THE
ADOPTION OF PACKAGING PRACTICES
THAT BETTER PROTECT PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT TODAY ARE
NANCY BURGMEIER, REPRESENTING
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS, AND CHRIS SCROGGIN
WITH REPUBLICANS REPUBLIC
SERVICES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY. AND THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HART, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL. AB 2761
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS IS A SCIENCE BASED
ORGANIZATION WORKING TO PREVENT
BREAST CANCER BY REDUCING
EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS LINKED TO
THE DISEASE. ONE ONE INCH EIGHT
WOMEN WILL BE DIAGNOSED WITH
BREAST CANCER IN HER LIFETIME.
THAT MEANS APPROXIMATELY 32,000
CALIFORNIANS WILL BE DIAGNOSED
AND 4600 CALIFORNIANS WILL DIE
EACH YEAR FROM THIS DEVASTATING
DISEASE, SCIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE, OR PVC AND
PVC AND THE CLASS OF PFAS
CHEMICALS ARE LINKED TO NUMEROUS
HEALTH HARMS, INCLUDING BREAST
CANCER. PVC HAS A VARIETY OF
PACKAGING USES, INCLUDING
BLISTER PACKS AS YOU JUST SAW,
CLAMSHELLS AND PLASTIC WRAPS. NÓ
PLASTIC CREATES MORE HARMFUL
EXPOSURE FOR WORKERS,
COMMUNITIES, CONSUMERS AND THE
PLANET THAN THE LIFE CYCLE OF
PVC. PVC PRODUCTION USES HIGHLY
TOXIC CHEMICALS, INCLUDING
DEADLY CHLORINE GAS AND THE
CARCINOGEN VINYL CHLORIDE. PVC
OFTEN INCLUDES CHEMICAL
ADDITIVES SUCH AS HORMONE
DISRUPTING PHTHALATES OR
BISPHENOLS, WHICH LEACH OUT OF
THE PACKAGING INTO PRODUCTS,
FOOD, AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
EXPOSING CONSUMERS BURNING PVC.
WHETHER IN INCINERATORS OR
LANDFILL FIRES, RELEASES HIGHLY
TOXIC AND CARCINOGENIC DIOXINS
DISPOSING OF PVC IN LANDFILLS
ALSO RELEASES TOXIC CHEMICALS
INTO AIR AND WATER. GIVEN THESE
HARMS, WE SHOULD REDUCE THE USE
OF PVC AND PFAS WHENEVER
POSSIBLE, INCLUDING FROM
PACKAGING. AB 2761 WOULD ALSO
BAN PFAS FROM PACKAGING. THIS
COMMITTEE HAS HEARD FOR YEARS,
OR THIS LEGISLATURE HAS HEARD
FOR YEARS ABOUT THE TOXICITY OF
PFAS AND HAS ACTED TO BAN PFAS
FROM NUMEROUS PRODUCT
CATEGORIES. AB 2761 WILL
CONTINUE TO REDUCE THOSE
EXPOSURES. YOU WILL HEAR FROM
OPPOSITION THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE
PLASTIC TO SB 54, BUT SB 54 IS
ABOUT RECYCLED, NOT HEALTH, AND
WON'T FULLY REMOVE THESE HIGHLY
TOXIC SUBSTANCES FROM PACKAGING.
ONLY BY PASSING AB 2761 WILL
CONSUMERS GET THE PROTECTION
THEY NEED AND DESERVE. I URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. CHRIS SCROGGIN, ON
BEHALF OF REPUBLIC SERVICES.
FIRST, WE WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER HART FOR
INTRODUCING THIS IMPORTANT
MEASURE. AND AS STATED BY THE
AUTHOR, AB 2761 TAKES AN
ESSENTIAL STEP FORWARD IN THE
STATE'S EFFORT TO ELIMINATE TWO
PARTICULARLY HARMFUL TYPES OF
PLASTIC PACKAGING THOSE
CONTAINING PFAS AND PVC AND
PVDC. THE MANUFACTURING AND
DISPOSAL OF THESE TOXIC PLASTICS
REPRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT
TO BOTH HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH. BY REMOVING THESE TOXIC
CHEMICALS AND PACKAGING, THE
BILL WILL REQUIRE THE USE OF
SAFER ALTERNATIVES, ENCOURAGE
THE ADOPTION OF PACKAGING
PRACTICES THAT ARE BETTER TO
PROTECT, PROTECT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
THESE PROBLEMATIC PLASTICS ARE
EITHER HAZARDOUS TO HUMAN
HEALTH, MAKE PLASTIC PACKAGING
HARD TO RECYCLE, OR BOTH. PFAS,
PVC, PVC, CARBON BLACK AND
MICROPLASTICS THAT RESULT FROM
THE BREAKDOWN OF PLASTICS POSES
A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH
THROUGHOUT THE LIFE CYCLE. THEIR
LIFE CYCLE, FROM PRODUCTION TO
DISPOSAL. IN RECENT YEARS, THE
STATE HAS MOVED TO ELIMINATE
PFAS FROM MULTIPLE PRODUCT
CATEGORIES, INCLUDING CLOTHING,
TEXTILES, PAPER BASED FOOD
PACKAGING, FIREFIGHTING FOAM AND
CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS. BECAUSE OF
THE HEALTH CONCERNS ASSOCIATED
WITH THESE TOXIC FOREVER
CHEMICALS, REPUBLIC SERVICES HAS
LONG SUPPORTED SUCH EFFORTS TO
KEEP PFAS OUT OF THE SOLID WASTE
STREAM, AND WE DO SO AGAIN IN
SUPPORTING AB 2761, AB 2761
PHASES OUT A SUBSET OF MATERIALS
THAT ARE MOST TOXIC OR POSE THE
GREATEST CHALLENGES TO RECYCLE.
LET'S KEEP THIS TOXIC MATERIAL
OUT OF THE WASTE STREAM. WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE ON AB 2761. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2761? GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
DILLON ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL AND SOLID WASTE
ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE
CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS, BOTH IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
HELLO, CHRIS ARENAS FROM
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AS
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, ELIZABETH ESPINOSA, ON
BEHALF OF THE SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. EMILY
GARCIA WITH NRDC AS CO-SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL AS WELL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JACOB
EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. REBECCA MARCUS
REPRESENTING CALPIRG IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, KAYLA ROBINSON ON
BEHALF OF RETHINK WASTE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2761.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS ADAM
WRIGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT WITH THE
OPPOSITION, BUT WE STILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE
BILL, THE EXAMPLES HIGHLIGHTED
BY THE AUTHOR ARE ALL RIGID
PACKAGING EXAMPLES OR FIBER
BASED. THIS THIS BILL AGAIN
FOCUSES ON JUST PLASTIC. SO WE,
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL
PACKAGING THAT IS IMPLICATED
UNDER SOME OF THESE BANS. FIRST
AND FOREMOST, WE DO TALK ABOUT
SB 54 AND IT'S NOT IN A VACUUM.
SB 54 WAS ALSO PASSED WITH
NUMEROUS OTHER BILLS, INCLUDING
SB 343, WHICH BASICALLY MAKES
ALL PACKAGING THAT HAS ANY PFAS
OR HEAVY METALS IN IT
NON-RECYCLABLE. YOU COUPLE THAT
WITH AN SB 54 THAT HAS RECYCLING
MANDATES. IF YOU CAN'T LABEL IT
RECYCLABLE, IT IS A DE FACTO BAN
ON THE PACKAGING. THESE THESE
THINGS WERE CONTEMPLATED BY
SENATOR ALLEN IN HIS FLAGSHIP
EPR BILLS. SO THIS IS NOT THE
FIRST TIME THESE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED. THAT WAS A FOUR YEAR
BILL, THOUSANDS OF HOURS IN THE
MAKING. SO WE DO BRING IT UP
BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND
THE LEGISLATURE OF WHAT THAT
BILL AND THOSE BILLS DO. WE ALSO
CAL CHAMBER WORKED ON AB 1200
WITH ASSEMBLYMEMBER TING IN
2021, WHICH BANS ALL PFAS AND
FOOD PACKAGING, BOTH PLASTIC AND
FIBER BASED. IT'S NOT JUST A
FIBER BASED BILL, IT'S A PLASTIC
AND ALL OTHER MATERIALS THAT USE
PFAS. IT IS TRUE, CAL RECYCLE IS
UNDERGOING RULEMAKING ON SB 54
AND SB 343 AS WE CURRENTLY SPEAK
, SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE WE HAVE
AROUND PVC, WE ARE NOT AWARE OF
ANY JURISDICTION IN THE WORLD
THAT HAS BANNED PVC FOR MEAT OR
MEDICAL DEVICES. THE PROPONENTS
TALK ABOUT THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF
PVC AND PVC, AND YET ALL MEDICAL
PRODUCTS AND MEDICAL PACKAGING
ARE EXEMPT. SO OUR MOST
VULNERABLE THAT'S ALL CARVED
OUT. BUT FOR ALL OTHER SECTORS,
WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT THAT'S THE
MOST DANGEROUS. THERE'S
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BILL THAT
WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS
SPECIFICALLY IF MEAT PACKAGING
IS NOT EXEMPT. THE IMPACTS TO
CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ON OUR
FOOD SOURCE WILL BE STAGGERING.
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO PVC
PACKAGING FOR MEAT THAT PROVIDES
THE SAME MOISTURE, GAS AND ODOR
BARRIERS. THAT'S WHY WHEN SOUTH
KOREA ABANDONED IN 2019, THEY
HAVE AN EXEMPTION EVERY YEAR
AFTER THAT FOR MEAT AND MEDICAL
PACKAGING. SAME IN NEW ZEALAND,
SAME IN TAIWAN. I'LL, MY TIME IS
UP. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. DENNIS ALBIANI.
ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER BRANDS
ASSOCIATION, I DO THINK, ALSO TO
CONTINUE ON SB 54, THERE'S
ACTUALLY A SECTION IN THERE
THAT, THAT, THAT THAT ADDRESSES
THESE ISSUES AND THESE HARD TO
RECYCLE CATEGORIES. AND THERE'S
A PROCESS THAT THEY GO THROUGH
AND IF THEY CANNOT MEET THAT
PROCESS, THEY WILL ESSENTIALLY
BE BANNED. THEY WILL NOT BE USED
IN IN CALIFORNIA. SO THAT'S A
WHOLE PROCESS THAT INCLUDES
INFRASTRUCTURE AND A REQUIREMENT
ON THE MANUFACTURERS AND THE
WHETHER IT'S FOOD, WHETHER IT'S
A CONSUMER PRODUCT, WHATEVER
THAT HAS TO BRING THAT BACK IN
AS EXTENDED PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY. SO TO SAY IT'S A
RECYCLING BILL IS NOT AN
ACCURATE STATEMENT. IT'S
ACTUALLY A WHOLE ENCOMPASSING
INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, WITH EPR AS
WELL AS, WILL ELIMINATE CERTAIN
TYPES OF PACKAGING THAT CANNOT
BE RECYCLED AND MEET THE TOUGH
MANDATES AS, I THINK THERE'S AN
AREA THAT THAT WASN'T ADDRESSED
BY ADAM EARLIER. AND SO I'LL
FOCUS ON THAT, THAT THEY'VE
DONE, EXTEND OF REVIEWS ON THIS.
AND THERE WAS THE ENTITIES,
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTITIES THAT HAVE
DONE COLLECTIONS AND SEEN WHERE
THIS, REMAINS WHERE THESE
PRODUCTS LIKE PVC AND PVC ARE IN
THE WASTE STREAM AND AFTER
THEY'VE DONE THIS, IN MAY 2022,
THEY DID A FULL, STUDY AND FOUND
OUT THAT 0.12% POINT, EXCUSE ME,
.12 PERCENT OF THE WASTE STREAM
IS PVC OR PVC. SO WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT VERY MINIMAL, AMOUNTS
WITHIN THE WASTE STREAM. AND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE,
PACKAGING FOR, MEDICAL DEVICES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAMPER
RESISTANT AND SAFETY PACKAGING.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY LIMITED
USES THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC AND
NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE
PRINCIPLES THAT ADAM DISCUSSED
ABOUT THE PLASTIC ITSELF. SO
THIS IS NOT A LITTER ISSUE. IT'S
NOT A IT'S AN ISSUE OF FINDING
THE RIGHT MATERIAL FOR THE RIGHT
USES. AND PVC AND PVDC ARE
ESSENTIAL. AND SEVERAL OF THOSE
USES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2761. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS LAUREN AGUILAR HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE FLEXIBLE PACKAGING
ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE FOR PACKAGING AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CAROL
PATTERSON WITH THE FOOD SERVICE
PACKAGING INSTITUTE, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, KATIE
LITTLE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. NORLAND
ASHBROOK WITH AXIOM ADVISORS
REPRESENTING THE VINYL INSTITUTE
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
, LUIS SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
TOY ASSOCIATION. OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KELLY
LARUE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
CLEANING INSTITUTE. IN
OPPOSITION, THANK YOU, DAN CHA,
FOR THE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS
COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, KELLY HITT, ON BEHALF OF
THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TRICIA
GERINGER, AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL
OF CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. DEAN TALLY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. WE
DO HAVE A MOTION ALREADY. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SENATOR BAUER-KAHAN, I JUST WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THIS
WORK, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
THESE CHEMICALS ARE HARMING OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND I THINK ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT DIDN'T GO
MENTIONED TODAY, BUT I MUST
BRING UP, IS THE FORMER WATER
CHAIR, IS THE EFFECT THAT PFAS
HAS HAD IN OUR WATER AND THE
ACCESS TO WATER. MY COMMUNITY
HAS HAD TO SHUT DOWN MANY WELLS
BECAUSE OF THE CONTAMINATION
THAT WAS INHERENT HERE. AND WE
HAVE REAL ISSUES AS IT RELATES
TO ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THIS IS ONE OF
THE SOURCES OF THAT CONCERN. AND
SO I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE
HEALTH IMPACTS THAT WERE
DESCRIBED SO APTLY, WE REALLY DO
NEED TO BE DOING EVERYTHING WE
CAN TO PROVIDE CLEAN WATER. AND
PFAS IS A HUGE, HUGE BARRIER TO
THAT. SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR BEING FORWARD,
SENATOR BRIAN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR. I KNOW THAT A VERSION OF
THIS BILL WAS MOVING LAST YEAR.
