WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE RULES
FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT ARE
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,
IF ANY, AND THEIR POSITION. AS
YOU PROCEED WITH WITNESSES 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. I WON'T GO
THROUGH THE WHOLE LIST OF THE
RULES BECAUSE I'M HOPING THAT WE
WON'T NEED THEM. BUT IF I NEED
TO, I WILL. I DON'T, I THINK
WE'LL BE OKAY WITH OUR FIRST
AUTHOR. HE'S USUALLY WELL
BEHAVED AND SO I'LL ASK MR.
SUMMERWOOD, ITEM 18 AB 3129. WE
DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND PROCEED AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE.
GOOD MORNING. IS THIS ON? IT
SHOULD BE ON. IS IT OKAY? I'M
SORRY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, MY
THANKS TO YOUR STAFF AND FOR
THEIR WORK ON THE ANALYSIS AND
THE AMENDMENTS, WHICH I AM
ACCEPTING TODAY. AB 3129,
SPONSORED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA, REQUIRES A PRIVATE
EQUITY GROUP OR A HEDGE FUND TO
PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO AND
OBTAIN WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL PRIOR TO A
CHANGE OF CONTROL OR ACQUISITION
OF A HEALTH CARE FACILITY OR A
PROVIDER GROUP. THE AMENDMENTS I
ACCEPTED IN HEALTH COMMITTEE
WERE TO MORE CLEARLY DEFINE THE
ENTITIES HEALTH PROFESSIONALS,
PROVIDER GROUPS AND HEALTH CARE
FACILITIES INVOLVED IN
ACQUISITIONS AND CHANGES OF
CONTROL BY PRIVATE EQUITY OR
HEDGE FUNDS COVERED BY THIS
LEGISLATION. THE AMENDMENTS I AM
ACCEPTING TODAY MORE CLEARLY
DEFINE THE TERMS PRIVATE EQUITY
GROUP AND HEDGE FUND. THERE IS
NO QUESTION THAT TRENDS IN
PRIVATE EQUITY OWNERSHIP HAVE
RAPIDLY INCREASED ACROSS ALL
ALMOST ALL HEALTH CARE SETTINGS.
IT'S BEEN EXPONENTIAL. A STUDY
PUBLISHED IN JULY OF 2023
EVALUATING THIS TREND DREW FROM
A DATABASE OF 1778 STUDIES, WITH
55 BEING EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
STUDIES THAT EVALUATED PRIVATE
EQUITY OWNED HEALTH CARE
OPERATIONS ACROSS THE OUTCOME
MEASURES. PRIVATE EQUITY
OWNERSHIP WAS MOST CONSISTENTLY
ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED COSTS
TO PATIENTS OR PAYERS, AND HAD
MIXED TO HARMFUL IMPACTS ON
QUALITY. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU,
BUT I'M INTERESTED IN OUR STATE
PROTECTING PATIENTS BEFORE THEY
PAY MORE FOR LESS CARE OR LESSER
QUALITY OF CARE. NO MATTER WHAT
THE STATISTICS COLLEAGUES, I
HOPE YOU KNOW OF MY WORK FOR THE
PAST NINE AND A HALF YEARS IS
ALL BEEN ABOUT PROTECTING
PATIENTS AND CONTROLLING HEALTH
CARE COSTS. THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN
FOCUSED ON THIS TREND FOR THE
PAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND AS A
HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, I'M
ESPECIALLY PROTECTIVE OF STATE
LAW. BARRING THE CORPORATE
PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, ENSURING
THAT PROVIDERS CAN PRACTICE
WITHOUT ANOTHER ENTITY TELLING
THEM HOW TO PRACTICE. THIS BILL
REINFORCES THAT PRIVATE EQUITY'S
FIRST INTEREST IS IN MAKING A
PROFIT PERIOD. THE INVESTORS
WOULDN'T RISK IT IF THEY DIDN'T
THINK A PROFIT WOULD BE MADE. WE
ALSO KNOW THAT TIMELINES ARE
SHORT, OFTEN 3 TO 7 YEARS, AND
WE KNOW THAT IN ORDER FOR THEM
TO MAKE A PROFIT, THEY LOOK TO
LOWER COSTS FOR THE ENTITIES AS
WELL AS INCREASE LEVERAGE,
MAKING THEM MORE ATTRACTIVE TO
FUTURE BUYERS. IS MAKING
SOMETHING MORE EFFICIENT BAD?
NO. IT CAN BE HARMFUL BY BY. FOR
INSTANCE, REDUCING STAFF AND
LIMITING RESOURCES OR
DISCONTINUING SERVICES SUCH AS
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE,
PRIVATE EQUITY CAN TAKE SUCH A
HOLD ON AN AREA THAT IT REDUCES
OR ELIMINATES COMPETITION, AND
THAT MONOPOLY STATUS CAN RESULT
IN THEIR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE
HIGHER FEES WITH PLANS. BECAUSE
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION THAT
DOES NOT SAVE THE CONSUMER,
WHETHER THAT BE A PATIENT OR AN
EMPLOYER THAT PROVIDES HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE. THIS BILL DOES
NOT PREVENT THESE ACQUISITIONS,
AND WE CAN SPEAK TO THE
TIMELINES FOR REVIEWING THESE
ACQUISITIONS. THEY ADDRESS MORE
URGENT REVIEWS FOR THOSE
BUSINESSES AT RISK OF IMMEDIATE
FAILURE, AS WELL AS TIMELINES
FOR TYPICAL TRANSACTIONS, AND TO
ADDRESS PREEMPTIVELY THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE OFFICE OF
HEALTH CARE IS THE REMEDY. IT IS
NOT THE AG'S AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
MARKET TRANSACTION TRANSACTIONS
IS ROOTED IN DOJ'S AUTHORITY
UNDER ANTITRUST LAWS, ANTITRUST
LAWS PROMOTE VIGOROUS
COMPETITION AND PROMOTE
CONSUMERS AND PROTECT CONSUMERS
FROM ANTI-COMPETITIVE MERGERS
AND BUSINESS PRACTICES. TO
ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS HAVE
ACCESS TO QUALITY GOODS AND
SERVICES AT COMPETITIVE PRICES,
AND THAT BUSINESSES CAN COMPETE
ON THE MERITS OF THEIR WORK.
OKAY ONLY ANALYZES AND ISSUES
REPORTS ON TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE
LIKELY TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT
MARKET COMPETITION. THE STATE'S
ABILITIES TO MEET TARGETS OR
AFFORDABILITY FOR CONSUMERS AND
PURCHASERS. OCHA'S REPORTING
THRESHOLD IS ALSO HIGHER AND
LESS LIKELY TO CATCH PROBLEMATIC
TRANSACTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THERE'S A BASIC QUESTION HERE,
GIVEN THE RESULTS SHOWN BY MANY
INDEPENDENT STUDIES, NOT JUST
ONE, THAT THERE ARE HARMFUL
OUTCOMES. HOW CAN THE OPPOSITION
ARGUE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS
SHOULD BE HAPPENING WITHOUT ANY
REVIEW? THESE ACQUISITIONS ARE
CURRENTLY FLYING UNDER THE RADAR
AND CONTINUE TO GROW
EXPONENTIALLY, AND OUR AG SHOULD
BE INVOLVED TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT
WILL AFFECT PATIENTS COMPETITION
AND THE COST OF HEALTH CARE. SO
IF NOT US, THEN WHO AND I BEAT
MY WITNESS HERE AND SO I'M GOING
TO FLY SOLO AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS
. THANK YOU SENATOR, IS THERE
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF AB 3129? SERGEANT, IF WE CAN
HAVE THE MICROPHONE SET UP.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, BRIAN MIRAMONTEZ
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. JASON SCHMELZER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. SOMEONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 3129.
CHAIR. KALRA. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOHN. IF
YOU COULD. SORRY. IF YOU COULD
MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
JOHN STEINBERG. I'M THE CEO OF
CHILDREN'S CHOICE DENTAL CARE.
I'M RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO AB
3129. AS I DISCUSSED WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD ON MARCH
12TH, WE BELIEVE AB 3129 WILL
CUT OFF A CRITICAL SOURCE OF
FUNDING TO THE DETRIMENT OF
CALIFORNIA'S HEALTH CARE.
CHILDREN'S CHOICE WAS FOUNDED IN
SACRAMENTO IN 2008 AND HAS SINCE
EXPANDED TO 33 LOCATIONS IN
CALIFORNIA'S UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. WE NOW HAVE 64
DENTISTS AND NEARLY 700
EMPLOYEES EACH YEAR. WE HELP
OVER 130,000 CHILDREN WITH
306,000 DENTAL VISITS. 86% OF
THOSE KIDS ARE ON MEDI-CAL. 15
OF OUR LOCATIONS OPEN DURING THE
COVID 19 PANDEMIC AND PROVIDED
EMERGENCY CARE TO KIDS. IN SOME
COUNTIES, WE'VE SERVED OVER 50%
OF THE POPULATION OF CHILDREN.
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO EXPAND TO 33
LOCATIONS WITH FUNDS WE RAISE
FROM PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM. IN
2018. WE PLAN TO OPEN MORE
CLINICS, BUT AB 3129 MIGHT LIMIT
OUR ABILITY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL
CAPITAL. IN MY EXPERIENCE,
PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTORS WANT TO
BACK A SUCCESSFUL, GROWING
BUSINESS WITH A GOOD REPUTATION.
SO THAT'S A COMPANY THAT
PROVIDES QUALITY CARE THAT
COMPLIES WITH REGULATIONS AND
PRACTICE STANDARDS, AND THAT
GIVES PATIENTS A GOOD EXPERIENCE
SO THAT THEY'LL REFER THEIR
FRIENDS SOON. IT'S GOING TO BE
TIME FOR MY COMPANY CHOICE TO
RAISE MONEY TO BUILD MORE
CLINICS. IF PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS
ARE NOT AVAILABLE. I DON'T KNOW
WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO COME
FROM. I'M AFRAID THAT AB 3129
WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR CHOICE,
AND OTHER OTHER HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS LIKE IT TO GROW,
MAKING IT HARDER FOR US TO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO CARE FOR NEEDY
KIDS. THEREFORE, I MUST
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR A NO
VOTE ON AB 3129. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU. I'M LOIS
RICHARDSON, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION.
MEGAN LOPER IS OUT SICK TODAY,
WE BELIEVE THAT PATIENTS DESERVE
ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY HEALTH
CARE. AND THESE SERVICES DEPEND
ON CONSTANT INNOVATION AND
INVESTMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN
SACRAMENTO, UC DAVIS MEDICAL
CENTER RECENTLY OPENED A NEW
PHYSICAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL
THAT WAS THE RESULT OF A
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND
PRIVATE INVESTMENT. AB 3129 IS
UNCLEAR ABOUT WHEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MUST
REVIEW TRANSACTIONS AND GIVES IT
OVERLY BROAD AUTHORITY TO DENY
OR PLACE ONEROUS CONDITIONS ON
TRANSACTIONS. THIS SLOWS OR
POTENTIALLY COMPLETELY DETOURS
DETERS MUCH NEEDED INVESTMENT IN
THE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM.
THE BILL'S DEFINITION OF CHANGE
OF CONTROL IS ALSO UNCLEAR,
INCLUDING THE TERMS INDIRECT
CONTROL AND SHARING OF CONTROL,
WHERE THERE EVEN MINOR CHANGES
IN GOVERNMENTS. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE DOJ'S EXISTING AUTHORITY
OVER NONPROFIT HOSPITAL
TRANSACTIONS HAS SERVED AS A
BARRIER FOR INVESTMENT AND WAS
ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
THAT LED TO THE CLOSURE OF
MADERA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.
ACCESS TO ALL FINANCIAL TOOLS IS
CRITICAL, PARTICULARLY IN
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES WHERE
INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED TO
SUPPORT UNDER-RESOURCED
PROVIDERS SO THEY CAN BETTER
SERVE THEIR PATIENTS AS DOCTOR
WOOD MENTIONED, THE OFFICE OF
HEALTH CARE AFFORDABILITY
CURRENTLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
REVIEW THE TRANSACTIONS COVERED
BY THIS BILL. OCA IS TASKED WITH
GATHERING DATA AND STUDYING THE
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM TO
THOUGHTFULLY AND OBJECTIVELY
REVIEW THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S KNOWLEDGE
BASE IS LEGAL, WHEREAS OCA'S
KNOWLEDGE BASE IS THE HEALTH
CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM. DATA AND
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EXISTING LAW
PROHIBITS TRANSACTIONS FROM
CLOSING UNTIL 60 DAYS AFTER OCA
PUBLISHES ITS FINAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS, AND THIS PROVIDES THE
DOJ TIME TO EXERCISE ITS
ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO
PROSECUTE ANTI-COMPETITIVE
BEHAVIOR. THE CALIFORNIA HAS
NUMEROUS POLICIES THAT ARE
DESIGNED TO PROTECT PATIENTS
REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP. FOR
EXAMPLE, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT
PRIVATE EQUITY, DECREASES
STAFFING. CALIFORNIA HAS NURSE
PATIENT RATIOS THAT PREVENTS
DECREASING OF NURSE STAFFING. AT
LEAST FIVE STATE DEPARTMENTS
CONDUCT SERIOUS OVERSIGHT OF ALL
POINTS OF CARE, INCLUDING THE
BEDSIDE CHARTING, BILLING AND
EVEN THE BUILDING FACILITIES.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
3129? DENNIS LOPER, ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
MARK APREA WITH THE PRAYING
COMPANY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN INVESTMENT COUNCIL, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. PRESTON YOUNG FROM
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE HERE TODAY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS.
CONNIE DELGADO, ON BEHALF OF
NEWPORT HEALTHCARE, REGISTERING
CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. SETH BROWN HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. I
APOLOGIZE FOR BEING OUT OF
ORDER. WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. KATIE VAN DINES WITH
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA.
SIMILAR TO SETH BROWN AS ALSO IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SORRY
TO BE OUT OF ORDER. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
EITHER OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT? I
KNOW WE STARTED RIGHT ON TIME,
AND SOME FOLKS ARE STILL MAKING
THEIR WAY THROUGH THE METAL
DETECTORS AND SUCH. OKAY BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MADAM
VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
MR. CHAIR, FOR CLARIFICATION,
WHAT TYPE OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT
WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU IN
TERMS OF THE HEALTH CARE
INDUSTRY, THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S
A THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING
QUESTION. I WHAT I'M FOCUSING ON
HERE IS OUR ORGANIZED FUNDS,
PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS, VENTURE
CAPITAL FUNDS, INDIVIDUAL
INVESTMENTS. I HAVE NO ISSUE
WITH. OKAY, I'LL ACCEPT THAT
RESPONSE. OBVIOUSLY.
RESPECTFULLY, INDIVIDUAL FUNDS,
YOU HAVE A SEVERAL BUSINESS
PARTNERS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL
SCHOOLS. MY SUPPORT INDIVIDUALS.
EXCUSE ME? INDIVIDUALS WHO A
PARTNERSHIP OF THREE, BUSINESS
PEOPLE. IS THAT A IS THAT
CONSIDERED, UNACCEPTABLE OR
PROHIBITED? AND HOW DO YOU
DEFINE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING
TO GET AT IN A BROADER SENSE,
HOW DO YOU FIND A DEFINE AN
ACCEPTABLE PRIVATE INVESTOR,
INVESTMENT COMPANY OR INVESTMENT
ORGANIZATION? INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP. THIS IS THAT MOMENT
WHEN I WISH I HAD MY TECHNICAL
SUPPORT AND IF I COULD, MADAM
VICE CHAIR AND SENATOR WOOD,
THIS DOESN'T PREVENT INVESTMENT
FROM HEDGE FUNDS, PRIVATE EQUITY
GROUPS. IT'S JUST IT'S ALLOWING
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND
CONSENT TO IT, BECAUSE OF THE
IMPACTS THAT THESE FUNDS HAVE
HAD IN MANY CASES. IN CLOSING
HOSPITALS, AFTER EXTRACTING
PROFIT FROM CERTAIN AREAS. NOW,
THERE ARE SOME HOSPITALS IN MY
AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M JUMPING
IN HERE, BUT THERE ARE SOME
HOSPITALS THAT HAVE THRIVED AND
DONE VERY WELL WITH INVESTMENT
FROM FROM PRIVATE EQUITY. AND
THAT'S GREAT. WELL, ALL WE'RE
SAYING IS THAT OR ALL WHAT IS
SAYING, AND I AGREE, IS THAT
THERE SHOULD BE SOME LEVEL OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND AN OVERSIGHT,
AND A HEDGE FUND OR PRIVATE
EQUITY INVESTMENT. IT'S NOT LIKE
TAKING MONEY OUT OF ATM. THE
PROCESS TAKES USUALLY SEVERAL
WEEKS OR MONTHS ANYWAY, AT THE
VERY LEAST. SO IT'S ALLOWING ONE
MORE SET OF EYES ON THERE TO
PROTECT PATIENTS AND PROTECT
COMMUNITIES. I APPRECIATE THAT
CLARIFICATION. MR. CHAIR. MY
CONCERN IS IT'S JUST A CHILLING
EFFECT ON PRIVATE INVESTMENT IS
THE FOUNDATION OF OUR AMERICAN
ECONOMY. NOW IF THERE ARE
CONTROLS IN THE MARKET SYSTEM OF
OUR ECONOMY THAT IF, IF THE
DIRECTION IN THE MARKET
SITUATION IS NOT PRODUCING THE
DESIRED RESULTS, THE DESIRED
RESULTS FOR AN INVESTOR, WHETHER
IT'S A PRIVATE EQUITY COMPANY, A
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OR A HEDGE
FUND, IS TO GROW TO BE
PROFITABLE AND TO PROVIDE THE
VALUE ADDED SERVICES TO ENSURE
PROFITABILITY AND SUCCESS, THERE
ARE OFTEN OTHER FACTORS THAT
DRIVE THE UNFORTUNATE DEMISE.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW WE'VE
DISCUSSED ANOTHER LEGISLATION,
THE LACK OF, MEDICARE
REIMBURSEMENT. WE'VE TRIED TO
ADJUST THAT AND GET THAT ON A,
ON A BETTER SCALE. SO I THINK TO
SUGGEST THAT HEDGE FUND, HEDGE
FUNDS OR PRIVATE EQUITY OR OTHER
LARGE FUNDS, AS YOU DESCRIBE
THEM, NEED TO BE UNDER THE
PURVIEW OF ADDITIONAL PURVIEW OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHEN WE
JUST HAVE A LAW, THAT'S SB 154
FROM 2022, I GUESS I WOULD SAY
MY OPINION IS TO LET THAT SEE IF
IT'S DOING THE DESIRED
CORRECTIONS. AND, AND I HESITATE
TO USE THE WORD CONTROLS OF THE
MARKETPLACE, BUT THAT'S
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS. SO I
HAVE CONCERN BECAUSE I SEE THIS
IN OTHER AREAS IS GETTING THE
GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN HOW THE
PRIVATE MARKETPLACE WORKS.