I KNOW THAT FOLKS ARE STILL
ADJUSTING TO SB 54. I KNOW THAT
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT ALL OF
THOSE THINGS. AND WHEN I THINK
ABOUT ALL OF THE COLLEAGUES IN
THE LEGISLATURE WHO CAN NAVIGATE
THOSE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS
AND FIND A SPOT THAT'S ROOTED IN
DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE
OF OUR STATE, I WANT TO THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. AND, IF THERE'S A
MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL
TAKE THE THIRD. YEAH YEAH. I
ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS MY
GRATITUDE TO THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR
WORK ON THIS, AND, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO OFFER ANY CLOSING
COMMENTS? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE OPPOSITION FOR THEIR
TESTIMONY TODAY. I'M GOING TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM, AND
I'M HAPPY TO CONSIDER THEIR
FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE THE BILL.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. ROLL CALL ON AB 2761.
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I DIXON. BAUER.
KHN BAUER KHN I BRIAN I BRIAN
I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY I
HANEY. I MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I MCKENNA I MCKENNA
I PACHECO. REYES. SANCHEZ.
WALDRON. AND THAT BILL IS OUT
AND UP NEXT IS ITEM 16 AB 3039 A
SALLY BEING PRESENTED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE. OKAY,
OKAY. SO THANK YOU, SENATOR
WALLACE. WE'LL GO TO ITEM 17 AB
3089. JOAN SAWYER. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. IT'S JOHN.
SORRY. OKAY. GREG, I WANT TO
FIRST, THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WALLACE FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT, ESPECIALLY ON BEHALF OF
THE ENTIRE CALIFORNIA BLACK
CAUCUS, WHO MEMBERS ARE HERE
TODAY, TO HEAR THIS BILL, ONE
FROM, SOME FROM THE SENATE AND
FROM THE ASSEMBLY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, TODAY I
PRESENT TO YOU ASSEMBLY BILL
3089, THE CALIFORNIA APOLOGY ACT
FOR THE PERPETRATION OF GROSS
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, WITH
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR
AFRICAN SLAVES AND THEIR
DESCENDANTS. IN 2020, THEN
ASSEMBLY WOMAN DOCTOR SHIRLEY
WEBER AND THE AND THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE CREATED A FIRST IN
THE NATION TASK FORCE TO STUDY
AND DEVELOP REPARATION PROPOSALS
WITH A SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR
AFRICAN AMERICANS. I, ALONG WITH
STATE SENATOR STEVEN BRADFORD,
HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SITTING ON
THAT TASK FORCE AND BEING PART
OF THE GROUNDBREAKING REPORT
THAT RESULTED FOR MORE THAN TWO
YEARS, THE NINE MEMBER TASK
FORCE HEARD COUNTLESS HOURS OF
TESTIMONY AND RECEIVED THOUSANDS
OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS FROM STATE
AGENCIES, HISTORIANS,
ARCHIVISTS, ECONOMICS, PRIVATE
BUSINESSES, LEGAL EXPERTS,
FAMILIES OF FORMER SLAVE OWNERS,
AND THE DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES
AND SHARECROPPERS. FROM THAT,
THE TASK FORCE CREATED THIS
REPORT. A 100 PAGE REPORT, A
PAINSTAKING RECITATION OF THE
HORRIBLE TREATMENT OF AFRICAN
AMERICAN SLAVES, AND THE WAYS IN
WHICH THIS STATE AND THE NATION
BENEFITED FROM FORCED HUMAN
SLAVE LABOR. AS REQUIRED BY
STATUTE. THE STATUTE THE TASK
FORCE WAS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE IN
ITS FINDINGS HOW THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WILL OFFER A FORMAL
APOLOGY ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE
PERPETRATION OF GROSS HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY ON AFRICAN
SLAVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY HEARD
AND PASSED TWO OTHER MEASURES ON
THIS SUBJECT. HCR 135 WEBBER AND
THE SENATE COMPANION SCR 113.
SMALLWOOD, CUEVAS. BOTH
RESOLUTION, WHICH OUTLINED AN
ACT, ACKNOWLEDGED THE HORRIFIC
ACTS AGAINST AFRICAN SLAVES
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY AND
WITHIN OUR STATE. THESE TWO
RESOLUTIONS SET THE STAGE AND
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE HARMS.
AB 3089 WILL PROVIDE THE FORMAL
APOLOGY ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR ITS COMPLICITY
IN THE HUMAN CHATTEL SLAVERY FOR
OUR NATION'S PAST, AND LASTING
BADGES AND INCIDENTS OF SLAVERY
OF THE SLAVERY SYSTEM. THIS BILL
OFFERS THE NEXT STEP IN THE
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION PROCESS
BY OFFERING A FORMAL APOLOGY FOR
PAST WRONGS. CALIFORNIA WILL
JOIN NINE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE
OFFERED SOME FORM OF APOLOGY FOR
THEIR ROLE IN SLAVERY. ALABAMA
TO CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE,
FLORIDA, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY,
NORTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, AND
VIRGINIA HAVE ALL ENACTED SOME
FORM OF APOLOGY FOR THEIR ROLE
IN THE SLAVE TRADE. EVEN THOUGH
OUR STATE ENTERED THE UNION AS A
FREE STATE, EVERY BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT HAS HAD A HAND IN
PERPETRATING SLAVERY. THIS BILL
IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT
THOSE TOUGH TRUTHS IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY. I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL, SPECIFICALLY
FOR THEIR THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF
THE BILL AND THE HISTORY THAT
BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT. I
WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT WE
CANNOT IGNORE OUR PAST LEST WE
BE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT AGAIN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
COLLEAGUES, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 3089? MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBER MEL FOR THE
CALIFORNIA AFRICAN AMERICAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE GREATER
SACRAMENTO URBAN LEAGUE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, KIM MIMS WITH AMEND,
THE MASS MEDIA GROUP HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. I'M RAFEAL
PLUNKETT I CAME TO VISIT YOU
FROM DIAMOND BAR TO SHOW MY
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. DILLON ELLIOTT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY
OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT
PSYCHIATRY AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
CARMEN NICOLE COX, ON BEHALF OF
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MR. JONES-SAWYER.
AND PROUD. STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANNIE CHAO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, GABRIELA WYATT, A
RESIDENT OF GALT, CALIFORNIA, IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
ANTHONY DEMARTINO, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND STRONG SUPPORT,
THANK YOU, BRENDAN WOODS, PUBLIC
DEFENDER OF ALAMEDA COUNTY AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
3089? BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SENATOR BRIAN, I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR, FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP NOT ONLY ON THE TASK
FORCE, BUT IN INTRODUCING THIS
MEASURE, AND FOR BRINGING
PROBABLY THE BEST WITNESS THAT
YOU COULD, WHICH IS THAT SEVERAL
THOUSAND PAGE REPORT DOCUMENT IN
CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY. THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT STEP IN OUR COLLECTIVE
REPARATIONS PACKAGE FOR THIS
YEAR, A MULTI YEAR PACKAGE THAT
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW
AND ADVANCE ON. BUT THIS IS A
FOUNDATIONAL FIRST STEP. AND SO
PROUD TO BE A JOINT AUTHOR WITH
YOU. AND, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO
MOVE THE BILL. WE DO HAVE A
MOTION ALREADY ON THE TABLE, BUT
YOU'LL BE THE THIRD. IT'LL BE
IT'LL BE ANOTHER THIRD. YOU'VE
BEEN A THIRD ON A LOT OF THESE
MOTIONS. I APPRECIATE THAT,
ASSEMBLYMAN MIKE WIENER. YES,
SIR. IS IT ON? HELLO? SORRY, MR.
BROWN, WE ALREADY DID IT. OKAY,
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR HIS WORK THAT HE ON
REPARATIONS, JUST THE FACT THAT
YOU WENT AROUND THE STATE AND
HEARD ALL THAT TESTIMONY IS
SOMETHING TO BE VERY, VERY PROUD
OF. BUT THE APOLOGY IS
SIGNIFICANT TOWARDS
RECONCILIATION AND HEALING THE
EMPHASIS. IT EMPHASIZES THE
IMPORTANT IMPORTANCE OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN ADDRESSING
HISTORICAL INJUSTICE. AND FOR
THE DESCENDANTS OF US SLAVES. WE
WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THAT APOLOGY.
SO THIS BILL IS SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPORTANT, AND I THANK YOU FOR
CARRYING IT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
KHN, I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND MY FORMER SEATMATE IN MY
YEARS SITTING NEXT TO YOU. I
LEARNED SO MUCH, ABOUT THIS
TOPIC SPECIFICALLY AND OTHER
THINGS, AND I REMEMBER THE FIRST
TIME I WAS SITTING ON THE DAIS
AND I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
APOLOGIZING TO A CALIFORNIAN. IT
WAS IN YOUR COMMITTEE, AND IT
WAS WHEN WE HAD A WITNESS WHO'D
BEEN FORCIBLY STERILIZED, AND
SHE SAT BEFORE US AS A WOMAN OF
COLOR. AND I JUST FELT COMPELLED
TO APOLOGIZE TO HER ON BEHALF OF
THE PEOPLE THAT THIS HAD
HAPPENED TO HER, AND HOW
POWERFUL WAS IN THAT MOMENT FOR
HER TO HEAR THAT APOLOGY? AND
I'M JUST ONE PERSON, BUT THAT I
COULD GIVE THAT TO HER. AND I
THINK THAT THAT POWER IS WHAT IS
IN THIS BILL, IS THAT WE HAVE
THE PRIVILEGE OF SITTING HERE
TODAY, IN THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY
. WAY TOO LATE, I MIGHT ADD, BUT
NEVER, I GUESS, TOO LATE, BUT
LATER THAN I WOULD HAVE LIKED,
TO MAKE THIS APOLOGY FOR THE
WRONGS THAT WERE COMMITTED
AGAINST THE DESCENDANTS OF
SLAVES AND, THE BLACK PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA WHO WERE SO UNJUSTLY
TREATED, AS EVIDENCED BY THE
VERY LARGE TOME SITTING NEXT TO
YOU. AND SO I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY,
AND I'M HAPPY TO BE SITTING HERE
AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, I ALSO
WANT TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO
THE AUTHOR. MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS,
INCLUDING THOSE THAT ARE MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THOSE WHO
ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE. THIS IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR EVERY
CALIFORNIAN. NOT JUST BLACK
CALIFORNIANS. I WANT TO KEEP
REPEATING THAT EVERY TIME WE
HEAR THESE BILLS, THESE ARE
BILLS THAT UPLIFT ALL OF US, AS
WELL AS OPEN OUR EYES TO WHAT
OUR STATE DID AND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUED
RAMIFICATIONS OF THOSE ACTIONS,
PART OF THE BILL, WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO HAVE A CONSPICUOUSLY
PLACED PLAQUE UP IF THIS BILL
MAKES IT FORWARD. GETS SIGNED BY
THE GOVERNOR SOMEWHERE HERE IN
THE CAPITOL. AND I WOULD SUGGEST
EITHER WE REMOVE, PICTURE ONE OF
THE EARLY GOVERNORS WHO
PERPETRATED, MUCH OF THIS, OR AT
LEAST PUT IT NEXT TO IT AND HAVE
AN ARROW POINTING TOWARDS THEM,
BECAUSE I WALK BY A LOT OF
PICTURES OF THESE GOVERNORS THAT
WERE HERE, SOME OF THE FIRST
GOVERNORS, INCLUDING OUR FIRST
GOVERNOR, WHO CALLED FOR THE
ERADICATION OF OUR NATIVE
COMMUNITIES, THEY'RE THE ONES
THAT SIGNED ON TO THESE THESE
PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND
SUPPORTED THEM, AND SO I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE START
TELLING THE REST OF THE STORY.
AND FOR THAT, I'M INCREDIBLY
GRATEFUL. WOULD BE HONORED TO BE
ADDED ON AS A COAUTHOR, I WOULD
LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CLOSE AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU. AND, AND REALLY FOR, FOR,
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T REALLY
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
APOLOGY LETTER AND FOR THOSE WHO
DON'T BELIEVE THAT CALIFORNIA
WAS COMPLICIT IN IT, LET ME JUST
IF YOU ALLOW ME, MR. CHAIR, JUST
TO READ SOMETHING, THERE WAS AN
OPPOSITION LETTER TO AB 2319.