HEALTH CARE IS OBVIOUSLY
PARAMOUNT. WE WANT OUR PEOPLE
HEALTHY. WE WANT THE SERVICES
WORLD CLASS. AND IF WE'RE
DRIVING WORLD CLASS MEDICAL CARE
IN THIS COUNTRY, IT TAKES ALL
FORMS OF INVESTORS. SO THAT'S
KIND OF WHERE I'M LANDING ON
THIS. BUT I APPRECIATE YOU
ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF HEALTH
CARE. AND I KNOW THAT'S YOUR
YOUR PROFESSIONAL ENDEAVOR. I'M
JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE
CONTROLS OVER INVESTOR IN ALL
FORMS OF BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY
HEALTH CARE. SO THANK YOU. ARE
YOU TALKING ABOUT SB 154? ARE
YOU ASKING ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
THE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OKAY.
YES AS I SAID IN MY STATEMENT,
OKAY. DOES NOT HAVE ANY
AUTHORITY OVER THESE
TRANSACTIONS. IT'S SORT OF LIKE
THE HORSE IS OUT OF THE BARN.
OH, WE MISSED IT. SO THIS IS
ACTUALLY LOOKING AT A REVIEW IN
ADVANCE OF A MERGER OR AN
ACQUISITION, AND IT'S NOT SAYING
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, AND I WOULD I
WOULD ARGUE THAT I'M SORRY.
VENTURE CAPITAL, PRIVATE EQUITY,
IT IS ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY. IT
IS NOT ABOUT CONSUMERS. IT'S NOT
ABOUT PROTECTING PAYERS. AND
THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE.
THANK YOU. AND I WOULD JUST AS A
COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF INVESTMENT TO THE
AMERICAN ECONOMY, I WOULD
CONTEND THAT WORKERS ARE THE
FOUNDATION OF OUR AMERICAN
ECONOMY, AND, AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY
IMPORTANT TO HAVE INVESTMENT.
BUT I THINK THIS THE BILL IS
ABOUT OVERSIGHT. I'M GOING TO
ACTUALLY ACTUALLY, NO, LET'S
TAKE QUORUM QUORUM REALLY QUICK.
AND IT'S NOT THAT EVERYONE OR
MOST PEOPLE ARE HERE. THAT'S
FANTASTIC. CHOLERA HERE. DIXON
HERE. BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN CONNOLLY
HANEY HERE. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA
PACHECO. REYES. SANCHEZ WALDRON
HERE. WE HAVE QUORUM. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. AND I'M GOING TO I KNOW
THAT SINCE WE I THINK SOME OF
THE WITNESSES MAY HAVE BEEN
COMING THROUGH THE METAL
DETECTOR, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE ANY STATEMENTS WE'VE
ALREADY HEARD FROM OPPOSITION. I
KNOW IT'S KIND OF A WEIRD ORDER,
BUT I THINK IT'S ONLY BECAUSE
ONLY FAIR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE
ANY STATEMENT IN SUPPORT, YES.
SURE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
APOLOGIES FOR BEING LATE. I
UNDERSTAND, KATIE VAN DINES WITH
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA, THE
STATEWIDE HEALTH CARE CONSUMER
ADVOCACY COALITION. WE'RE HERE
IN PROUD SUPPORT OF AB 3129, FOR
30 YEARS, ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF
BOTH PARTIES HAVE HAD THE
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE, DENY OR
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS MERGERS
RELATED TO NONPROFIT HOSPITALS.
AND IN THOSE 30 YEARS, 80 TO 90%
OF THOSE MERGERS HAVE BEEN
APPROVED AND MOSTLY WITH
CONDITIONS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
AND THOSE CONDITIONS, WHAT THOSE
HAVE LOOKED LIKE HAVE BEEN TO
KEEP EMERGENCY ROOMS OPEN, TO
KEEP LABOR AND DELIVERY SERVICES
OPEN, TO KEEP MORE SERVICES
OPEN, TO NOT HIKE UP PRICES ON
CONSUMERS, TO NOT END MEDI-CAL
MANAGED CARE CONTRACTS, TO NOT
CLOSE HOSPITALS, AND THOSE ARE
THE TYPES OF CONDITIONS THAT WE
WANT FOR CONSUMERS TO PROTECT
AFFORDABLE CARE AND THE AFFECTED
COMMUNITIES. AND LIKE YOU NOTED,
MR. CHAIR, THIS IS TO HAVE THE
MERGERS GO THROUGH A TIMELY
REVIEW PROCESS, TO LOOK AT THE
IMPACTS FOR CONSUMERS. AND AS
WAS NOTED BY THE AUTHOR, THE
OFFICE OF HEALTH CARE
AFFORDABILITY, THEY HAVE THE
THEY CAN REVIEW THESE
TRANSACTIONS, BUT WE WANT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO HAVE THE
AUTHORITY NOW TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS FROM NEGATIVE IMPACTS
BEFORE THEY HAPPEN, AND TO BE
ABLE TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE
IMPACTS OF THESE PRIVATE EQUITY
TRANSACTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE
TIME. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
AND I'M RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
I'M TIFFANY MATTHEWS, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE AT THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA, WHO IS A PROUD
SPONSOR OF AB 3129. AND WE THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JIM WOOD FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP IN ADDRESSING
CONSOLIDATION IN OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM. AB 3129 AUTHORIZES THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO REVIEW
HEALTH CARE TRANSACTIONS
INVOLVING PRIVATE EQUITY AND
HEDGE FUND GROUPS AND IT ALSO
REINFORCES THE BAR ON THE
CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
AS IT APPLIES TO THE
INTERFERENCE OF PRIVATE EQUITY
GROUPS OR HEDGE FUNDS IN THE
MEDICAL CARE OF PATIENTS. THE
BILL FOCUSES ON PRIVATE EQUITY
FOR TWO MAIN REASONS. THE FIRST
IS THAT THE PRIVATE EQUITY
BUSINESS MODEL, WHICH IS
DESIGNED TO BUY AN ASSET,
MAXIMIZE PROFITS AND THEN SELL
THAT ASSET, HAS NEGATIVE EFFECTS
ON CALIFORNIA PATIENTS,
PROVIDERS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES.
WE ARE SEEING STAFFING CUTS,
PRICE HIKES AND CONSOLIDATION,
WHICH ALL LEADS TO REDUCTIONS IN
ACCESS AND QUALITY OF HEALTH
CARE FOR CALIFORNIANS. THE
SECOND MAIN REASON IS THE
ALARMING PACE AT WHICH THIS IS
HAPPENING, BY THESE PRIVATE
EQUITY ACQUISITIONS HAVE MORE
THAN DOUBLED IN THE PAST
DECADES. SO AB 3129 WOULD SET UP
OVERSIGHT OVER THESE
TRANSACTIONS, WHERE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WOULD HAVE REVIEW
AUTHORITY AND BE ABLE TO
APPROVE, DENY OR APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS THESE TRANSACTIONS
BASED ON WHETHER THESE
TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST CONDITIONS, CAN BE USED
TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF
A TRANSACTION ON ACCESS OR
AVAILABILITY OF CARE. IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES, AND
POTENTIAL ANTICOMPETITIVE
EFFECTS IN THE HEALTH CARE
MARKET. THIS REVIEW PROCESS IS
NOT AN AUTOMATIC DENIAL OF THESE
TRANSACTIONS. THE OVERSIGHT IS
TO HELP ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIANS
HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH
CARE, AND FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OR ANY MOTIONS? SENATOR
REYES. I WANT TO THANK DOCTOR
WOODS FOR BRINGING THIS. I THINK
THAT AT THE CENTER OF ALL OF
THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE
TRANSACTION IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HOSPITALS, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, SCHOOLS. IT HAS TO BE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND I
APPRECIATE WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT BEING ABLE TO MAKE
INVESTMENTS. WE WANT PEOPLE TO
INVEST HERE. WE WANT THIS TO BE
A GOOD CLIMATE FOR INVESTORS TO
COME AND TO SEE A GREAT RATE OF
RETURN. BUT THAT CANNOT BE OUR
NUMBER ONE CONCERN. THE NUMBER
ONE CONCERN HAS GOT TO BE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST. AND I THINK
HAVING THIS OVERSIGHT AND AS WAS
MENTIONED IN THE TESTIMONY, FOR
THE NONPROFITS, 80 TO 90% ARE
APPROVED AFTER AFTER REVIEW. AND
IT'S EITHER AN APPROVAL OR
DENIAL OR A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
. AND SOMETIMES THOSE
CONDITIONAL APPROVALS ARE THE
BEST, BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE YOUR
MARCHING ORDERS OR YOUR, YOUR
THE PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH YOU
CAN ESTABLISH THIS, THIS HEALTH
FACILITY THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. AGAIN, IT'S WHAT IS
IN THE PUBLIC, WHAT'S IN THE,
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST. THAT HAS
TO BE AT THE TOP OF OUR LIST.
MERGERS ARE FINE. ALL OF THESE
THINGS ARE FINE. BUT IF IT'S NOT
IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, WE'VE
GOT TO PUT THE PARAMETERS AROUND
IT. WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO MAKE
SURE THAT IN THE END, THE PEOPLE
WHO MOST NEED IT IN, IN RURAL
AREAS, WHEN YOU HAVE THESE
MERGERS AND THEY THEN SELL AND
THE ANTI-COMPETITION ISSUES THAT
WERE JUST DISCUSSED, THESE ALL
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I
WOULD RATHER HAVE AN EXPERT FROM
THE AG'S OFFICE LOOK AT THIS.