WILSON WHICH WAS ABOUT IMPLICIT
BIAS ON PRENATAL CARE, ABOUT
MORTALITY RATE AMONG AFRICAN
AMERICAN WOMEN, AMONG AFRICAN
AMERICAN BLACK WOMEN AND THEIR
BABIES. AND I SERVE ON THE
HEALTH COMMITTEE. AND IT WAS TO
CHAIR BONTA, WHO'S AN AFRICAN
AMERICAN WOMAN, ON A BILL BY AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN, WILSON
CHAIR BONTA, AND MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY HEALTH ON BEHALF OF THE
IMPERIAL GRAND ARYAN COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE WESTERN
UNITED KNIGHTS, I SUBMIT THIS
LETTER IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
AB 2319. WILSON WE BELIEVE THAT
EVERY NONWHITE BIRTH IN THIS
STATE IS A DRAIN ON THE
TAXPAYERS, AND THAT ANY
MISCARRIAGE OR COMPLICATION THAT
RESULTS IN DEATH OR DEFECT OF
THE MOTHER OR CHILD IN GOD'S WAY
OF ENSURING POPULATION CONTROL
AMONG BLACKS AND OTHER
MINORITIES AND THE EFFORT THAT
IS MADE TO SUPPORT HEALTH AND
WELLNESS OF BLACK WOMEN AND
CHILDREN IS AN AFFRONT TO NATURE
, AND IS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO THE
AGENDA OF WHITE CALIFORNIANS AND
WHITE AMERICANS. WE STRONGLY
URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THIS MEASURE.
GRAHAM GARLAND, RANDALL GREENE,
WESTERN, WESTERN, UNITED KNIGHTS
GARLAND RANDALL GREENE WAS BORN
IN 1889, DIED IN 1949. SO IT
TELLS YOU THAT THIS RACISM IS
STILL HERE. AND THOSE THOSE
THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ARE STILL
BEING FORWARDED. I AM PROUD TO
SAY THIS LETTER HAS BEEN
REPUDIATED BY THE SPEAKER. THE
PRO TEM AND THE CALIFORNIA
REPUBLICAN PARTY. AND SO IN SOME
WAYS, WE DO STAND STRONG, FOR
AFRICAN AMERICAN CAUCUS MEMBERS,
THESE LETTERS, IT'S JUST
TUESDAY. WE GET THIS ALL THE
TIME. ALL THE TIME. AND SO IF
SOMEONE TELLS YOU THAT THERE'S
STILL PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRYING
TO KEEP US DOWN, THIS LETTER LET
YOU KNOW THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO KEEP AFRICAN
AMERICAN AND OTHER MINORITIES
FROM BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE, WHAT
IS GREAT IN CALIFORNIA. AND SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
ON THE APOLOGY LETTER AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS, MADAM SECRETARY ROLE ON AB
389 Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
CALL. I CALL I DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY, I
HANEY I MANCINI. MAIENSCHEIN I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I PACHECO.
PACHECO. I REYES. SANCHEZ
WALDRON. ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS
OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
TO GET YOUR WORK OUT, I DON'T
KNOW. NØ. WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH
IT. ITEM 1630 39 A SALLY.
SUMMER. SALLY IS NOT HERE.
SUMMER. WALSH PRESENTING FORUM.
THIS HAS A STRONG NO
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR
.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MISTER CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I AM HERE TO PRESENT AB
3039 ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BILL SALLY. AB 3039 WOULD
REMOVE A PROSPECTIVE JURORS
VIEWS RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
AS A PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID BASIS
FOR EXERCISING A PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE DURING THE JURY
SELECTION PROCESS. PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES ARE AN IMPORTANT
COMPONENT OF THE JURY SELECTION
PROCESS AS THEY PROVIDE
PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.
A LIMITED NUMBER OF STRIKES FOR
JURORS SUSPECTED OF HARBORING
BIAS. IF EXERCISED, A PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE RESULTS IN THE
EXCLUSION OF A POTENTIAL JUROR
WITHOUT THE NEED FOR AN
ARTICULATED REASON OR
EXPLANATION, WHICH PROVIDES
CERTAIN ASSURANCES TO BOTH SIDES
OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY.
PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF AB 3070,
IN 2020, COURTS RELIED ON A
THREE PART TEST KNOWN AS THE
BATSON WHEELER PROCESS FOR
EVALUATING POTENTIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY, DISCRIMINATORY
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. THIS
SYSTEM WAS CRITIQUED BY SOME AS
BEING INADEQUATE FOR PREVENTING
RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY
PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE USE, WHICH
LED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL AND
SWEEPING CHANGES TO THE BATSON
WHEELER FRAMEWORK IN AB 3070. A
MULTITUDE OF FACTORS CAN NOW BE
ARGUED AS A PRESUMPTIVELY
INVALID BASIS FOR EXERCISING A
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE. IF THE
OPPOSING COUNSEL ASSERTS THAT
THE CHALLENGE MAY BE CONNECTED
TO A POTENTIAL JURORS MEMBERSHIP
IN A PROTECTED CATEGORY OR
GROUP. IN ORDER FOR A PROSECUTOR
TO SUSTAIN A PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE, THEY MUST PROVE, BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
PERSON WOULD VIEW THE RATIONALE
AS UNRELATED TO PROSPECTIVE
JURORS. RACE ETHNICITY, GENDER,
GENDER IDENTITY, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, OR
PERCEIVED MEMBERSHIP IN ANY OF
THESE GROUPS, AND THAT THE
REASONS ARTICULATED BEAR ON THE
PROSPECTIVE JURORS ABILITY TO BE
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. IN THE CASE
UNDER AB 3070, A PROSECUTOR'S
USE OF A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IS
PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID IF IT IS
USED TO EXCUSE A JUROR WHO HAS
EXPRESSED A BIAS AGAINST LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR THE CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM, OR WHO HAS A CLOSE
RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE
ARRESTED OR CONVICTED OF A
CRIME. THESE CHANGES HAVE
CREATED A LEGAL QUAGMIRE FOR
PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS SEEKING FAIR OUTCOMES.
THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY AB
3070 ARE AN EXTREMELY HIGH BAR
AND CAN BE USED TO PREVENT
LEGITIMATELY BIASED JURORS FROM
BEING STRUCK, THEREBY
UNDERMINING THE INTENDED PURPOSE
OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. AB
3039 DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE
BATSON WHEELER REFORMS ENACTED
BY AB 3070. RATHER, IT SIMPLY
SEEKS TO REMOVE THE PROVISIONS
RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BIAS.
STRONG ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT
VIEWS SHOULD BE A DISQUALIFIER,
REGARDLESS OF RACE, ETHNICITY,
GENDER, OR ANY OTHER ARTICULATED
GROUP MEMBERSHIP, INCLUDING
JURORS WHO HOLD THESE BELIEFS
CAN UNDERMINE OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM'S CREDIBILITY IN REACHING
FAIR VERDICTS. ONE EXAMPLE OF
HOW THIS WORKS IN PRACTICE IS A
CASE FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
FORMER SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPUTY MEGAN MCCARTHY
EXPERIENCED A VICIOUS ASSAULT
WHILE ON DUTY, WHERE HER
ASSAILANT OVERPOWERED HER AND
WRESTLED HER SERVICE WEAPON AWAY
BEFORE FIRING AT HER AS SHE RAN
FOR COVER. DESPITE THE ENCOUNTER
BEING CAUGHT ON VIDEO, THE
ASSAILANT WAS FOUND GUILTY ON
ONLY ONE CHARGE NEGLIGENT
NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A
FIREARM. IN CASES LIKE THESE,
THE LEGAL SYSTEM'S CREDIBILITY
IS GREATLY UNDERMINED BY A
FRAMEWORK THAT MAKES IT AS
DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE TO EJECT A
JUROR WHO EXPRESSES ANTI-POLICE
SENTIMENT. AB 3039 WILL CORRECT
THIS FLAW AND PROVIDE NECESSARY
ASSURANCES TO ALL PARTIES THAT A
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY WILL
JUDGE THEIR CASE. ON BEHALF OF
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ASALI, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE
COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL, AND I HAVE HERE WITH ME
TODAY. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF SHANNON DICUS AND FORMER
DEPUTY MEGAN MCCARTHY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF, SHANNON DICUS. AND ON
BEHALF OF MY COUNTY'S LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE
THOUSANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL ACROSS THE STATE, I'M
HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 3039. THIS IS A
CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY BILL THAT
SEEKS TO BRING IMPARTIALITY TO
THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS BY
RESTORING PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES
FOR THE SUSPECTED ANTI-LAW
ENFORCEMENT BIAS. AS A LAW
ENFORCEMENT VETERAN WITH MORE
THAN 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, I
CAN SPEAK TO THE VERY REAL
DANGERS THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN
WHO SERVE OUR COMMUNITIES ARE
EXPOSED TO THE LEAST, THAT WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IS ENSURE
THEM THAT IF THEY ARE ATTACKED
OR VICTIMIZED ON DUTY, THAT
THEIR ASSAILANT WILL STAND TRIAL
BEFORE AN UNBIASED JURY OF THEIR
PEERS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS
NOT THE REALITY IN EXISTING LAW.
UNDER THE CHANGES ENACTED BY AB
3070 IN 2020, PARTICULARLY
SUBSECTION FOUR, THE PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE BASED ON THE
PROSPECTIVE JURORS VIEWS RELATED
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BE DEEMED
PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID, ALLOWING
BIASED JURORS TO SLIP THROUGH
THE PROCESS AND PARTICIPATE IN
DELIBERATION AND ALTER THE
INFLUENCE OR THE OUTCOME OF A
TRIAL BY REMOVING THE
PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID BASIS FOR
STRIKING JURORS WITH ANTI-POLICE
VIEWS. AB 3039 RESTORES THE
BALANCE IN THE JURY SELECTION
PROCESS, ALLOWING FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF JURORS WHO MAY NOT
BE ABLE TO OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE
THE EVIDENCE DUE TO THEIR
BIASES. I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURES,
PARTICULARLY CHAPTER ONE TRIAL
JURY SELECTION MANAGEMENT ACT
190 THROUGH 241. SPECIFICALLY,
SECTION 219 NOTWITHSTANDING
SUBDIVISION A NÓ PEACE OFFICER
AS DEFINED IN SECTION EIGHT, 30
.1.2 AND 0.33 OF THE PENAL CODE
SHALL BE SELECTED FOR VOIR DIRE
IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. IT WOULD
BE OPPOSITE OF THAT TO ALLOW
PEOPLE THAT HAVE BIAS TOWARDS
LAW ENFORCEMENT. IF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN'T
PARTICIPATE IN A JURY BASED ON
THEIR PROFESSIONAL BIAS, THEN
WHY WOULD WE ALLOW PEOPLE THAT
HAVE BIAS AGAINST THEM AND THEIR
PROFESSION IN. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
MEGAN MCCARTHY AND I'M A
MEDICALLY RETIRED DEPUTY SHERIFF
FROM THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. ON
SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2019, WHILE
RESPONDING TO A911 CALL OF A MOM
NEEDING HELP, THE SUSPECT
BRUTALLY ASSAULTED ME,
OVERPOWERED ME, TOOK MY GUN AND
POINTED AT MY HEAD AND PULLED
THE TRIGGER. MY GUN
MALFUNCTIONED AND WHICH ALLOWED
ME TO RUN FOR COVER AS A SUSPECT
SHOT AT MY BACK AS I RAN FOR MY
LIFE. THIS WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA
AND DESPITE TWO CONFESSIONS FROM
THE SUSPECT, CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE, A JURY OF
MY PEERS ALLOWED MY ATTEMPTED
KILLER TO WALK FREE. THIS WAS
DUE TO ASSEMBLY BILL 3070, WHICH
ALLOWED BIAS AND IMPARTIAL
JURORS TO SIT ON MY TRIAL AS I
EXPRESS AN IMPLICIT BIAS TOWARDS
ME BECAUSE OF BEING A COP, THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT I
SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND
PROTECT AS A COP TURNED ITS BACK
ON ME AND DID NOT ALLOW ME TO
HAVE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR
A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL.
BECAUSE OF MY JOB TITLE. I STAND
BEFORE YOU TODAY TO URGE YOUR
UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR AB 3039.
THAT IS PARAMOUNT TO OUR PURSUIT
OF JUSTICE. THE ENACTMENT OF
THIS LAW WOULD GUARANTEE FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL TRIALS FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN A
SOCIETY THAT VALUES EQUITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. THIS LEGISLATION
IS NOT MERELY AN OPTION, BUT A
NECESSITY. 14TH AMENDMENT,
SECTION ONE OF OUR CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS, NO
STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY
LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY
PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. WHY
DOES OUR CALIFORNIA BELIEVE
ASSEMBLY BILL 3070 IS ABOVE THE
CONSTITUTION, ENSURING FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL TRIALS FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS NOT
ABOUT VILIFYING THOSE WHO SERVE
AND PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES.
RATHER, IT IS ABOUT UPHOLDING
THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND
ENSURING THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROFESSION,
RECEIVES A FAIR TRIAL. THERE IS
A WAR RAGING IN OUR COUNTRY
AGAINST OUR POLICE OFFICERS.
EVERY 22 HOURS A COP IS SHOT,
THERE IS NO JOB TITLE SO
VILLAINIZED AND UNDER FIRE THAN
THOSE THAT ARE THE ONLY STAND
BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. I URGE
EACH OF YOU TO STAND ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY AND TO
VOTE IN AB 3039. LET US REAFFIRM
OUR COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE AND
EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 3039? GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS RYAN
SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
AND ALSO IN SUPPORT THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIF AIR RESERVE
PEACE OFFICERS AND A COALITION
OF DEPUTY SHERIFFS AND PPOS,
INCLUDING THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY COUNTY
AND PLACER COUNTY, AND THE
POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS OF
ARCADIA, BURBANK, CLAREMONT,
CORONA, CULVER CITY, FULLER,
THÀNH, MURRIETA, NEWPORT BEACH,
NOVATO, PALOS, VERDI'S POMONA,
RIVERSIDE, SANTA ANA, AND UPLAND
ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, ALICIA ROSA,
ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF'S EMPLOYEES
BENEFIT ASSOCIATION IN SAN
BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, WE'RE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, DAKOTA
HIGGINS, ON BEHALF OF SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, FIRST
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR COLONEL PAUL
COOK IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. DOES ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3039?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH
SEMEL. I'M ON THE FACULTY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW, WHERE I
DIRECT THE DEATH PENALTY CLINIC
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
OF WHICH I AM A PAST PRESIDENT.
WE ASK MEMBERS TO REJECT AB
3039, WHICH, IF PASSED, WOULD BE
A STUNNING, SHAMEFUL STEP BACK
TO REINSTATING DECADES OF
DISCRIMINATION IN JURY SELECTION
AND CONTRAVENE THE LEGISLATURE'S
SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN AB 3070.
AND IT'S CLEAR OBJECTIVES. A
MOMENTS AGO, WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
GIVE A FORMAL APOLOGY ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
THE HORRORS THAT WERE INFLICTED
ON BLACK CALIFORNIA OWNS THE
DISCRIMINATION WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE. THE DISCRIMINATION
AB 3070 SEEKS TO ELIMINATE IS A
DIRECT DESCENDANT OF THOSE
HORRORS. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR ITS ANALYSIS,
INCLUDING ITS CITATION TO
MULTIPLE STATE AND FEDERAL
STUDIES THAT DOCUMENTED THE
FAILURE OF BATSON WHEELER
INCLUDE THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH
PROSECUTORS USE THESE REASONS,
E1 AND E2, THAT ARE AN ISSUE IN
THIS LEGISLATION THÀNH 3039. AND
COURTS TOLERATED THEIR USE TO
DISPROPORTIONATELY REMOVE BLACK
AND LATINX JURORS. I WANT TO
CALL THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION
TO WHITEWASHING THE JURY BOX. I
JUST HAPPENED TO BRING A COPY OF
WHICH I AM THE COAUTHOR, WHICH
THE ANALYSIS EMPHASIZES IN
SIGNIFICANT PART BECAUSE IT WAS
THE FIRST AND ONLY EMPIRICAL
STUDY OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE
ANALYZED 12 YEARS WORTH OF COURT
OF APPEAL. BATSON, WHEELER
OPINIONS. WE ANALYZED A DECADE
OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY JURY
SELECTION TRAINING MANUALS FROM
MULTIPLE COUNTIES. THE LIST OF
PEREMPTORY, EXCUSE ME,
PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID REASONS IN
3070 IS NOT, I REPEAT, IS NOT
RABBITS PULLED OUT OF A HAT, NOR
IS IT A MULTITUDE. THESE ARE
REASONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY
THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT,
INCLUDED IN ITS RULE, WHICH
CALIFORNIA THEN STUDIED AND
ADOPTED. IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT WITNESS, IF THAT'S
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS BRENDAN
WOODS. I'M THE CHIEF PUBLIC
DEFENDER OF ALAMEDA COUNTY. I AM
A PAST PRESIDENT AND CURRENT
BOARD MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION. I
AM ONLY ONE OF TWO BLACK CHIEF
PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN ENTIRE STATE
, AND I'VE DEDICATED MY LIFE TO
FIGHTING SYSTEMIC RACISM IN OUR
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. WHEN I
WAS A SOPHOMORE IN COLLEGE, MY
UNCLE WAS SENTENCED TO 27 YEARS
IN PRISON AND THERE WASN'T A
SINGLE BLACK PERSON ON HIS JURY.
THAT IS NOT AN ANOMALY. TÊ LAWS
AND SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN PUT IN
PLACE TO INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDE
BLACK PEOPLE FROM JURY SERVICE,
AND AB 3070 WAS DESIGNED TO FIX
THAT. IF AB 3039 IS PASSED, IT
WILL UNDO THE PROGRESS THAT HAS
BEEN MADE. IT WILL MAKE IT
HARDER FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR,
SPECIFICALLY BLACK PEOPLE, TO
SERVE AS JURORS. ALAMEDA COUNTY
IS A COUNTY, ONE OF THE HIGHEST
PERCENTAGE OF BLACK PEOPLE IN
THE STATE. ATTORNEYS IN MY
OFFICE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME OR
HAD A DIFFICULT TIME HAVING
TRIALS AT ONE SINGLE BLACK
PERSON. THIS WAS IN OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA. THERE WERE TRIALS
HAPPENING WITH NO BLACK PEOPLE
ON THE JURY. THE VAST MAJORITY
OF CLIENTS WHO REPRESENTED BLACK
AND BROWN. OUR JAIL, ONE OF THE
LARGEST IN THE STATE, IS 46%
BLACK. WE HAVE 65% PEOPLE WHO
ARE BLACK SERVING PRISON
SENTENCES FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY.
NOW THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE AB 37
HAS BEEN PASSED. WE NOW HAVE
TRIALS WHERE THERE ARE AT LEAST
ONE BLACK PERSON SERVING ON THE
JURY. BLACK PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER
BEING KICKED OFF JURIES BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE
OF POLICE OFFICERS, OR BECAUSE
THEY BELIEVE POLICE ENGAGE IN
RACIAL PROFILING AND THOSE
BELIEFS AND EXPERIENCES ARE
JUSTIFIED. THEY'RE NOT A THING
OF THE PAST. LOOK, THE REPEAT
DATA REPORT FROM 2024 BLACK
RESIDENTS ARE STOPPED THE MOST.
THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST RATES OF
BEING DETAINED CURBSIDE OR IN
PATROL VEHICLE. THEY HAVE THE
HIGHEST RATE OF BEING ORDERED TO
EXIT A VEHICLE. BLACK PEOPLE HAD
WON A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF BEING
STOPPED AND SEARCHED WITHOUT ANY
CONTRABAND BEING FOUND,
ACCORDING TO A RECENT NPR POLL.
TWO THIRDS OF BLACK AMERICANS
DON'T TRUST POLICE TO TREAT THEM
EQUALLY. THIS LAW, IF PASSED,
WILL ALLOW PROSECUTORS TO
EXCLUDE TWO THIRDS OF BLACK
AMERICANS. THE EXPERIENCE OF
BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE USED
AGAINST THEM TO PREVENT THEM
FROM SERVING AS JURORS. AB 37 IS
WORKING. OUR JURIES ARE MORE
DIVERSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
A NO VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3039, MR.
CHAIR, MAY I BEG YOUR INDULGENCE
TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? ONE
LAST COMMENT, ONE LAST 10S GO,
IT IS INCORRECT THAT PEOPLE ARE
EXCLUDED FROM JURIES UNDER THIS
STATUTE. OR EXCUSE EXCUSE ME ARE
EXCLUDED UNDER THIS STATUTE
BASED ON THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD
POLICE OFFICERS. THE STATUTE IS
VERY CLEAR THAT A PROSECUTOR MAY
SEEK TO REMOVE SOMEONE BASED ON
THOSE EXPERIENCES. IF HE OR SHE
DOES, THEY MUST SHOW THAT THE
REASON IS RELATED TO THE JURORS
INABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL AND
THEN THE COURT RULES THERE IS NO
AUTOMATIC EXCLUSION. THANK YOU.
YES. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, STATEWIDE
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS, WE ARE CO-SPONSOR OF
THE ORIGINAL BILL, AB 3070, AND
WE ARE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, ANTHONY DEMARTINO. ONCE
AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SMART
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CARMEN NICOLE COX, ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
IN STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT
KHN? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT
SOMETHING THAT WAS GLARING TO ME
ON THIS BILL, WHICH IS THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE NOT
WEIGHED IN. SO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ARE NOT ASKING FOR
THIS, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY
STRIKING. AND I WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE CALL OUT HERE TODAY AND
I WOULD VENTURE TO GUESS, HAVING
DONE VOIR DIRE MYSELF, THAT'S
BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO REMOVE A JUROR FOR
CAUSE BASED SPECIFICALLY ON BIAS
OR PREJUDICE. SO IF YOU HAD A
CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS BIASED OR
PREJUDICED AGAINST LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN A WAY
THAT WOULD IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF
THE TRIAL, ALL YOU WOULD BE ABLE
TO USE CAUSE TO REMOVE THAT
JUROR. AND SO I DON'T SEE HOW
WHAT WE DID CHANGED THAT AT ALL.
I THINK THAT WE ABSOLUTELY STILL
HAVE A SYSTEM BY WHICH YOUR CASE
SHOULD HAVE REMOVED ANY JURORS
THAT WERE BIASED AGAINST YOU AND
AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF WHAT
HAPPENED. AND THAT IS PROTECTED
IN LAW. AND SO I GUESS I DON'T
SEE HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT.
AND I, I THINK WE HAVE DONE
SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT BY
ENSURING THAT THAT IS A CAUSE
THAT WE'VE SHOWN THAT THAT BIAS
EXISTS, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE
MOVING THE PERSON, NOT JUST
BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD A NEGATIVE
EXPERIENCE, WHICH, AS POINTED
OUT BY THE OPPOSITION, OBVIOUSLY
, I THINK WE ALL KNOW HAPPENS TO
PEOPLE OF COLOR FAR MORE AND
MAKES OUR JURIES LESS
REPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA. SO
WITH THAT, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL BECAUSE I THINK OUR
SYSTEM AS SET UP TODAY WORKS.
MR. CHAIR, WOULD IT BE OKAY IF
MY WITNESS RESPONDED TO THAT?
SURE SO REMEMBER, I CAN
APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION.
HOWEVER ANY BIAS, WHETHER IT'S
RED AND BLUE BIAS, BLACK, WHITE
OR BROWN BIAS OR PROFESSIONAL
BIAS IS WRONG. AND EXACTLY
WHAT'S PLACED INTO THIS BILL
RIGHT NOW IS THAT BIAS. AND
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EXCLUDE A
JUROR THAT EXPRESSES IS LAW
ENFORCEMENT BIAS. SO HOW CAN A
POLICE OFFICER AND I READ YOU
THE COLDEST THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURES. HOW CAN A POLICE
OFFICER BE EXCUSED BECAUSE WE
TECHNICALLY BRING PROFESSIONAL
BIAS, BUT YET SOMEBODY WHO
DISLIKES US BRINGS A BIAS IS
OKAY. THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
AND I'LL SAY, SIR, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. AND I YOU KNOW, I
ACTUALLY WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH.
AND I KNOW, YOU'VE STEPPED OUT
OF THE LINE OF DUTY FOR YOUR
SERVICE. I ACTUALLY THINK WHAT
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DO
EVERY DAY IS SO CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THAT IN
INSTANCES WHERE IT'S RELEVANT,
THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED AND THEY
WILL BE REMOVED. AND THERE IS A
WAY TO REMOVE THEM. AND THERE IS
NO QUESTION THAT THAT, THAT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IT IS
ALLOWED. LAW PROTECTS THAT
THROUGH THE REMOVAL FOR CAUSE,
PROCESS OF A JURY SELECTION. SO
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. I
JUST THINK THE CODE AS IT STANDS
TODAY COVERS THAT. THANK YOU.
YEAH. AND I THINK THIS, YOU
KNOW, WE JUST VOTED ON A BILL,
YOU KNOW, APOLOGIZING FOR NOT
JUST THE PAST ATROCITIES, BUT
ENSURING THAT WE DON'T REPEAT
THEM AND THAT THE ONGOING
EFFECTS THAT WE DO WHAT WE CAN.
I THINK THAT TO IMPACT THE
ONGOING EFFECTS OF ROOTED IN
CONDUCT FROM THIS STATE FOR
MANY, MANY GENERATIONS,
SECRETARY WEBBER'S BILL IS
HAVING A POSITIVE IMPACT. WE'RE
SEEING AN INCREASE IN DIVERSITY
ON OUR JURIES IS A PERFECT ARE
THEY GOING TO FIND SOME
SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE MAY MAY
OBJECT TO THE OUTCOME AND HAVE
YOU. THAT CAN HAPPEN IN ANY
CASE. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT WE
KNOW, KNOW, THAT THERE THAT OUR
PUBLIC, OUR COMMUNITY HAS
DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES. AND BY
HAVING DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES
THAT BY ITSELF, SHOULDN'T BE
USED TO, TO EXCUSE SOMEONE FROM
A JURY. AND SO, SO I STRONGLY AM
OPPOSED TO UNDOING, WHAT
SECRETARY WEBBER HAS LAID FORTH
AND WHAT IS WORKING, AND WE'LL
LEAVE IT AT THAT. IS THERE A
MOTION? I'LL MOVE. I'LL SECOND.
OKAY MOVING APPROVAL. IS THAT A
MOTION? I WAS MOVING APPROVAL.
I'LL. I'LL MOVE THAT. THERE'S A
SECOND. OKAY SO A MOTION AND A
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOTIONS
DO PASS TO PUBLIC SAFETY. CALL
NO. CALLER NÓ DIXON.
BAUER-KAHAN. NO BAUER-KAHAN. NO.
BRIAN CONNELLY. CONNELLY. NO.
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN. NO.
MAIENSCHEIN NO. MCKENNA.
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO. AYE
REYES. SANCHEZ. WALDRON WALDRON.
AYE. OKAY. WE'LL PLACE THAT BILL
ON CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU FOR THE
TIME FOR BEING HERE, MR. SHERIFF
AND MR. PUBLIC DEFENDER. THANK
YOU
.
I APPRECIATE YOU. NEXT UP IS
ITEM NUMBER 11, PAPIN, ASSEMBLY
BILL 2515.