AND DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. SO
WITH THAT I WOULD MOVE THIS
BILL. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER FURTHER
COMMENT? I WANT TO I WANT TO
THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD FOR
HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE AND
FOCUS ON PROTECTING PATIENTS,
PROTECTING CONSUMERS. THIS IS A
BILL IN A LONG LINE OF
LEGISLATION YOU'VE AUTHORED OVER
MANY YEARS, AND YOU SHOULD BE
PROUD OF YOUR WORK. THIS THIS
RIGHT HERE IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT. WE CERTAINLY SEE IT.
I SEE IT IN SAN JOSE WITH ONE
PARTICULAR COMPANY THAT SHUT
DOWN THE WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER,
PRENATAL, NEONATAL, ALL THAT IN
SAN JOSE DURING THE PANDEMIC.
THEN THE OTHER OTHER HOSPITAL,
WEST SAN JOSE, MOVED TO SHUT
DOWN THE PSYCHIATRIC BEDS. AND
NOW, IN THE PROCESS OF CUTTING
DOWN, SHUTTING DOWN THE ONLY
TRAUMA CENTER IN EAST SAN JOSE,
NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A
DEMAND, THERE'S A HUGE DEMAND,
BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENOUGH OF A
PROFIT CENTER FOR THEM. SO I
THINK THIS IS FAIR. IT DOES NOT
STOP INVESTMENT. IT JUST PUTS
THE SAME KIND OF OVERSIGHT THAT
NONPROFIT HOSPITALS HAVE TO GO
THROUGH AS WELL. AND AS
MENTIONED, 90% OF THEM GO
THROUGH AND WE WANT THEM TO GO
THROUGH. WE WANT THIS
INVESTMENT, BUT THE INVESTMENT
SHOULDN'T BE SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SEEKING PROFIT. IF
THESE ARE THIS IS AN INVESTMENT
INTO HOSPITALS. THAT'S A PUBLIC
GOOD. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S PROVIDING THE SERVICES THAT
ARE BEING PROMISED. WHEN THESE
INVESTMENTS ARE MADE OR NEW WING
IS OPENED. THOSE ARE GREAT
THINGS. BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE NOT JUST BEING USED TO
KIND OF TAKE PROFIT OUT OF THE
COMMUNITY AND THEN SHUT THEM
DOWN AFTER THE COMMUNITY IS NOW
RELYING ON THAT SERVICE. AFTER
MANY, MANY YEARS. AND SO I THINK
THIS IS A FAIR, BALANCED AND
REASONABLE, PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT ALLOWS OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO HAVE THAT OVERSIGHT ABILITY.
SO I WANT TO THANK SENATOR WOOD.
I WANT TO THANK ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU, MEMBERS. AND
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU KNOW,
WE STARTED LOOKING AT, HEALTH
CARE CONSOLIDATION, YEARS AGO,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
DID IN PARTICULAR, AND, REALLY
OVER CONCERNS OVER SUTTER HEALTH
AND THEIR ACQUISITION AND, AND
SUBSEQUENT MARKET DOMINANCE OVER
HEALTH CARE IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, WHICH HAS LED TO THE
FACT THAT WE PAY ALMOST TWICE AS
MUCH FOR HEALTH CARE IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA THAN WE DO IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENED IN
THAT, THERE WAS A THERE WAS A
LAWSUIT AND A SETTLEMENT WHERE
SUTTER AGREED TO PAY 500 PLUS
MILLION DOLLARS IN SETTLEMENT
WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY WRONGDOING
, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING TO TRY TO FIND A WAY
OVER TIME TO DRAW MORE ATTENTION
TO THIS, ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THE
ENTITIES AND CREATE MARKET
DOMINANCE. AND SO THIS BILL
ACTUALLY FOCUSES ON SMALLER
ENTITIES THAT ARE KIND OF FLYING
UNDER THE RADAR, THE SMALL ONES.
AND SO IF YOU GATHER UP ENOUGH,
SUDDENLY YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO
DOMINATE A MARKET AREA. AND WITH
THAT LEVERAGE YOU CAN COMMAND
HIGHER RATES FROM FROM PAYERS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT. AND IF IT'S FOR THE GOOD
OF CONSUMERS, THEN GREAT. IF
IT'S PROVIDING MORE SERVICES AND
MORE ACCESS, THEN GREAT. I HAVE
NO ISSUE WITH THAT. BUT IF IT'S
NOT, WE SHOULD KNOW. AND IF IT
LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO
THINGS LIKE THE LOSS OF ACCESS
TO REPRODUCTIVE CARE FOR WOMEN,
I AM, I'M SORRY THERE ARE SO
MANY RED FLAGS HERE. I, YOU
KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO
GO. SO, I APPRECIATE THE
OPPOSITION OAN AND THEIR
CONCERNS, I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE,
THIS ISN'T ABOUT NEW ENTITIES
THAT ARE STRIVING TO BUILD
SOMETHING NEW. THIS IS ABOUT THE
ACQUISITION OF OTHER ENTITIES.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. CALL THE
ROLL ON AB 3129, PLEASE. MOTIONS
DO PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL.
I DIXON. DIXON, NØ BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN CONNELLY. HANEY. HANEY. I
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
MCKENNA. PACHECO I PACHECO I
REYES. REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ
NÓ. WALDRON ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ITEM ONE
AB 1825. SENATOR MURATSUCHI
.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I I
THINK I WAS ONE MINUTE LATE FOR
OUR FILE. OUR NUMBER ONE, BUT
THANK YOU FOR TAKING UP,
ASSEMBLY BILL 1825, THE
CALIFORNIA FREEDOM TO READ ACT.
SO, LAST YEAR, I, LIKE MANY
AMERICANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, I
WAS LISTENING TO A NPR SHOW THAT
WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NATIONWIDE
MOVEMENT ON BOOK BANNING, AND IT
WAS A, A CALIFORNIA OR IT WAS A
NATIONAL FREEDOM TO READ WEEK
THAT THE AMERICAN LIBRARY
ASSOCIATION WAS SPONSORING. AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY THEY DISCUSSED
THIS ALARMING TREND THAT'S BEEN
HAPPENING, NOT ONLY ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, BUT ESPECIALLY HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE
THERE'S BEEN A 65% INCREASE IN
THE NUMBER OF BOOK CHALLENGES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE HIGHEST
EVER RECORDED. BY THE AMERICAN
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. SO LAST
FALL AFTER, I LISTENED TO THIS
NPR SHOW, I REACHED OUT TO THE
ACLU AND I REACHED OUT TO THE
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
AND WE WORKED VERY CLOSELY TO
DRAFT THE FIRST DRAFT OF THIS,
THIS BILL THAT WE ARE PRESENTING
TODAY, THE CALIFORNIA FREEDOM TO
READ ACT. THIS IS A BILL THAT
SEEKS TO PUT THE DECISION AS TO,
WHAT BOOKS TO ACQUIRE AND TO
PROVIDE AND IN WHAT MANNER TO
PROVIDE TO LIBRARIANS, RATHER
THAN TO, SMALL VOCAL MINORITIES
THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OUR STATE AND
COMMUNITIES LIKE HUNTINGTON
BEACH, LIKE, FRESNO, WHERE THEY
HAVE ATTEMPTED TO BAN BOOKS
BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTENT. WE
KNOW THAT, AS YOUR ANALYSIS,
POINTS OUT, THE RIGHT TO READ
THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE
INFORMATION, IS A FUNDAMENTAL
PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND
SO THIS BILL, SEEKS TO ALIGN,
THE LAW, THIS BILL WITH, OF
COURSE, THE, THE CONSTITUTION,
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME, MAKING SURE THAT
WE ALLOW COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE
TO RAISE CONCERNS WITH THEIR
LIBRARIANS TO, TO LEAVE TO THE
JUDGMENT OF PROFESSIONAL
LIBRARIANS IN TERMS OF HOW TO,
DISPLAY BOOKS THAT ARE AGE
APPROPRIATE, THAT ARE
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE, AND
SO I'M PROUD TO PRESENT THIS
BILL HERE TODAY, HERE, I BELIEVE
JUST, WAS ABLE TO, MAKE IT PASS.
THOSE THOSE, METAL DETECTORS,
CYNTHIA VALENCIA WITH THE ACLU
AND ALSO CRAIG PULSIPHER WITH
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU,
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
VALENCIA. I AM A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE WITH THE ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. AND UP UNTIL
VERY RECENTLY, I'VE BEEN A
RESIDENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR
THE PAST 13 YEARS. AND, PUBLIC
LIBRARY CARD HOLDER, HERE TO
SUPPORT AB 1825, THE FREEDOM TO
READ ACT, PUBLIC LIBRARIES ARE A
CORNERSTONE OF OUR COMMUNITIES,
ENSURING THAT PEOPLE, REGARDLESS
OF AGE, INCOME, EDUCATION, RACE
OR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION HAVE FREE
AND OPEN ACCESS TO INFORMATION
SO THEY CAN MEANINGFULLY ENGAGE
IN CIVIC LIFE. THEY ARE ALSO
BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
AND WE EXCUSE ME, WE MUST
PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF
ACCESS TO DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE
INFORMATION AT OUR PUBLIC
LIBRARIES. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MURATSUCHI FOR
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD PROHIBIT PUBLIC LIBRARIES
FROM REFUSING TO PROCURE BOOKS
IN A MANNER THAT WOULD
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OR EXCLUDE
MATERIALS BASED ON RACE,
NATIONALITY, GENDER IDENTITY,
SEXUAL ORIENTATION, RELIGION,
DISABILITY, POLITICAL
AFFILIATION, OR SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS. OVER THE PAST YEAR, MORE
THAN 3000 BOOKS HAVE BEEN BANNED
IN LIBRARIES ACROSS AMERICA.