IT APPEARS YOU'VE HAD QUITE THE
MORNING, SO. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO START BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE AND THE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
BILL. I'M HERE TO PRESENT A BILL
THAT IS OF A PERSONAL IMPORTANCE
TO ME, AB 2515 CALLED THE TAMPON
ACT, WHICH MEANS TAKE ALL
MENSTRUAL PRODUCT, FAS OUT NOW.
SO IT IS AN ACRONYM JUST SO YOU
KNOW, MY OFFICE IS VERY CLEVER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR APPRECIATION
OF THAT, ANYWAY, THIS BILL WILL
REQUIRE THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF
INTENTIONALLY ADDED PFAS FROM
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS AND SET A
THRESHOLD OF TEN PARTS PER
MILLION FOR UNINTENTIONALLY
ADDED PFAS TO TAKE EFFECT IN TWO
YEARS. WE'VE BEEN SEEING
MULTIPLE BILLS COME THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE RECENTLY THAT
INVOLVE PFAS, BUT AND THAT'S FOR
GOOD REASON. THESE ARE FOREVER
CHEMICALS. THEY'RE UBIQUITOUS,
AND THEY CAUSE SEVERE HEALTH
PROBLEMS, INCLUDING HORMONE AND
IMMUNE SYSTEM DISRUPTION, KIDNEY
AND LIVER DAMAGE, AND, OF
COURSE, CANCER. HOWEVER, I'M
HERE TO MAKE THE CASE THAT
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS ARE DIFFERENT
THAN ALL OF THESE OTHER BILLS.
THESE ARE PRODUCTS USED IN THE
MOST INTIMATE WAY POSSIBLE, IN
AN AREA OF THE BODY THAT IS
DELICATE AND HIGHLY VASCULAR.
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THESE
PRODUCTS, ANY HUMAN THAT HAS A
UTERUS MUST USE THESE PRODUCTS
FOR 3 TO 7 DAYS OUT OF EVERY
MONTH FOR ROUGHLY 40 YEARS OF
THEIR LIVES. IMAGINE THE DAMAGE
THAT CAN BE DONE FOR SUCH
INTIMATE USE AND REPEATED
EXPOSURE. AB 2515 IS A
REINTRODUCTION OF A BILL THAT WE
CARRIED LAST YEAR, AB 246, WHICH
MADE IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK
BUT WAS ULTIMATELY VETOED. IN
THE GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE, HE ASKED
THAT WE WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL SO
THAT THE BILL HAD A DEFINED
REGULATORY AGENCY, AND WE'RE
DOING JUST THAT. AMENDMENTS THAT
WENT INTO PRINT ON APRIL 1ST,
WHICH WE WORKED ON WITH THE
COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE
CONTROL, BETTER ALIGN THE BILL
WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S EXISTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. I'VE ALSO
BEEN WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND
WE'VE BEEN HAVING GOOD
CONVERSATIONS. I'M HERE TO
REPORT, AND I'VE BEEN ABLE TO
BRING, AND I HOPE THAT I'LL BE
ABLE TO BRING THEM TO A NEUTRAL
POSITION. WE RECEIVED SOME
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THEM
YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, WHICH WE
ARE TAKING A LOOK AT. FINALLY,
MY OFFICE HAS BEEN WORKING
CLOSELY WITH COMMITTEE STAFF.
THANK YOU. NICK FROM JUDICI, ON
ALL OF THESE POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD WITH ME
TODAY IS NANCY BIERMAIER,
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM AND POLICY
WITH BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS. AND RYAN SPENCER FROM
THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO NANCY.
FIRST. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
GREAT THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND
SORRY IF YOU'RE SICK OF HEARING
FROM ME TODAY, BUT, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY. AND THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PAPIN, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON 2515, WHICH WOULD
ELIMINATE FOREVER PFAS CHEMICALS
FROM THE MOST INTIMATE PRODUCTS
FOR BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS IS A SCIENCE BASED
ORGANIZATION WORKING TO PREVENT
BREAST CANCER BY REDUCING
EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS LINKED TO
THE DISEASE. PER AND
POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES, OR
PFAS, ARE A LARGE CLASS OF
HIGHLY PERSISTENT CHEMICALS
ASSOCIATED WITH CANCERS,
INCLUDING BREAST CANCER,
REPRODUCTIVE HARM, INTERFERENCE
WITH VACCINES, CHILDHOOD OBESITY
AND OTHER HARMS TO HUMAN HEALTH,
AS WELL AS EXTENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION,
INCLUDING TO OUR WATER SYSTEMS.
ACCORDING TO THE CDC. VIRTUALLY
ALL OF US HAVE PFAS IN OUR BLOOD
AND THESE CHEMICALS ARE ALSO
FOUND IN PLACENTA, MATERNAL CORD
BLOOD AND BREAST MILK. EARLY
LIFE EXPOSURES ARE PARTICULARLY
CONCERNING BECAUSE THIS
DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD IS WHEN
THESE CHEMICALS HAVE THEIR
BIGGEST AND LONGEST LASTING
IMPACTS. THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES OVER THE
PAST FIVE YEARS ABOUT THESE
HEALTH HARMS, AND YOU HAVE ACTED
TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PFAS IN
NUMEROUS PRODUCT CATEGORIES,
INCLUDING LAST YEAR IN MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS INDUSTRY HAS RAISED
CONCERN ABOUT THE TEN PARTS PER
MILLION THRESHOLD IN THE BILL,
CITING THE UBIQUITOUS NATURE OF
PFAS IN OUR PRODUCTS AND
ENVIRONMENT TODAY. WHILE I HAVE
SOME SYMPATHY FOR THEIR
CONCERNS, I WOULD SUBMIT IT IS A
PROBLEM CREATED BY THE CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY. A 2023 STUDY REVIEWED
A COLLECTION OF PREVIOUSLY
SECRET INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS AT THE
UCSF CHEMICAL INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS
LIBRARY. THE STUDY FOUND THAT,
QUOTE, COMPANIES KNEW PFAS WAS,
QUOTE, HIGHLY TOXIC AND WHEN
INHALED AND MODERATELY TOXIC.
TOXIC WHEN INGESTED, END QUOTE,
BY 1970, 40 YEARS BEFORE THE
PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
KNEW IN 1970. YET DESPITE THAT
KNOWLEDGE PROLIFERATED, THE USE
OF PFAS TO LITERALLY THOUSANDS
UPON THOUSANDS OF PRODUCTS. SO
YES, NOW CONTAMINATION IS A HUGE
PROBLEM. BUT ONE THAT INDUSTRY
HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS
THROUGHOUT THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN.
CULPABILITY ASIDE, THE REAL
POINT IS THAT OUR BODIES DON'T
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
INTENTIONALLY ADDED PFAS AND
PFAS CONTAMINATION. THE IMPACT
ON OUR HEALTH IS THE SAME. AND
AS YOU'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER
AGAIN HOW EXTREMELY TOXIC THESE
CHEMICALS ARE AT EXTREMELY LOW
LEVELS, LEVELS BELOW PARTS PER
TRILLION FOR THE HEALTH OF ALL
WOMEN AND BIRTHING INDIVIDUALS.
IT IS CRITICAL TO FINISH THE JOB
THIS YEAR BY PASSING AB 2515. I
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
I HAVE A SECOND WITNESS. OH, I'M
SORRY, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. SORRY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS,
RYAN SPENCER, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS,
ACOG DISTRICT NINE, IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2515, ACOG HAS LONG
EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE
EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICALS,
INCLUDING PFAS, TO WOMEN AND
BIRTHING INDIVIDUALS. THE
PRESENCE OF THESE SUBSTANCES AND
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING SOME
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS USED IN SUCH
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HIGHLY
ABSORBENT VAGINAL TISSUE, IS
CONCERNING. RESEARCH HAS LINKED
PFAS EXPOSURE TO SEVERAL SERIOUS
HEALTH ISSUES, PARTICULARLY ONES
THAT ACOG IS ALWAYS TRACKING,
WHICH IS ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION
AND REPRODUCTIVE DIFFICULTIES.
THE DIRECT AND PROLONGED CONTACT
OF MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS WITH THE
BODY RAISES SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR
INCREASED EXPOSURE TO THESE
HARMFUL CHEMICALS. THE VAGINAL
MUCOSA IS HIGHLY PERMEABLE, AND
SUBSTANCES THAT COME INTO
CONTACT WITH IT CAN BE ABSORBED
INTO THE BLOODSTREAM AT HIGHER
RATES THAN OTHER ROUTES OF
EXPOSURE. THIS UNIQUE ASPECT OF
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS USE
EXACERBATES THE POTENTIAL HEALTH
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PFAS.
MOREOVER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF PFAS WARRANTS URGENT
ACTION BY RESTRICTING PFAS IN
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS. WE CAN
REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN
OF THESE CHEMICALS AND PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ATTENTION AND I ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME
AND ORGANIZATION ONLY. HELLO.
JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS KAREN STOUT
HERE ON BEHALF OF REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM FOR ALL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS LAUREN AGUILAR AND TODAY
I'M REPRESENTING BHP, WHICH IS
THE CENTER FOR BABY AND ADULT
HYGIENE PRODUCTS AND IS THE
TRADE ASSOCIATION THAT
REPRESENTS THE ABSORBENT HYGIENE
PRODUCTS VALUE CHAIN.
UNFORTUNATELY, TODAY WE ARE
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COMMITMENT TO
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND WE
ALSO SHARE THE IMPORTANT GOAL OF
ENSURING THAT MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS
ARE SAFE FOR USE. TO THIS END,
WE WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY BY
RESTATING WHAT THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS APPROPRIATELY POINTED
OUT, WHICH IS THAT BHP MEMBERS
DO NOT INTENTIONALLY ADD PFAS TO
THESE PRODUCTS. WE WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT TEN WHILE WE
BELIEVE TEN PARTS PER MILLION IS
AN EXTRAORDINARILY LOW THRESHOLD
FOR UNINTENTIONALLY ADDED, WE
HAVE ACCEPTED THIS THRESHOLD AND
ARE NOW FOCUSED ON THE REMAINING
ISSUES IN THE BILL. GIVEN THAT
BHP MEMBERS ARE NOT
INTENTIONALLY ADDING PFAS TO
THESE PRODUCTS. THE MAIN
QUESTION MOVING FORWARD AND IT'S
A DIFFICULT ONE TO ANSWER, AS
EVIDENCED BY OUR ONGOING
NEGOTIATIONS AND CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR, IS HOW DO WE
ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY
STRUCTURE IN SITUATIONS WHERE
THE MANUFACTURER IS NOT
INTENTIONALLY ADDING THE
REGULATED CHEMICAL? IN THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE BILL,
THERE IS A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION AS THE ENFORCEMENT IN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AUTHOR, WE
APPRECIATE HER AGREEMENT TO
REMOVE THE PRA AS LONG AS WE ARE
ABLE TO ADDRESS REMAINING ISSUES
, WHICH ARE INCLUDING EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES FOR THE PRESENCE OF PFAS
THAT IS NOT INTENTIONALLY ADDED.
THE CEASE AND DESIST LANGUAGE ON
MANUFACTURERS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW
FOR MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS TO BE
REMOVED FROM SHELVES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE AND COULD CREATE A
SHORTAGE FOR PRODUCTS THAT ARE
NEEDED. THE FINANCIAL PENALTIES
ON MANUFACTURE ERRORS AND
LASTLY, WHAT DEFINES THE SCOPE
OF VIOLATION, WHICH IS CRITICAL
FOR OUR MEMBERS? WITH ALL THAT
BEING SAID, WE CONTINUE TO LOOK
FORWARD TO OUR DIALOG WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND TO PROTECT
THE SAFETY OF MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME AND ORGANIZATION ONLY. ADAM
WRIGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS. WE DO NOT ADD
INTENTIONALLY ADDED PFAS AND
HOPE TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR. PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION IS OUR MAIN CONCERN.
THANK YOU, KELLY LARUE. ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FOREST
AND PAPER ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION AND ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF OUR COLLEAGUE LAUREN. THANK
YOU. AUDRA HARTMAN, ON BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. JAMIE HOFF
WITH THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA. I'M
LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU ON THE PRA. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS? ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BAUER-KAHAN. OH, SORRY. ONE
MORE. JUST ONE MORE. SORRY. DEAN
TAYLOR WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, FOR THE REASONS
PRESENTED. THANK YOU. I THINK
I'M TOO FAST. BROUGH KHN. THANK
YOU. SO TWO THINGS WERE NOTED.
ONE WAS THE INTENTIONALLY ADDED
LANGUAGE, WHICH WE HAVE DONE IN
A LOT OF PLACES, AS WE RELATE TO
THESE CHEMICALS. ONE THING I'LL
NOTE, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY
TODAY THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME,
BECAUSE I HIGHLY SUPPORT WHAT IS
HAPPENING HERE, I DON'T WANT
THESE CHEMICALS IN MY MOST
INTIMATE REGIONS, IS EVEN IF
YOU'RE NOT INTENTIONALLY ADDING
THEM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IF YOU'RE USING PRODUCTS. THAT'S
RIGHT. SO YOU'RE TAKING COTTON,
TO WHICH THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY
ADDED AND TURNING THAT INTO A
TAMPON THAT THAT COUNTS UNDER
THE BILL. SO LET'S BE CAREFUL
ABOUT THIS INTENTIONALLY ADDED
TO NOT CREATE TOO MANY LOOPHOLES
IS I THINK IF YOU HAVE A PRODUCT
THAT IS PFAS FREE, THAT THEN
COMES INTO CONTACT WITH A MINOR
AMOUNT, THEN THAT'S A VERY
DIFFERENT THING THAN YOU SAYING.