THESE BOOKS DISPROPORTIONATELY
FEATURE STORIES ABOUT LGBTQ PLUS
COMMUNITIES. PEOPLE OF COLOR,
AND HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES. BOOK BANS TO THIS
EFFECT ARE NOT ONLY
DISCRIMINATORY, THEY ARE A
VIOLATION OF PEOPLE'S FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT OF ACCESS TO
INFORMATION. POLITICALLY
MOTIVATED CENSORSHIP HAS NO
PLACE IN CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE
SEEN LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT AIM
TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO LIBRARY
BOOKS, BOOKS AND MATERIALS
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. PEOPLE WHO USE
LIBRARIES, INCLUDING YOUNG
PEOPLE, HAVE A RIGHT NOT JUST TO
EXPRESS THEMSELVES, BUT TO LEARN
FROM A DIVERSE RANGE OF
MATERIALS, INCLUDING LIBRARY
BOOKS BY AND ABOUT LGBTQ AND
BIPOC COMMUNITIES. WE COMMEND
LIBRARIANS WHO HAVE REJECTED
THESE CENSORSHIP CAMPAIGNS. WE
MUST PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF ACCESS
TO DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE
INFORMATION AT OUR PUBLIC
LIBRARIES, AND WE URGE YOU TO
VOTE YES FOR AB 1825. THANK YOU,
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
CRAIG PULSIPHER, ON BEHALF OF
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA. PROUD TO BE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 1825 TO
ENSURE THAT OUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES
REMAIN COMMITTED TO INTELLECTUAL
DIVERSITY AND GRANT ALL
CALIFORNIANS TO SEE THEIR THE
ABILITY TO SEE THEIR OWN STORIES
AND COMMUNITIES REFLECTED IN THE
BOOKS THEY'VE READ, AS WE'VE
SEEN IN RECENT YEARS, CALIFORNIA
IS NOT IMMUNE FROM GROWING
EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS FREE
EXPRESSION AND INTELLECTUAL
FREEDOM. NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS TO
RESTRICT THE FREEDOM TO READ,
LEARN AND THINK ARE COMING TO
OUR STATE, RESULTING IN HARMFUL
POLICIES LIKE RECENT ATTEMPTS TO
BAN BOOKS THAT REFERENCE LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER HARVEY MILK
OR SPEAK TRUTHFULLY ABOUT RACE
AND SYSTEMIC RACISM IN THE US.
ACCORDING TO A RECENT PEN
AMERICA REPORT, BOOKS THAT
INCLUDE DIVERSE CHARACTERS,
PRIMARILY CHARACTERS OF COLOR
AND LGBTQ CHARACTERS WERE
OVERWHELMINGLY THE SUBJECT OF
BOOK BANS. AND AT THE SAME TIME,
MOST BOOK BANS PRIMARILY
TARGETED FEMALE PEOPLE OF COLOR
AND LGBTQ AUTHORS. WE'VE ALSO
SEEN AN UPTICK IN BANS THAT
WEAPONIZE ALARMING RHETORIC AND
MISLEADINGLY CHARACTERIZE BOOKS
AS AGE INAPPROPRIATE OR OBSCENE,
TO CENSOR MATERIALS THAT
HUMANIZE LGBTQ PEOPLE AND
EXPERIENCES. THESE POLICIES ALL
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CURRENT SPIKE
IN BANS TARGETING LGBTQ PEOPLE,
LEADING THE AMERICAN LIBRARY
ASSOCIATION TO REPORT THAT THE
MAJORITY OF BOOKS CHALLENGED
SINCE 2021 DREW COMPLAINTS
BECAUSE OF THEIR LGBTQ CONTENT.
AB 1825 IS AN IMPORTANT AND
TIMELY MEASURE THAT WILL PROTECT
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM IN
CALIFORNIA BY REQUIRING PUBLIC
LIBRARIES TO HAVE WRITTEN
POLICIES ON THE SELECTION AND
USE OF LIBRARY MATERIALS, AND
PROHIBIT EXCLUDING MATERIALS IN
A WAY THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
LGBTQ PEOPLE, PEOPLE OF COLOR,
AND OTHER GROUPS, VERY
APPRECIATIVE OF THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD AND RESPECTFULLY
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 1825? HELLO, BOARD
CHANEL FREEMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA, STRONGLY SUPPORTS
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
1825? GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS. I'M
CHRISTINA DECARO, LOBBYIST FOR
THE CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
ASSOCIATION. AS THE ANALYSIS
NOTES, CLA CURRENTLY HAS AN
OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED POSITION
ON THE BILL IN PRINT. BUT I WANT
TO SINCERELY THANK THE AUTHOR,
HIS STAFF, TOM CLARK OF YOUR
STAFF, FOR WORKING WITH CLA SO
DILIGENTLY IN A MANNER THAT IT
ADDRESSES OUR ISSUES OF CONCERN.
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS IS
ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT, AND IT
LAYS OUT OUR MAJOR ISSUES THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, AND
THEN TYING THINGS TO THE ALA
BILL OF RIGHTS. THESE TWO ISSUES
ARE BEING STRICKEN FROM THE BILL
AND WE ARE SO GRATEFUL TO THE
AUTHOR FOR THAT COMMITMENT. THE
FINAL MAJOR PIECE IS JUST TRYING
TO SHAPE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LIBRARY COLLECTION POLICIES IN A
WAY THAT'S COMFORTABLE FOR THE
LIBRARY AND DOES NOT GET INTO
THE GRANULAR DECISIONS AND PUT
THOSE IN THE HANDS OF CITIZEN
GROUPS AND OTHER MECHANISMS. BUT
I DO THINK WE CAN GET THERE. THE
ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN CLA AND MR.
MURATSUCHI HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY
POSITIVE AND PRODUCTIVE OVER THE
LAST FEW WEEKS. WE WANT TO THANK
HIM FOR HIS HELP, HIS LEADERSHIP
ON THIS INCREDIBLY COMPLEX
ISSUE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 1825?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S BRING IT BACK.
AND AS WE BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE, MISS SENATOR
MURATSUCHI, DO YOU ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS? YES, I DO,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS? WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND
NO OTHER COMMENTS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. SOME MEMBER, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. IT'S THE KIND OF
THING WE WISH YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO
DO, BUT WE DO NEED FOLKS IN OUR
LEGISLATURE TO LEAD ON ISSUES
LIKE THIS TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITY AND ESPECIALLY PLACES
THAT ARE SO SPECIAL TO US, LIKE
OUR LIBRARIES. SO THANK YOU.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR APPLE?
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. TAKE ROLL ON AB 1825
PLEASE. MOTIONS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
FOR A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON CAN I
JUST ASK A QUESTION? YEAH. GO
AHEAD. SO YOU ARE WORKING ON THE
AMENDMENTS? YES I WANT TO MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT I'M FULLY
COMMITTED TO, YOU KNOW, MY
ORIGINAL INTENT WAS, YOU KNOW,
TO HAVE A BILL, YOU KNOW,
SUPPORTED BY THE ACLU AND THE
LIBRARIANS, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING THE
FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME MAKING SURE THAT
IT'S WORKABLE FOR THE LIBRARIANS
AS YOU HEARD FROM THE LOBBYISTS,
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE
ADDRESSED, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES THAT THEY FLAGGED, AND
WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK
TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DIXON.
I BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN CONNOLLY.
Ã. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY. AYE.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO AYE.
REYES. REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ. AYE. WALDRON. WALDRON.
AYE ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT
BILL IS OUT. AND THE NEXT ITEM.
ITEM 19 AB 3192.
IT'S JORDAN FILE. YEAH. OKAY, SO
IT'S NOT SO. YEAH. WE'RE SUBBING
IN. I'M SUBBING FOR JORDAN.
OKAY, I'LL JUST TRY. OKAY YES.
YEAH. AND SO WITH AB 3192, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT
WITH THE AMENDMENTS, HAD HAD
THERE NOT BEEN SUCH A SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME, THIS BILL
ACTUALLY WOULDN'T HAVE COME HERE
BECAUSE IT WOULD. WE WOULD HAVE
DEEMED IT NO LONGER UNDER OUR
JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE ISSUES
RELATING TO THIS COMMITTEE WERE
RESOLVED. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO
HEAR THE BILL. I'M JUST PUTTING
THAT OUT THERE FOR FOLKS. IT WAS
HEARD TWICE, IN, IN A DIFFERENT
COMMITTEE, AND NOW WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO SENATOR MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AS AS YOU JUST INDICATED, THIS
BILL JUST PASSED OUT OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY WHERE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WERE
ADDRESSED. AND HERE, THE BILL
ORIGINALLY HAD A PRIVATE CAUSE
OF ACTION, BUT THAT WAS TAKEN
OUT TO BE REPLACED WITH
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. AND SO
BUT JUST REAL QUICKLY, THIS
BILL, ARISES OUT OF A COASTAL
RESORT IN MY DISTRICT THAT
TYRANNIA AND RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AND, IT HIGHLIGHTED, UNITE HERE,
CONDUCTED A STUDY TOGETHER WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS, THAT
HIGHLIGHT THE TREMENDOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THESE
MAJOR COASTAL RESORTS, ON THE
SURROUNDING COAST, ON THIS
SURROUNDING SENSITIVE,
ENVIRONMENTAL ECOSYSTEMS. AND SO
THIS BILL, SEEKS TO SUPPORT THE
EFFORTS OF THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, TO, ENSURE THAT THE
MAJOR COASTAL RESORTS, WHICH ARE
DEFINED AS RESORTS WITH 300 OR
MORE ROOMS, TOGETHER WITH A GOLF
COURSE WITHIN A COASTAL ZONE,
THAT, THAT THEY COMPLY WITH, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE
HAVE TO, TO PROTECT OUR COASTS,
ADDRESSING ISSUES LIKE
FERTILIZER USE, LIKE PESTICIDE
USE, LIKE SINGLE USE PLASTIC USE
, THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE
RESORTS TO SUBMIT A COMPLIANCE
AUDIT, AND THROUGH THIS,
AMENDMENTS TAKEN IN THE NATURAL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE IMPOSE
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE
REQUIREMENTS, THE MEASURE ALSO,
ADOPTS ANTI-RETALIATION
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS TO
PROTECT WORKERS WHO COOPERATE
WITH THE RESORT'S AUDITOR, HERE
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS, REPRESENTATIVES FROM
UNITE HERE. OKAY. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. OR. SORRY? GOOD
MORNING. JOE KALRA AND THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ANDY SEYMOUR. I'M A RESEARCHER
WITH UNITE HERE. LOCAL 11 REP
PRESENTING OVER 32,000 HOTEL AND
FOOD SERVICE WORKERS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, WE'RE ALSO THE
SPONSOR OF AB 3192. SO WE WANT
TO RECOGNIZE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR HARD WORK PREPARING THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS FOR AB 3192.
THE BILL IMPROVES THE
ENFORCEMENT RULES THAT MAJOR
COASTAL RESORTS ARE ALREADY
SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW BY MOVING
ENFORCEMENT FROM A SOLELY
COMPLAINT BASED SYSTEM TO AN
AUDIT BASED SYSTEM. THE BILL
ALSO REDUCES THE USE OF
SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES AND SINGLE
USE PLASTICS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
TO SENSITIVE COASTAL HABITATS.
SO ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT
WOULD BE COVERED BY THE BILL IS
THE TYRANNIA AND RANCHO PALOS
VERDES. AS ALREADY MENTIONED, WE
HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH A REPORT
ISSUED BY UNITE HERE LOCAL 11,
SUNRISE MOVEMENT LOS ANGELES.
ALSO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS TITLED HOW GREEN IS THE
TYRANNIA, AS REVIEWED IN THE
REPORT. DATA INDICATES THAT
BETWEEN 2017 AND 2021, THE
TYRANNIA, WHICH FEATURES A NINE
HOLE GOLF COURSE, USED 43
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PESTICIDES
HERBICIDES OR PLANT GROWTH
REGULATORS, INCLUDING ONE WHOSE
SAFETY DATA SHEET STATES THAT
THE CHEMICAL IS, QUOTE, VERY
TOXIC TO AQUATIC LIFE WITH LONG
LASTING EFFECTS. END QUOTE. SO
WE HAVE TAKEN AN AMENDMENT TO
MOVE ALL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS,
INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AUDIT
REQUIREMENTS AND WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTIONS, TO ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES. IN 2016, THREE
EMPLOYEES AT THE SHORE HOTEL IN
SANTA MONICA ALLEGED THAT
MANAGEMENT OF THE SHORE HOTEL
ILLEGALLY TERMINATED THEM. ALL
THREE OF THESE EMPLOYEES HAD
TESTIFIED AT THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION ABOUT ISSUES
AT THE HOTEL IN THE MONTHS
PRECEDING THEIR TERMINATION,
BECAUSE HOSPITALITY WORKERS ARE
ONE GROUP MOST LIKELY TO WITNESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AT A
MAJOR COASTAL RESORT, AB 3092
INCLUDES IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS
FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS, SO WE'RE
PROUD TO STAND WITH ASSEMBLY
MURATSUCHI SUSHI AS THE AUTHOR
OF THIS BILL AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, HONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. SO SORRY, FATIMA IQBAL
ZUBIATE IS ON A BUS TRYING TO
GET HERE RIGHT NOW, SO I'M JUST
GOING TO READ WHAT SHE WOULD
HAVE SAID, SO, SO, I'M AMY
HINES-IKE, AND I'M REPRESENTING
RIGHT NOW, FATIMA IQBAL ZUBAIR
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
MANAGER FOR CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. OUR
ORGANIZATION COAUTHORED THE
REPORT TITLED HOW GREEN IS THE
TYRANNIA WITH UNITE HERE LOCAL
11 AND SUNRISE MOVEMENT. LOS
ANGELES, WHICH WHICH ILLUSTRATES
THE DEEP NEED FOR AB 3192
AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MURATSUCHI. CALIFORNIA'S COAST
IS THE SITE OF SOME OF THE
WORLD'S MOST TREASURED AND
SENSITIVE HABITATS. YET PORTIONS
OF THE COAST ARE OCCUPIED BY
LARGE GOLF RESORTS LIKE THE
TIRRENIA RESORT, LOCATED ALONG
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
STRETCH OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN. AS
REVIEWED IN THE REPORT, TERRANEO
PROMINENTLY MARKETS ITSELF AS
ECO FRIENDLY, BUT THE REPORT
SUGGESTS TYRANNY AS PUBLIC
CLAIMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
AND PRIORITIES MAY BE
OVERSTATED. THE TIRANA'S CLAIMS
REGARDING ITS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
WILDLIFE HABITATS MAY BE
UNDERMINED BY A DISTURBING
RECORD OF RACCOONS AND OTHER
MAMMALS BEING TRAPPED AT THE
RESORT BY COMMERCIAL TRAPPERS.
THE RESORT AND THE GOLF COURSES
OPERATION HAS ALSO COINCIDED
WITH A DROP IN THE ESTIMATED
LOCAL POPULATION OF A SENSITIVE
BIRD SPECIES, THE COASTAL CACTUS
WREN. THE RESORT ALSO HAS
ALLEGEDLY USED SINGLE USE
PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES FOR
BANQUET EVENTS, AND ALLEGEDLY
HAS NOT CONSISTENTLY SEGREGATED
SEGREGATED, RECYCLABLE PLASTICS
AND FOOD WASTE FROM THE RESORT'S
ORDINARY GARBAGE. PRIOR TO
COLLECTION, WE HAVE TAKEN AN
AMENDMENT TO MOVE ALL
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS,
INCLUDING FOR THE USE OF
PESTICIDES AND PLASTICS, TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. THIS
AMENDMENT REPRESENTS A
SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISE BY
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. FOR THESE
REASONS AND MANY MORE, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE ON AB 3192. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 3192? MR.
CHAIR, MEMBERS. I KNOW, MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS. SARAH FLOCKS,
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3192? YEAH,
YEAH. FEEL FREE TO COME UP. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
ARMANDO FELICIANO, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL LODGING
ASSOCIATION. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS. HOWEVER LÀ
REMAINS OPPOSED FOR A COUPLE OF
REASONS. NUMBER ONE, WE, AS
POINTED OUT IN THE ANALYSIS,
THERE'S AMPLE PROTECTIONS FOR
SITUATIONS THAT AB 3192 IS
TRYING TO ADDRESS. YOU HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION,
YOU HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDES REGULATIONS. TWO
REGULATORS ARE OVERSEEING THIS
SITUATIONS THAT ARE AB 3192 IS
PURPORTEDLY TRYING TO ADDRESS
THIS. SECOND, THE EXPANSION OF,
OF THE LAWS OF THE
ANTI-RETALIATION LAWS AND
WHISTLEBLOWER. YOU'RE CORRECT.
IT IS FOR EMPLOYEES, BUT IT ALSO
EXPANDS IT TO JOB APPLICANTS. SO
THAT IS KIND OF A I'M NOT A
LABOR LAWYER, BUT YOU CAN
IMAGINE THAT, THE LOSSES THAT
MAY COME OUT OF IT OR THE
PENALTIES MAY COME OUT OF IT IF
SOMEBODY DOESN'T GET A JOB
BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF AN
AUDIT, THIRD, IT'S WORTH
REITERATING. AND I WANT TO BE
CAREFUL TO USE THE WORD, IT
APPEARS TO UNFAIRLY TARGET A
SMALL SET OF BUSINESSES IN
CALIFORNIA. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE REMAIN OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ADAM
WRIGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. WE
CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE WITH THE
INTENT OF THIS BILL GOING AFTER
JUST SIX RESORTS ALONG THE
COAST. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF
DIFFERENT LAND USES, FROM
UNIVERSITIES TO PUBLIC PARKS ALL
ALONG OUR BEAUTIFUL COASTLINES,
AND WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY
VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD,
PRECIPITATE THE NEED FOR A BILL
THAT TARGETS JUST SIX RESORTS,
MANY OF WHICH ARE ENVIRONMENTAL
LEADERS WHO WIN AWARDS EVERY
YEAR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY. THE TYRANNY IS
102 ACRE SITE. THEY ONLY USE 25%
OF THE LAND. THE REST OF IT IS
ALL, PRESERVED, THE, THERE'S NO
KNOWN VIOLATIONS THAT WE'RE
AWARE OF, OF THE PORT OF COLON
WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT, THE
SAFE WATER DRINKING ACT, THE
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT. WE'RE
NOT AWARE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE
NPDES PERMITS. THIS IS A HEAVILY
REGULATED AREA OF CALIFORNIA.
SINGLE USE PLASTIC PACKAGING.
SPECIFICALLY, THE BOTTLES ARE
RECYCLED AT 76. IF YOU DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE STEWARDS OF
THESE INSTITUTIONS HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY,
THEY DEFINITELY HAVE A DRIVE TO
ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE BEAUTIFUL
RESORTS TO ATTRACT BUSINESS. SO
THEY HAVE EVERY NEED AND DESIRE
TO ACTUALLY COLLECT AND RECYCLE
THESE BOTTLES. AND SO WE'RE NOT
FINDING SINGLE USE BOTTLES ALL
OVER THE TERRANEA OR OTHER
RESORTS. WE FIND THAT TO BE A
MISCHARACTERIZATION. IN FACT,
JUST FALSE STATEMENTS, CANDIDLY.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL IS
UNFAIRLY AND POTENTIALLY.