WE DIDN'T INTENTIONALLY ADD IT,
BUT WE BUT IT WAS CREATED WITH A
PRODUCT THAT WAS INTENTIONALLY
ADDED. SO I WANTED TO DRAW THAT
DISTINCTION, BUT I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT THE, THE PRA BECAUSE I DO
THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK
IT CAN HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. SO I'M GLAD TO
HEAR THAT THE THERE IS WORK
HAPPENING ON THAT TO ENSURE WE
HAVE MEANINGFUL ENFORCEMENT,
BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT
IN A BILL, BUT THAT IT'S DONE IN
A WAY THAT WORKS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND NEXT WE HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER MASON, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL.
IS SOMEBODY WHO RAISED AND
CONTINUES TO RAISE TWO
DAUGHTERS. AND I WAS A SINGLE
FATHER, I WAS VERY RELIGIOUS
ABOUT READING THE INGREDIENTS IN
ALL. I MEAN, I WOULD BE STANDING
IN THE, YOU KNOW, AISLE AT
TARGET OR WHEREVER ELSE I WAS ON
SHAMPOOS AND CONDITIONERS, AND
THEN WE MOVED INTO MAKEUP AND
OTHER THINGS, AND I WOULD READ
THROUGH RELIGIOUSLY ALL THOSE
INGREDIENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY WERE GETTING INGREDIENTS
THAT WERE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.
AND TO THE EXTENT I COULD
UNDERSTAND ALL THE INGREDIENTS
TO NO PARABENS, NONE OF THAT
OTHER INGREDIENTS IN THEIR
SHAMPOOS AND ALL OF THAT. SO I'M
PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
TODAY. THANKS FOR BRINGING IT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I WOULD,
COLLEAGUES, IN CLOSING, I'D
SIMPLY REITERATE THE INTIMATE
NATURE OF THE USE OF THESE
PRODUCTS, AS THEY MAKE THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. AND
YOU'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS FROM
THE OPPOSITION, AND I HAVE
REPRESENTED AND PLEDGED TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM TO
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND WOULD
REQUEST WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST,
REQUEST FULLY. IT'S BEEN A LONG
MORNING ALREADY. YOUR SUPPORT
TODAY SO THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE
TO CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND
GET TO GET THEM TO. YES, THANK
NOT EVEN A NEUTRAL, BUT TO YES.
SO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE A
MOTION? SECOND. SECOND,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA
DIXON. AND BILL, ON THE 11
NOSTRIL. DIXON. NO BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN, I BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I HANEY.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN. I MCKENNA.
PACHECO. I PACHECO. I REYES.
SANCHEZ. WALDRON I. WALDRON. I.
IT'S. YOUR BILL IS ON CALL.
THANK YOU. THANKS OKAY. ALL
RIGHT, AND OUR LAST BILL IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA. ASSEMBLY
BILL, 3161. AND THIS IS ITEM
NUMBER. 20 ITEM NUMBER 20. WHEN
YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY PROCEED.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I FEEL LIKE I'VE HIT THE
LOTTERY, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON
THIS ANALYSIS AND ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. I
AUTHORED THIS BILL BECAUSE
RACIAL BIAS IN HEALTH CARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. RACIAL AND
ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS ARE MORE
LIKELY TO LIVE IN SEGREGATED AND
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS,
LARGELY DUE TO STRUCTURAL
DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM.
STRUCTURAL DISCRIMINATION AND
RACISM IN HEALTH CARE LEADS TO
LIMITED ACCESS TO TREATMENT AND
PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE, WHICH IN
TURN INCREASES RISKS FOR
MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY.
FURTHER, BLACK INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
OF COLOR COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCE
HIGHER RATES OF MEDICAL
MISDIAGNOSES AND PATIENT ADVERSE
EVENTS WHEN COMPARED TO WHITE
PATIENTS. THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE
HOSPITALS TO ANALYZE PATIENT
SAFETY EVENTS BY
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS TO
IDENTIFY DISPARITIES IN THESE
EVENTS. THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES
HOSPITAL SAFETY PLANS TO INCLUDE
A PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING RACISM
AND DISCRIMINATION, AND ITS
IMPACTS ON PATIENT HEALTH AND
SAFETY, INCLUDING MONITORING
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC DISPARITIES AND
PATIENT SAFETY EVENTS, AND
DEVELOPING INTERVENTIONS TO
REMEDY KNOWN DISPARITIES AND
ENCOURAGING FACILITY STAFF TO
REPORT SUSPECTED INSTANCES OF
RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION. WHEN
WE CAN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF
RACIAL BIAS AND DISPARITIES IN
PATIENT SAFETY EVENTS UNTIL WE
HAVE REAL DATA ABOUT THE SCOPE
OF THE PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA,
THIS BILL WILL HELP PROVIDE THAT
DATA. THANK YOU. AND HIS
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY. I HAVE
CO-SPONSORS OF THE BILL ON KI¾M
OHBAYASHI. I'LL GET THAT RIGHT
ONE TIME. I SWEAR, POLICY
DIRECTOR, BLACK WOMEN FOR
WELLNESS ACTION PROJECT AND
RONALD COLEMAN, BSA MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF POLICY AT C-PEN.
GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU,
MISTER CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS MY NAME IS ON POLICY
DIRECTOR WITH BLACK WOMEN FOR
WELLNESS ACTION PROJECT. WE ARE
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATION COMMITTED TO
IMPROVING THE HEALTH STATUS AND
WELL-BEING OF BLACK WOMEN AND
GIRLS. I'M HERE AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR AB 3161, THE EQUITY
IN HEALTH CARE ACT, WHICH WILL
WORK TO ADDRESS THE CRITICAL,
THE RACIAL AND IMPLICIT BIAS IN
HEALTH CARE AND PROVIDE PATHWAYS
TO JUSTICE FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO EXPERIENCE HARM DUE TO
DISCRIMINATION WHEN RECEIVING
CARE. ADVERSE HEALTH EVENTS TAKE
MANY FORMS, AND RESEARCH REVEALS
THAT DISPARITIES IN QUALITY OF
CARE EXIST ACROSS A VARIETY OF
PATIENT SAFETY INDICATORS WITH
BLACK, INDIGENOUS, AND OTHER
PEOPLE OF COLOR BEARING THE
BURDEN EVEN AS QUALITY OF CARE
AND OUTCOMES HAVE IMPROVED FOR
EVERYONE, RACIAL AND ETHNIC
DISPARITIES PERSIST. MOUNTING
RESEARCH POINTS TO RACISM AND
IMPLICIT BIAS AS AMONG THE
FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THESE
INEQUITIES. IN THE US AND
CALIFORNIA, THE
DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR HEALTH
OUTCOMES IN MATERNAL MORBIDITY
AND MORTALITY THAT BURDEN BLACK
MAMAS, AND BIRTHING PEOPLE IS
EMBLEMATIC OF THIS. WE KNOW THE
STATISTICS. MORE THAN 80% OF
PREGNANCY RELATED DEATHS HAVE
BEEN FOUND BY MATERNAL MORTALITY
REVIEW COMMITTEES. TO BE
PREVENTABLE. BLACK MAMAS ARE
MORE THAN THREE TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO DIE FROM PREGNANCY
RELATED CAUSES, REGARDLESS OF
TYPICALLY MITIGATING FACTORS OF
EDUCATION AND SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS. BLACK MAMAS AND BIRTHING
PEOPLE ARE OFFERED FEWER
TREATMENT OPTIONS, FREQUENTLY
EXPERIENCED DELAYS IN CARE, AND
ARE SUBJECTED TO BIASED DECISION
MAKING. WE KNOW THE DEVASTATING,
HARROWING STORIES, WHETHER IT'S
OF APRIL VALENTINE, BRIDGET
CROMER OR MY DEAR FRIEND, WHOSE
MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS OF
UNCHARACTERISTIC HEADACHES
DURING HER PREGNANCY WENT
IGNORED BY HER DOCTOR, LEADING
TO AN EMERGENCY C-SECTION TO
DELIVER HER BABY AT 1 POUND.
LUCKILY, THEY BOTH SURVIVED THE
ORDEAL, BUT NOT WITHOUT LASTING
IMPACTS. OUR COMMUNITIES ARE
BURDENED WITH SUCH STORIES OF
DEATH, NEAR DEATH AND SEVERE
MORBIDITY OR INJURY THAT RESULTS
FROM THEIR INTERACTION WITH THE
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. BUT
OFTENTIMES DO NOT SEEK REDRESS.
EVEN IF THEY DO, EVEN IF THEY
WOULD LIKE TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE
DISCOURAGED, EVEN DISSUADED,
THAT'S DISSUADED FROM TAKING,
FROM THE TAXING AND COMPLEX,
COMPLEXITIES AROUND REGISTERING
COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND
SEEKING JUSTICE. THIS ADDS TO A
LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION AND
DISTRESS FOR PATIENTS AND
FAMILIES ALREADY SADDLED WITH
THE RESULTING BURDENS OF CHRONIC
HEALTH ISSUES AND ASSOCIATED
MEDICAL COSTS. TREMENDOUS GRIEF
AND CRIPPLING TRAUMA FROM
DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR HEALTH
CARE. THIS BILL, AMONG MANY
IMPORTANT THINGS, SUPPORTS
IMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO
NAVIGATE DAUNTING AND OFTENTIMES
OPAQUE SYSTEMS SO THAT THEY'RE
AFFORDED THE DIGNITY OF HAVING
THEIR VOICES HEARD AND THE
CHANCE AT SOME REMEDY FOR WHAT
THEY HAVE ENDURED. IT ALSO
ALLOWS FOR CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
INFORMATION ABOUT TRENDS OF
DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM TO BE AVAILABLE TO
BODIES TASKED WITH PROTECTING
OUR MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
FROM THE VERY REAL AND
DEVASTATING HARMS OF
DISCRIMINATION OUR COMMUNITIES
HAVE THE STORIES SCARS, VISIBLE
AND INVISIBLE, AND INEQUITABLE
HEALTH OUTCOMES TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT BIAS, RACIAL, GENDER, AND A
SLEW OF OTHERS EXIST IN OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. THIS,
COUPLED WITH THE MOUNTING
RESEARCH THAT ESTABLISHES THE
ROLE OF IMPLICIT BIAS AND RACISM
IN HEALTH OUTCOMES, TELLS US
THAT WE MUST TAKE MEANINGFUL
STEPS TO ERADICATE THIS
PHENOMENON IN OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEMS. PART OF THAT IS
ENSURING THAT COMMUNITIES HAVE
INPUT THAT THAT ARE MOST
IMPACTED, HAVE ACCESS TO THE
PATHWAYS TOWARDS REDRESS. AB
3161 IS THAT MEANINGFUL STEP TO
WORK TO ADDRESS THE VERY REAL
HARMS OF BIAS? AND AS PROUD
CO-SPONSORS OF AB 3161, I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO VOTE
YES ON THIS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
BILL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION. AND THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. RONALD COLMAN
BIASA MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
POLICY AT THE CALIFORNIA PAN
ETHNIC HEALTH NETWORK. C-PEN
HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY TO OFFER
TESTIMONY AS A CO-SPONSOR AND
SUPPORT OF AB 3161, WHICH WOULD
ESTABLISH A MECHANISM TO TRACK
RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION IN
HEALTH CARE WHILE ALSO
SUPPORTING PATIENTS AND ACCESS
TO JUSTICE, RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION AND IMPLICIT BIAS
CONTINUE TO PLAGUE THE HEALTH
CARE INDUSTRY AND NEGATIVELY
IMPACT HEALTH OUTCOMES. THESE
CHALLENGES MAY LEAD TO SERIOUS
INJURY, MISDIAGNOSIS, OR EVEN
DEATH. WELL DOCUMENTED NATIONAL
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO
EXPERIENCE PATIENT SAFETY EVENTS
THAN THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS,
AND HERE IN CALIFORNIA, THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH CDPH HAS OVERSIGHT OVER
FACILITIES AND IS REQUIRED TO
REVIEW ADVERSE PATIENT SAFETY
EVENTS. HOWEVER IT IS NOT
COLLECTING DEMOGRAPHIC OR SEXUAL
ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY
INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH
THESE EVENTS. THIS IS REALLY
PROBLEMATIC FOR TRACKING TRENDS
IN OUR STATE TO FIGURE OUT WHO
IS ACTUALLY BEING HARMED. AB
3161 UPDATES THE INFORMATION
COLLECTED WHILE ALSO
STREAMLINING WHAT'S CURRENTLY A
PRETTY CONFUSING COMPLAINT
PROCESS. IT WOULD ALSO ESTABLISH
A SEAMLESS MECHANISM FOR
PATIENTS TO ACCESS JUSTICE IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR
COMPLAINTS. AB 3161 CERTAINLY
WON'T END RACISM, DISCRIMINATION
OR IMPLICIT BIAS IN HEALTH CARE,
BUT IT WILL GIVE PATIENTS AND
THE STATE THE TOOLS IT NEEDS TO
IDENTIFY PROBLEMATIC ACTORS
MOVING FORWARD. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE AND THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER VONTA FOR HER LEADERSHIP.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 3161? I'M
JUST GOING TO KNOCK THAT OVER
EVERY TIME. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, KAREN STOUT HERE ON
BEHALF OF REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
FOR ALL. WE'RE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON THE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
JENNIFER ROBLES WITH HEALTH
ACCESS CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
BETH MALINOWSKI, CEO,
CALIFORNIA. AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SO ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3161. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE IS WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND ANOTHER COMMENT.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL FORWARD. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE US? THANK YOU.