UNCONSTITUTION TO TARGET SIX
WHEN WE'RE NOT AWARE AS TO WHY
THEY'RE BEING TREATED
DIFFERENTLY FROM THE REST OF ALL
LAND USES ALONG THE COASTAL. AND
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE MUST
REMAIN RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED,
ALTHOUGH WE DO APPRECIATE THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION BEING
ELIMINATED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3092? AMELIA
ZAMANI WITH THE CALIFORNIA
TRAVEL ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION
. MAX PERRY, ON BEHALF OF THE
PEST CONTROL OPERATORS OF
CALIFORNIA, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
BEVERLY, ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BOTTLED WATER
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
DENNIS ALBA, ON BEHALF OF
AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION,
AS WELL AS SEVERAL AGRICULTURAL
ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS CALIFORNIA
SEED ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JENNIFER
ROWE WITH THE AUTOMATIC VENDORS
COUNCIL ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF
WESTERN PLANT HEALTH CROPLIFE
AMERICA AND RISE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. CHRIS MICHELI ON BEHALF
OF NIAGARA BOTTLING IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MATT SUTTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. SORRY ABOUT KHN, THANK YOU. I
JUST WANT I MEAN, I HEARD THIS
YESTERDAY, NAT RESOURCES A FEW
HOURS AGO, ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER
BILL, SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT
OUT THAT, I MEAN, I RAISED
SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE
NATURAL RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
OF THE BILL, BUT THAT'S NOT THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMITTEE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE PRA BEING
REMOVED OBVIOUSLY MAKES WHAT IS
IN THIS COMMITTEE'S
JURISDICTION, BASICALLY, AS I
SEE IT, NULL AND VOID IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS. I MEAN,
I ASKED THIS QUESTION YESTERDAY,
BUT ONE OF THE BECAUSE MY
CONCERN REALLY WAS WE DIDN'T GO
FAR ENOUGH WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, WHICH
I KNOW IS NOT THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERN. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DID
ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE THE AUTHOR'S
RESPONSE THAT THESE ARE, YOU
KNOW, PLASTICS, RIGHT ON OUR
COAST PUTTING AT RISK, YOU KNOW,
THE WILDLIFE ON CALIFORNIA'S
BEAUTIFUL COASTAL COMMUNITIES.
AND OBVIOUSLY, THE IMPACT OF
THAT IS GOING TO BE MORE
SIGNIFICANT AT LARGER RESORTS
THAN AT A SMALLER FACILITY. DID
SATISFY ME FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVE, AND I HOPE A COURT
WOULD FIND THE SAME. SO I THINK
FOR PURPOSES OF THE JURISDICTION
HERE TODAY, THERE ISN'T MUCH
LEFT. AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. IS THAT A
MOTION? YES, SIR. OKAY. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND ANY
OTHER FURTHER? YES. SENATOR
PACHECO, I HAD A QUESTION, AND I
KNOW OPPOSITION BROUGHT THIS UP,
BUT I DID, AND I KNOW WE TALKED
ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE'S ONLY SIX
RESORTS THAT ARE BEING SINGLED
OUT. WHY? WHY ONLY SIX RESORTS?
WHY NOT? OTHER LAND USES, ARE
ARE ARE WHY AREN'T WE LOOKING AT
OTHER OTHER RESORTS AND OTHER
LAND USES? YES. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT
TARGETING ANY RESORTS. WHAT
WE'RE DOING HERE IS IDENTIFYING,
YOU KNOW, MAJOR COASTAL RESORTS
THAT HAVE THE BIGGEST
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON ON THEIR
SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, THE BILL, IT DOESN'T
IDENTIFY ANY RESORTS BY NAME. IT
JUST DEFINES MAJOR COASTAL
RESORTS AS AS RESORTS THAT HAVE
300 OR MORE HOTEL ROOMS THAT
OPERATE A GOLF COURSE. I MEAN,
IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AND
STRAIGHTFORWARD. I AND I THINK,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S, YEAH, THE
INTENT IS TO, IS TO FOCUS ON THE
BIGGEST COASTAL RESORTS, THAT
USE THE MOST, FERTILIZERS,
PESTICIDES. I MEAN, WE KNOW, AND
GOLF COURSES, YOU KNOW, ARE
VERY, YOU KNOW, INTENSIVE LAND
USES AS FAR AS THE USE OF
CHEMICALS. AND SO HAVING THAT
TYPE OF INTENSIVE LAND USE,
RIGHT ON THE COAST, YOU KNOW, I
MEAN, FOR FOLKS THAT THAT HAVE
LIVED IN PALOS VERDES, YOU KNOW,
YOU KNOW, HOW BEAUTIFUL AND
PRISTINE THAT THAT COAST IS. AND
SO THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS TO
FOCUS ON THE MAJOR COASTAL
RESORTS, NOT ON ANY PARTICULAR
RESORTS. AND IS THERE EVIDENCE
OF, LIKE, GOLF COURSES, LIKE
JUST NOT NOT JUST RESORTS, BUT
MAYBE ALSO GOLF COURSES THAT MAY
BE, CULPRITS AND THE SECOND
QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THERE
EVIDENCE OF, OF THESE RESORTS
BEING CULPRITS? YES, I THINK
IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED THAT GOLF
COURSES USE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES.
BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
BECAUSE AS WE HEARD AND, YOU
KNOW, I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH,
OPPOSITION AND I WILL CONTINUE
TO MEET WITH OPPOSITION TO
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. BUT BUT
WITH THE LAST ROUND OF
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW GOLF
COURSES, TO USE, NON ORGANIC
PESTICIDES, WHERE THERE ARE NO
ORGANIC ALTERNATIVES, AS WELL
AS, SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT
WE TOOK THE GOLF COURSE
SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION, THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOLF
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR GOLF. THEY HAVE
REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND
SENATOR REYES. I JUST I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT AT THE
VERY BEGINNING THAT AT THE
DISCUSSION HAPPENED EARLIER, WE
WOULDN'T EVEN BE HEARING THIS
BILL. AND JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE
HAS SAID. SO I THINK, AGAIN, FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARTICULAR
COMMITTEE, YEAH, THIS IS THERE'S
NO REASON TO OPPOSE THIS FOR
THIS COMMITTEE, THE OTHER
COMMITTEES CAN CONTINUE TO HEAR
ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES, BUT,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND TO
THAT POINT, I BELIEVE, GIVEN THE
HOW SMALL OF A TIME WINDOW WE
HAD, MURATSUCHI, I BELIEVE THAT
THERE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT
NATURAL RESOURCES HAD ASKED YOU
TO TAKE THAT DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO
PROCESS THEIR THAT ARE HERE
BEFORE US TODAY. SO WOULD YOU
ACCEPT THOSE AMENDMENTS? YES, I
DO, THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I
THINK IT'S AN EXAMPLE, I THINK
THIS IS ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES
WHERE OUR STAFF TURNS THINGS
OVER, LIKE LITERALLY IN HOURS.
AND SO I WANT TO COMMEND, NICK
AND OUR ENTIRE STAFF FOR AND OF
ALL COMMITTEE STAFF, FRANKLY,
FOR DOING THIS TIME AND AGAIN,
ESPECIALLY DURING THIS VERY,
VERY BUSY TIME, AND SO THIS IS
ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES WHERE WE
COULDN'T, PULL THE BILL BECAUSE
YOU REMOVED PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. BUT THE GOOD THING IS
THAT WE ARE GETTING SOME WORK
DONE IN THE SENSE OF GETTING
THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES
AMENDMENTS APPROVED TODAY. SO
THIS BILL CAN CONTINUE FORWARD
IF IT GETS THE VOTES, SO AGAIN,
THANK YOU SO MUCH. SUMMARY.
MURATSUCHI FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM
SECRETARY. YOU CAN TAKE A ROLL
CALL ON AB 3092. DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
FOR A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON. DIXON
NØ BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN AYE.
BRIAN CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE.
HANEY HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO.
REYES REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NÓ WALDRON. WALDRON.
NO. OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. OH, ACTUALLY, WE NEED
ONE MORE. BUT WE STILL HAVE A
COUPLE MORE FOLKS, YET TO VOTE,
SO WE'LL PUT THAT ON ON CALL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
UP NEXT WE HAVE ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BONTA. ITEM FOUR 2239.
YEAH. AB 2239. THAT'S CORRECT.