MEMBERS, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE HERE
FOR A VERY LONG TIME, I, NOT
ONCE, NOT TWICE, BUT THREE
TIMES. WAS SOMEBODY WHO WOULD
HAVE FALLEN INTO A CATEGORY OF
BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE
TREATMENT THAT I RECEIVED IN A
HEALTH CARE SETTING. BECAUSE OF,
KIND OF RACIALLY MOTIVATED,
ETHNICALLY MOTIVATED BIAS. THIS
BILL WILL ALLOW FOR HEALTH
DISPARITIES TO BE TRULY
ADDRESSED IN OUR COMMUNITIES,
PARTICULARLY OUR COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR, AND REQUIRES CONCRETE
ACTION THROUGH AND CORRECTION
THROUGH THE FIRST PART, WHICH IS
JUST ASSESSING THE PROBLEM, AND
SO I HOPE THAT THIS WILL GO A
LONG WAY TOWARDS MAKING PROGRESS
IN THE AREA OF ELIMINATING
HEALTH DISPARITIES AND
DISCRIMINATION WITHIN OUR HEALTH
SETTINGS. THANK YOU TO OUR
EXPERTS FOR BEING HERE. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I
CALL I DIXON BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN A
BRIAN I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
HANEY MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
MCKENNA. PACHECO I PACHECO I
REYES SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ I WALDRON
. ONE MORE. OKAY. WE'LL PLACE
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE
REMAINING. BILL, SUMMER HANEY.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE STILL
HAVE BILLS, THAT ARE ON CALL. SO
LET'S JUST START GOING THROUGH
THEM FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE
HERE. WE'LL START WITH THOSE ON
CALL FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO
ADD ON. SO ITEM NUMBER ONE
HOLDEN AB 2089. ON CALL IF YOU
CAN MOVE THE CALL BRIAN BRIAN.
AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE.
MCKENNA OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THE NEXT ONE THAT'S ON CALL IS
ITEM THREE. CONNOLLY IS THAT
CORRECT? I THINK THAT GOT OUT
RIGHT. LET'S DOUBLE CHECK.
THAT'S OUT OKAY. THAT BILL'S
OUT. SORRY. LET'S ADD ON OKAY.
SO LET'S, YEAH YEAH WE'LL DO THE
ADD ONS A LITTLE LATER. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO THE ON
CALL ONES FIRST. ITEM SEVEN TING
AB 2244. MOVE TO CALL. HANEY
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA REYES WALDRON WILL PLACE
THE CALL. THEN ITEM TEN. SCHIAVO
I DON'T. YEAH, WELL, LET'S GO
AHEAD AND MOVE THE CALL ON.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA OKAY. PLEASE STEP BACK
ON CALL AND THEN ON ITEM 11.
PAPPIN WE'LL MOVE THE CALL. I
DIDN'T VOTE ON IT. YEAH. CORRE,
CORRE. AYE HANEY. MCKENNA. REYES
. OKAY, SO THAT BILL IS OUT. I
DON'T THINK. AND THEN ITEM 16.
ASSALEH GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE
CALL. DIXON Ã. DIXON. AYE.
BRIAN. NO. BRIAN NO. HANEY.
MCKENNA REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ
AYE. OKAY, PUT THAT BACK ON.
CALL ITEM 19, AB 3155. FRIEDMAN
WILL MOVE THE CALL. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. HANEY MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA REYES.
OKAY, PUT THAT ONE BACK ON. CALL
AND THEN ITEM WE JUST DID. SO
LET'S GO BACK. LET'S DO SOME ADD
ONS. ITEM CONSENT CALENDAR.
FIRST HANEY MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN
I'M MCKENNA REYES WALDRON OKAY.
SO ITEM TWO LO AB 2148 BRIAN A
BRIAN I MCKENNA. THEN ITEM THREE
CONNOLLY. DIXON NOT BRIAN. BRIAN
I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO ADD ON AB
2223 AGUIAR-CURRY. BRIAN BRIAN.
AYE. MCKENNA ALL RIGHT, AB 2224
SANTIAGO. BRIAN BRIAN. AYE.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. MCKENNA
ALL RIGHT. ON TO WAIT. DO WE DO?
WE ALREADY DID. Ó. TÍNH FOR
FOLKS, THAT'S MORE ADD ON. ITEM
EIGHT. PATTERSON, HANEY,
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. REYES WALDRON. OKAY
ITEM. LET'S SEE. 12
AGUIAR-CURRY. BRIAN BRIAN. AYE.
MCKENNA ITEM 13. CARRILLO DIXON.
DIXON. NO. CONNOLLY WHICH ONE IS
THE CARILLO? BILL. AB 2699.
CONNOLLY. AYE REYES. ALL RIGHT.
AB 2705. ITEM 14. ORTEGA ADD ONS
. ITEM 14. YEAH. ITEM 14 DIXON.
DIXON. AYE REYES. OKAY. ITEM 15
ADD ONS FOR HEART. DIXON. DIXON.
NØ. REYES SANCHEZ. NO. SANCHEZ.
NO. WALDRON ITEM ADD ONS FOR
ITEM 1738 89. JONES SAWYER.
DIXON REYES. SANCHEZ WALDRON.
OKAY I GOT A WHAT? ALL RIGHT,
MISTER HANEY, YEAH, I'M GOING
TO. LET'S JUST DO A Dð 21 ADD
ONS. BRIAN. BRIAN AYE. MCKENNA.
SO I THINK MISTER BRIAN'S ALL
CAUGHT UP. ALL RIGHT. AND SO
LET'S GO AHEAD, MR. HANEY, OUR
LAST ITEM, ITEM NINE AB 2374.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
I KNOW SOME OF THE WITNESSES AND
FOLKS HAVE BEEN HERE ALL
MORNING. I HOPE YOU'VE LEARNED
SOMETHING. LISTENING TO OTHER
BILLS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I APOLOGIZE
FOR, BEING HAVING TO STEP OUT
FOR A MINUTE. AB 2374
STRENGTHENS CALIFORNIA'S
DISPLACED JANITORS OPPORTUNITY
ACT BY EXPANDING PROTECTIONS FOR
LAID OFF JANITORS IN 2002,
CALIFORNIA PASSED THE DISPLACED
JANITORS OPPORTUNITY ACT TO
PREVENT MASS LAYOFFS OF JANITORS
WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE
STAFFING AGENCY AT THE SAME
FACILITY. IF A JANITORIAL
SERVICES CONTRACT IS TERMINATED,
THE ACT CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE
LAID OFF JANITORS TO CONTINUE
WORKING IN THE SAME POSITION
UNDER THE NEW JANITORIAL
STAFFING AGENCY FOR 60 DAYS.
HOWEVER, THE RECENT MASS LAYOFFS
ACROSS ALL INDUSTRIES HAVE
EXPOSED THE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE
EXISTING ACT. FOR EXAMPLE, ON
DECEMBER 5TH, 2022, X, FORMERLY
KNOWN AS TWITTER, ENDED ITS 12
YEAR CONTRACT WITH A JANITORIAL
AGENCY. THIS DECISION LEFT THOSE
JANITORS WITHOUT A JOB
OVERNIGHT, RIGHT BEFORE THE
HOLIDAYS, X WAS ABLE TO EXPLOIT
THE LOOPHOLES IN THE CURRENT LAW
TO NOT PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE
TRANSITIONAL EMPLOYMENT PERIOD
TO THE LAID OFF JANITORS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE 60 DAYS OF
TRANSITIONAL EMPLOYMENT IS NO
LONGER ADEQUATE. TIME FOR LAID
OFF WORKERS TO TRANSITION
BETWEEN JOBS AS A THIRD OF
CALIFORNIANS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
SAVINGS TO COVER BASIC
NECESSITIES IN THE EVENT OF AN
UNEXPECTED JOB, A JOB LOSS TO
UPDATE THE ACT. THIS BILL WILL
ENSURE THAT A NEWLY HIRED HIRED
JANITORIAL AGENCY RETAIN LAID
OFF JANITORS FOR 90 DAYS INSTEAD
OF 60. CLOSED LOOPHOLES IN THE
ACT BY REMOVING THE EXEMPTION
FOR JANITORIAL STAFFING AGENCIES
WITH LESS THAN 25 EMPLOYEES, AND
REQUIRE COMPANIES TO RELAY
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR NEWLY
HIRED JANITORIAL STAFFING AGENCY
TO THE TERMINATED AGENCY WITHIN
FIVE DAYS. WE HAVE HAD
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE OPPOSITION, ESPECIALLY
AROUND THE LIABILITY PIECES OF
THE BILL, AND WE EXPECT TO BE
ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM ON SOME
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THAT TO
FIND A WAY FORWARD HERE, TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
TODAY, I HAVE JANE BRUNNER AND
JULIO ALVARADO FROM SEIU LOCAL
87. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, I
GUESS I'LL START. YEAH I'M JANE
BRUNNER. I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR
SEIU LOCAL 87 WHO REPRESENT
JANITORS IN SAN FRANCISCO, AS
STATED CURRENTLY, THE DISPLACED
JANITORS LAW REQUIRES THAT IF
JANITOR COMPANIES CONTRACTS ARE
TERMINATED, THE SUCCESSOR
CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO HIRE
THE CONTRACTORS FROM THE
TERMINATED CONTRACT FOR 60 DAYS.
WE'RE REQUESTING CHANGE TO THE
LABOR CODE. WE HAVE BEEN DRIVEN
TO DO THIS BECAUSE TWITTER
TERMINATED ITS JANITORS CONTRACT
AND DID NOT FOLLOW EITHER. THE
STATE OR THE SAN FRANCISCO LAW.
TWITTER BROUGHT IN SUCCESSOR
CONTRACTOR AND DID NOT INFORM
THE TERMINATED CONTRACTOR THE
NAME OF THE SUCCESSOR
CONTRACTOR, SO THE CONTRACTOR
HAD SO THE JANITORS HAD NO WAY
TO APPLY FOR A JOB. AFTER 60
DAYS, TWITTER TERMINATED THE
FIRST SUCCESSOR CONTRACTOR AND
AGAIN TWITTER DID NOT INFORM THE
TERMINATED CONTRACTOR. THE NAME
OF THE NEXT SUCCESSOR
CONTRACTOR, AND AGAIN, THE
JANITORS COULD NOT APPLY FOR THE
JOB, SO THEY COULDN'T BE
PROTECTED FOR 60 DAYS. THE
JANITORS HAD TO SUE THROUGH
THEIR UNION. WE FOUND OUT
THROUGH THE SUIT THE WAYS
TWITTER TRIED TO AVOID STATE LAW
. NOW WE ARE PROPOSING CHANGES
TO PREVENT THAT HAPPENING IN THE
FUTURE. SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT
WHY WHY WHAT WAS NOT WORKING IN
THE OLD LAW. WE'RE MAKING MANY
CHANGES. I WANT TO JUST ADD
ABOUT FOUR OF THE BIG CHANGES.
ONE IS THE LABOR COMMISSION. BE
RESPONSIVE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
LAW BECAUSE IT'S MUCH TOO
DIFFICULT FOR A JANITOR OR A
UNION TO GO TO DO A LAWSUIT. SO
THE LABOR COMMISSION WOULD BE
MUCH A BETTER SYSTEM. THE LAW
COVERS ALL JANITORIAL CONTRACTS,
NOT JUST CONTRACTORS WITH 25
EMPLOYEES. AND THE LAWSUIT BE
PERMITTED AGAINST THE AWARDING
AUTHORITY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
TWITTER IN THAT CASE, FOR ANY
VIOLATION OF THE AWARDING
AUTHORITY'S RESPONSIBILITY
ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW, AND
PENALTIES BE ESTABLISHED THAT
ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO
ENCOURAGE COMPANIES NOT TO
VIOLATE THE LAW. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HOLA. BUENAS TARDES.
MY NAME IS GERARDO. IN SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. NO
SOLAMENTE POR PARTE DE LOCAL,
SINO TAMBIÉN TENEMOS AQUI POR
PARTE DE TODOS LOS JANITORS DE
LIMPIEZA QUÊ PERTENECEN A
CALIFORNIA A UNA DE LAS PARTES
QUÊ NOSOTROS FUIMOS AFECTADOS
POR PARTE DE LA COMPANIA DE
TWITTER PUEDE C¯ NUNCA NOS YO LA
OPORTUNIDAD DE APLICAR PARA LOS
OTROS NUEVOS EMPLEOS UNA DE UNA
DE LAS PARTES QUÊ NOS ESTA
AFECTANDO AHORITA PERSONALMENTE
ES DE QUÊ DESAFORTUNADAMENTE.
GRACIAS A ESO. LAS COMPANIAS
AHORITA SE ESTAN AGARRANDO A QUÉ
PUEDEN DESPEDIR A CADA UNO DE
LOS TRABAJADORES DE LIMPIEZA Â
VENGO AQUI A USTEDES A PEDIRLE
POR FAVOR. QUÊ APOYAN PARTE DE
LA LEY QUÊ ESTÁ MANDO AQUI
MARLENI LA LÀ ÁP VEINTITRÉS DE
CUATRO PARA TODOS LOS
TRABAJADORES DE LIMPIEZA, POR
FAVOR. GRACIAS, GRACIAS. I'M
GONNA DO A QUICK TRANSLATION.
SO. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
JULIO ALVARADO, PART OF THIS LAW
GAVE A. SORRY. WE'RE HERE TO
REPRESENT. NOT JUST JANITORS,
LOCAL 87, BUT ALSO ALL JANITORS
IN CALIFORNIA, THIS LAW
PREVIOUSLY, GAVE US PUT US IN A
POSITION WHERE WE WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO APPLY TO THE NEW
COMPANIES COMING IN, WHICH ALSO
AFFECTED US IN MULTIPLE WAYS.
WITH THE CHANGE IN THIS LAW.
THIS WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE THE
RIGHT TO APPLY AND BE ABLE TO
WORK, CONTINUE TO WORK. WE ARE
HERE JUST TO ASK FOR YOUR,
SUPPORT IN, IN FIXING THIS LAW
TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T
HAPPEN AGAIN AND ON BEHALF OF
LOCAL 87, BUT ALSO ALL JANITORS
IN THE WORKFORCE, WE ASK FOR
YOUR HELP. SORRY IN YOUR SUPPORT
TO PASS THIS AND AMEND IT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2374? BUENOS
TARDES, GLORIA ESPINOSA, LOCAL
28. Y ESTOY APOYANDO A LA LEY AB
2370 CUATRO. GRACIAS. GRACIAS MY
NAME IS MARINA VALERA'S SON.
MIEMBRO DE LOCAL DE SAN
FRANCISCO. ESTAMOS APOYANDO LA
LEY PARA SOMOS TODOS LOS NIETOS.
GRACIAS POR SU ATTENTION.
GRACIAS. LO BUENO. MY NAME IS
ESPERANZA RUELAS. YO VENGO
APOYAR LA QUÊ SOMOS BENEFICIOS.
TODOS LOS NIETOS. LOCAL 28 DE
SAN FRANCISCO. BUENAS TARDES. ME
NOMBRE ES ANA TEJEDA. VENGO SOY
DE LOCAL. VENGO APOYANDO A LA
LEY PARA BENEFICIOS. GRACIAS.
HOLA. BUENAS TARDES. ME NOMBRE
ES SONIA RHEA. VENGO DE LA UNION
. Y VENGO APOYANDO POR LA LEY.
GRACIAS BUENAS TARDES.
MINERVALIAS VENGO A LOCAL. DANDO
LA LEY. HOLA. MI NOMBRE ES
FIDELINA GONZALEZ Â VENGO. THE
LOCAL GENTE DE LA LEY. GRACIAS.
BUENAS TARDES. ME NOMBRE ES
MARIA DOMINGUEZ. THE LOCAL
APOYANDO A LA LEY DE TRES DE
CUATRO. GRACIAS. GRACIAS. BUENOS
DIAS. MI NOMBRE ES ALICIA RUIZ
PERTENEZCO, A LOCAL Â TAMBIÉN A
LA LEY. GRACIAS. BUENOS TARDES.
MY NAME IS ANGELICA ELIAS DE LA
LEY. GRACIAS GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS NUNEZ. I AM SUPPORT DE
LEY. I AM A LOCAL 87 MEMBER.
THANK YOU. JORGE TH¤U. ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2374?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, I DO REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR, AS WELL AS THE
SPONSOR, FOR MEETING WITH US
MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT THE BILL.
WE ARE IN GOOD CONVERSATIONS AND
HAVE SENT SOME OVER SOME
AMENDMENTS FOR DISCUSSION, OUR
CONCERN WITH THE BILL IS JUST
WITH THREE OF THE CHANGES, NOT
THE ENTIRETY OF THE BILL,
PRINCIPALLY THE JOINT LIABILITY
PROVISION, THE WAY IT IS
WRITTEN, AN AWARDING AUTHORITY
COULD BE JOINTLY LIABLE FOR A
CONTRACTOR FAILING TO HIRE A
WORKER OR, OR IMPROPERLY
DISCHARGING THEM, EVEN IF THE
AWARDING AUTHORITY DID GIVE THE
REQUISITE NOTICE, SO TO THE
PROPONENTS POINT, WE ARE WORKING
ON CHANGING THAT, ALSO, THE
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, WE DO
BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE
ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE
AWARDING AUTHORITY SHOULD REMAIN
WITH THE EMPLOYER, WHICH WOULD
BE THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEN
FINALLY, THE REQUIREMENT TO
MAINTAIN THE EXACT SAME SCHEDULE
OF THE WORKER. WE DO HAVE A
CONCERN ABOUT HOW THAT MAY
IMPACT THE NEW CONTRACT,
ESPECIALLY IF WE ARE LOOKING TO
CHANGE THE DATES AND TIMES OF
THE SERVICES AND HOW THAT COULD
ACTUALLY IMPACT THE EXISTING
WORKERS OF THE SUCCESSOR
CONTRACTOR UNINTENTIONALLY. SO
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2374? BEN ABBINK, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LEAGUE
OF FOOD PRODUCERS, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AFTERNOON. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, SKYLER WONACOTT WITH
THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. CHRIS MICHELI, ON BEHALF
OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS, JAMIE HOUGH, ON
BEHALF OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, AND
ALSO RYAN ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED, BUT LOOKING FORWARD TO
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, KELLY HITT ON BEHALF OF ABM IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. SENATOR PACHECO, I'LL
MAKE THIS, REALLY BRIEF, THE
AUTHOR THANK YOU. SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I
KNOW YOU'RE YOU'RE WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION THÀNH, SO I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO THE FINAL OUTCOME,
AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL TODAY. Â. PARA TODOS LOS
QUÊ AQUI APOYANDO EL BEALL.
MUCHAS GRACIAS POR ESTAR AQUI Y
VIENDO A SACRAMENTO Y MUCHAS
GRACIAS POR TODO LO QUÊ HACEN EN
SU TRABAJO. GRACIAS POR TODO LO
QUÊ HACEN. VERY NICE SUMMARY.
REYES I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR. WE ALL HAVE OUR SIGNS
NOW. JUSTICE FOR JANITORS,
OPPOSITION HAS. I APPRECIATE
THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT GOOD
CONVERSATIONS YOU'RE HAVING. I
ALSO APPRECIATE IN THE ME TOO'S.
IT'S RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. SO I
KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT
YOU'RE WORKING ON, AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. TAMBIÉN. COMO
LA LA ASAMBLEÍSTA PACHECO. LAS
GRACIAS POR SU TESTIMONIO. EL
DIA DE HOY. YA TODOS USTEDES POR
EL TRABAJO QUÊ HACEN MUCHISIMAS.
GRACIAS SENATOR BRIAN, I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR. COME
ON. YOU KNOW, A COUPLE WORDS AND
ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES, AND,
YEAH, MY SPANISH ISN'T THAT
GREAT, BUT. VAMOS JUNTOS. THANK
YOU. OKAY. YEAH. THERE WE GO.
SEE WELL, YEAH. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER AND THANK YOU, TO
THE WITNESSES THAT CAME HERE,
THE OPPOSITION IS WEARING PURPLE
SEIU PURPLE. SO I'M A LITTLE,
YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE
CONFUSING. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
ALL ON THE SAME TEAM TO TRY TO
MAKE IT AS GOOD OF A BILL AS
POSSIBLE. RIGHT. AND SO I KNOW
THE AUTHOR IS GOING TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION, BUT
THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT BILL,
TO PROTECT WORKERS THAT
OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE
SEEN, CAN BE DISPLACED SO EASILY
WITHOUT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE
REGULATION, AND SO WITH THAT,
SAID MEMBER HANEY, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. NO, I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR. AND MUCHAS
GRACIAS. PARA TODOS. AND, YOU
KNOW, WE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
I WILL SAY AND I SAY THIS IN
LABOR COMMITTEE AS WELL, WHICH
IS SO POWERFUL ABOUT HAVING THE
FOLKS BEHIND US, NOT ONLY THE
INCREDIBLE WORK THAT THEY DO,
HOW ESSENTIAL THE WORK THAT THEY
DO IS, BUT THIS IS A LOOP, A SET
OF LOOPHOLES THAT WAS ACTUALLY
FIXED IN SAN FRANCISCO. WE
PASSED A VERSION OF THIS LAW IN
SAN FRANCISCO. AND THESE ARE ALL
SAN FRANCISCO BASED JANITORS WHO
ARE HERE. AND SO THEY ARE
FIGHTING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL
OF THE CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE IN
EACH OF YOUR RESPECTIVE
DISTRICTS HAVE THESE SAME
RIGHTS, AND THAT WE DON'T SEE
THESE KIND OF LOOPHOLES TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF. AGAIN. AND I'M
JUST VERY PROUD TO BE STANDING
WITH THEM AND TO BE STANDING
WITH OUR JANITORS ACROSS THE
STATE. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE
DO NEED A MOTION. SECOND, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ROLL
CALL DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL FOR A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON.
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE.
CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE HANEY.
AYE. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO AYE. REYES. REYES. REYES
AYE. SANCHEZ. WALDRON THAT BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
OKAY. SO GOING TO GO. WE JUST
HAVE ADD ONS NOW I THINK. OR NO,
WE DO HAVE, WE DO HAVE A BILL ON
CALL. SO WE'RE GOING TO FIRST DO
THE BILL ON THE BILLS ON CALL
ITEM IS ITEM TEN AB 2499 ZERO.
TWO. ITEM OKAY. YEAH. ITEM SEVEN
AB 2244 TING HANEY. HI. HANEY
AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE.
REYES NO. THIS IS THE TING. BILL
I'M SORRY. IT'S ITEM SEVEN AB
2244. REYES AYE. WALDRON. OKAY,
THAT BILL IS OUT, ITEM TEN AB
2499 ZERO. MCKENNA MCKENNA. AYE.
THAT BILL IS OUT. AND ITEM. 16,
EASILY NO RECOMMENDATION FROM
THE CHAIR. HANEY ON THE BILL.
NO. HANEY. NO. MCKENNA. NO
MCKENNA. NO. REYES. NO. REYES.
NO OKAY. THAT BILL FAILS. ITEM
19 AB 3155. FRIEDMAN, MOVE THE
CALL. HANEY. HANEY. AYE MCKENNA.
REYES FRIEDMAN, BILL. THE
FRIEDMAN BILL. AYE. REYES. AYE.
OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM 20.
BONTA AB 3161. BAUER KHN BAUER
KHN AYE. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA AYE. REYES.
REYES. AYE. WALDRON OKAY, SO I
THINK I THINK WE'RE. BECCA'S
DONE. WE HAVE TO DO ADD ONS,
THOUGH. SO LET'S GO THROUGH
CONSENT CALENDAR FIRST. HANEY ON
CONSENT. HANEY. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA AYE. REYES. REYES. AYE.
WALDRON ITEM ONE. HOLDEN AB
2089. MCKENNA. MCKENNA AYE. ITEM
TWO AB 2148. LO. MCKENNA
MCKENNA. AYE. ITEM THREE AB 2223
AGUIAR-CURRY. MCKENNA. 040404.
WAS PULLED OH OH YEA THREE. WE
HAVE EVERYONE. YES. SO
AGUIAR-CURRY AB 2223. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE AB 2224. SANTIAGO
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. TING
WALTERS. AYE. HERE WE GO. ON TO
THE NEXT ONE. AB 2255 JOE
PATTERSON. HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MCKENNA. AYE MCKENNA. AYE.
REYES. REYES. AYE. OKAY THEY'RE
NOT HERE. SHOP WE DID. ITEM 11
PAPINE AB 2515 HANEY. AYE.
HANEY. AYE MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE. REYES. REYES AYE. AB 2606.
AGUIAR-CURRY. MIC MCKENNA. AYE.
ITEM 13 AB 2699 CARILLO REYES.
REYES. AYE. AB 2705 ORTEGA.
REYES. REYES AYE. ITEM 15 AB
2761 HEART. REYES. REYES AYE.
WALDRON AND ITEM 17 JONES.
SAWYER REYES. REYES. AYE
WALDRON. OKAY. AND THEN ITEM 21
WOULD. 3218. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE. OKAY. I THINK EVERYONE HERE
IS CAUGHT UP AND. ON WHICH ONE?
OKAY. SO ON ITEM 16, AB 3039
VOTE CHANGE AB 3039 REYES NO TO
NOT VOTING OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND
SHE HAS BEEN ON. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, HOLD ON, I THINK SOMEBODY
WALDRON'S ON OUR WAY BACK TO ADD
ON. I THINK EVERYONE ELSE HAS
CAUGHT UP. OKAY. YEAH SO SHE'S.
ASSUMING THAT. I SEE A SEPARATE
PARTS
.
77. TEN.
IT MIGHT
.
Ó. TIME FOR LUNCH. SO I HAVE TO
COME DOWN HERE. WHEN THAT SNOW,
THOUGH, WHAT WE COULD DO. 935.
IS GONE
.
SO NICE
.
OKAY. SO LET'S, CONSENT FOR
WALDRON. YEAH. WALDRON. AYE. ALL
RIGHT, WELL, THEN GO ON TO ITEM
SEVEN, AB 2244. TING NØ WALDRON.
NO. ITEM EIGHT, AB 2255.
PATTERSON OH, SORRY. WALDRON.
WAS. AYE. WALDRON AYE. SORRY.
OKAY. AND THEN ITEM NINE. AB
2374. HANEY. SANCHEZ. WALDRON
WALDRON. AYE. Þ. ITEM 15 2761.
HART WALDRON. I'M A NO VOTE ON
THAT. WALDRON. NO ITEM 17 AB
3089. JONES. SAWYER CAPITAL DAY.
OH, GOOD. SAID CAPITAL. AYE YAI.
WALDRON. AYE. ON 3089 AB 3161
BONTA. WALDRON AYE ON 3161. I
THINK THAT'S IT. I THINK YOU'RE
ALL CAUGHT UP. THANK YOU. ALL
CAUGHT UP. I THINK YOU'RE ALL
CAUGHT UP. YEAH. OKAY, GREAT. WE
ARE ADJOURNED