ITEM FOUR. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
FOR WORKING SO ACTIVELY AND
DILIGENTLY WITH MY OFFICE ON
THIS LEGISLATION. I ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS REGARDING AN
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, REMOVE
INCOME LEVEL AS A BASIS FOR
LIABILITY AND ARTICULATES A
REMEDY THAT INCLUDES AND
ADDRESSES THE DECLARED NEED FROM
THE OPPOSITION FOR A SAFE
HARBOR. AB 2239 ADDRESSES A
CRITICAL ISSUE IN OUR DIGITAL
AGE, ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS
TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICES
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. AS YOU
WILL HEAR FROM MY WITNESSES,
CALIFORNIANS THAT LIVE IN AREAS
WITH PREDOMINANTLY LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR
ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
DISCONNECTED. IN LIGHT OF THE
INCREASING RELIANCE ON DIGITAL
TECHNOLOGIES FOR EDUCATION,
WORK, HEALTH CARE AND
COMMUNICATION, IT IS IMPERATIVE
THAT WE PREVENT DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTE
FAIRNESS IN ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL
SERVICES. HERE IN CALIFORNIA. IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, AB
2239 DOES SEVERAL THINGS. FIRST,
IT ADOPTS THE FCC'S DEFINITION
OF DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION, WHICH
ESTABLISHES A CLEAR DEFINITION
FOR DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION OF
ACCESS. THIS DEFINITION PROVIDES
A FRAMEWORK FOR IDENTIFYING AND
ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES IN BROADBAND INTERNET
PROVISION. IN ADDITION, AB 2239
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM ENGAGING
IN DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION OF
ACCESS, WHICH IS DEFINED AS
POLICIES OR PRACTICES THAT
DESPARATELY OR DIFFERENTIALLY
IMPACT CONSUMERS ACCESS BASED ON
FACTORS SUCH AS RACE, ETHNICITY,
RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
HERE TO TESTIFY IS PAUL GOODMAN
LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE CENTER FOR
ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY, AND OSCAR
MAGANA, SENIOR PROGRAMS OFFICER
FROM EVERYONEON. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. HONORABLE MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY NAME
IS OSCAR MAGANA. I AM A FORMER
EDUCATOR, HAVING EDUCATED
STUDENTS IN LOS ANGELES FOR OVER
18 YEARS. BUT CURRENTLY I SERVE
AS THE SENIOR PROGRAMS MANAGER
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AT
EVERYONEON, AND I AM DEEPLY
COMMITTED TO ENDING THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA. I STAND
BEFORE YOU AS A IN MY
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, BUT AS A
PRODUCT OF SOUTHEAST LOS
ANGELES, WHERE I PERSONALLY
EXPERIENCED THE CHALLENGES AND
FRUSTRATIONS OF DIGITAL
INEQUITY. TODAY, I AM HERE TO
ADVOCATE FOR THE PASSAGE OF AB
2239, A BILL CRUCIAL TO
ELIMINATING DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION IN OUR STATE
THROUGH THE STORIES OF OUR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO CONTINUE
TO STRUGGLE WITH THIS ISSUE AS A
TEAM MEMBER OF A NATIONWIDE
NONPROFIT THAT WORKS IN DIGITAL
INCLUSION, WE ARE HELPING TO END
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE THROUGH OUR
DIGITAL CONNECTIONS PROGRAM,
WHICH TEACHES FOUNDATIONAL
DIGITAL SKILLS TO ADULT
PARTICIPANTS. AS MOST OF OUR
PARTICIPANTS ARE WOMEN OF COLOR,
ALL OF OUR PARTICIPANTS ARE FROM
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES, AND
THEY OFTEN SHARE THEIR STORIES
WITH US. FOR EXAMPLE, I WANT TO
TELL YOU THE STORY OF MARIA FROM
BELL GARDENS IN ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT 62. MARIA IS NOT JUST A
STATISTIC. SHE IS A MOTHER WHOSE
TWO SONS SERVE IN THE US NAVY.
HER SONS, WHO HAVE BEEN SERVING
OUR COUNTRY FOR A COUPLE OF
YEARS NOW, ONE OF THEM IS
CURRENTLY DEPLOYED ON AN
AIRCRAFT CARRIER. THE OTHER ONE
RECENTLY GOT ASSIGNED TO A
SUBMARINE AND WILL BE ON THAT
SUBMARINE UNTIL APRIL OF 2025.
THE ONLY WAY THAT MARIA GETS TO
SEE HER SONS IS THROUGH VIDEO
CALLS. DESPITE PAYING $70 A
MONTH FOR HIGH SPEED INTERNET,
SHE OFTEN EXPERIENCES SUCH POOR
SERVICE QUALITY THAT SHE
FREQUENTLY CANNOT CONNECT WITH
HER SON'S. UNRELIABLE INTERNET
SPEED IS NOT JUST AN
INCONVENIENCE FOR THEIR FAMILY,
IT'S A HEART WRENCHING SITUATION
THAT IMPACTS HER ABILITY TO
MAINTAIN THAT CRUCIAL EMOTIONAL
BOND WITH HER FAMILY AND
DIRECTLY AFFECTS HER SON'S
MORALE WHILE SERVING OUR
COUNTRY. SIMILARLY. IN
SOUTHGATE, THE LA TIMES
YESTERDAY PUBLISHED THE STORY OF
CLAUDIA ALEMANN, A MOTHER OF
THREE DAUGHTERS, AGES 11, 17 AND
21, WHO OFTEN HAS TO STRUGGLE
WITH MAKING THE TOUGH CHOICE OF
WHAT SERVICES OR WHAT RESOURCES
SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR
ON A MONTHLY BASIS. IF YOU COULD
JUST WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO AB 2239 IS
NOT JUST ANOTHER BILL. IT'S A
SOLUTION. IT ADDRESSES THESE
INJUSTICES HEAD ON BY DEFINING
DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS
IN OUR CIVIL RIGHTS CODE,
FOCUSING ON OUTCOMES RATHER THAN
INTENT. AND I AM HERE TO ASK
THAT YOU STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
PASSAGE OF AB 239. THANK YOU,
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALRA.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS PAUL GOODMAN. I'M AN
ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR
ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY. WE
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF, PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES. I MY
SPECIALTY IS BROADBAND AND
ANTITRUST POLICY. PRIOR TO BEING
AT C40, I WORKED AT GREENLINING
INSTITUTE, WHERE I DID THE SAME
WORK ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, BEFORE
THAT, I WAS A I WAS A LAW
PROFESSOR WHO TAUGHT LEGAL
RESEARCH AND WRITING, AND IT'S
KIND OF THIS, SAYING THAT GOES
AROUND THAT SAYS WHEN YOU'RE IN
LAW SCHOOL AND YOU READ A LEGAL
DECISION, YOU THINK THE LAW IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT
THAT DECISION WHEN YOU BECOME AN
ATTORNEY, IT'S THE FACTS THAT
ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN
THE DECISION. AND I THINK THAT'S
REALLY THE FACT HERE,
SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING
AT THE FCC'S DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION ORDER, BECAUSE
THE DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION ORDER
MADE THE EXPLICIT FACTUAL
FINDING THAT ISPS CURRENT
BUSINESS PRACTICES PERPETUATE
THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS OF
DIGITAL REDLINING THAT BEGAN
BACK IN THE 40S, THAT IS A
FACTUAL FINDING THAT WILL REMAIN
UPHELD ON APPEAL, REGARDLESS OF
HOW THE LEGAL ANALYSIS SHAKES
OUT AND TO ME, THAT REALLY
CHANGES THE EQUATION FROM SHOULD
WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? TO
WHAT SHOULD THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DO ABOUT THIS? AND
REALLY AT THE CENTER OF THIS
ISSUE IS A REALLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION. WHO
HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THE
DECISION WHETHER COMMUNITIES
RICH OR POOR, BLACK OR WHITE,
RURAL OR URBAN ARE WORTHY ENOUGH
TO GET HIGH SPEED BROADBAND? AND
THE FCC'S ORDER EXPLICITLY SAYS
ORTEZ, IT IS NOT THE PURVIEW OF
PROVIDERS TO MAKE THAT DECISION,
CALIFORNIA HAS THE SOLID LEGAL
FOOTING, THE EXPERTISE AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THE PUBLIC DEMAND
FOR EQUITABLE ACCESS TO HIGH
SPEED BROADBAND. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON AB 2231. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2239? GOOD MORNING, MADDIE
REBEL WITH THE CHILDREN'S
PARTNERSHIP, A CO-SPONSOR AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MURATSUCHI GONZALEZ, ON BEHALF
OF NEXTGEN CALIFORNIA CO-SPONSOR
AND IN STRONG SUPPORT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. HI. GEORGE SAVAGE
HERE WITH CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE
FOR DIGITAL EQUITY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. PATRICK
MESSICK DIRECTOR OF OAKLAND AND
DIVIDED STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, TRACY ROSENBERG SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF MEDIA ALLIANCE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, STEPHANIE
HERNANDEZ PARTNERSHIP FOR LOS
ANGELES SCHOOL. STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. LEADERS FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP FOR LOS ANGELES
SCHOOLS IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2239?
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
COMMITTEE, AMANDA VALDERRAMA
WITH CAL BROADBAND. WE WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR, CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK ON AB 2239. WE WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
REMOVING INCOME LEVEL FROM THE
DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION OF
ACCESS. DEFINITION. OUR MEMBER
COMPANIES HAVE CONSISTENTLY
PROVIDED LOW COST SERVICE
OFFERINGS TO INCOME ELIGIBLE
POPULATION. WITH THE SIGNIFICANT
THREAT OF THE AFFORDABLE
CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM NOT BEING
REFUNDED BY CONGRESS. THE
CONTINUED ABILITY OF OUR
COMPANIES TO OFFER THESE SERVICE
OFFERINGS IS CRITICAL. WE THANK
THE AUTHOR, THE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
AMENDMENT TO REMEDY THIS
UNINTENDED THREAT. OUR LEGAL
COUNSEL IS REVIEWING THE BILL AS
PROPOSED, TO BE AMENDED PURSUANT
TO THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. BUT
WE DO HAVE CONTINUING CONCERNS.
AB 2239 IS STILL INCONSISTENT
WITH THE SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT, STATING THAT A
DISPARATE IMPACT STANDARD MUST
ENCOMPASS ANY LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS DECISION, NOT JUST
THOSE BASED ON FEASIBILITY. EVEN
THE IN THE FCC RULE. IT IS NOTED
THAT AS A BASELINE, THE FCC
INTERPRETS THE CATEGORIES OF
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY BROADLY TO ENCOMPASS
ANY LEGITIMATE BUSINESS
IMPEDIMENT, AND THIS SHOULD
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AB 2239 AS
WELL. ALSO, WHILE THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS FOCUSES ON
NETWORK BUILDOUT, THE BILL STILL
APPEARS TO COVER POTENTIALLY
NUMEROUS NON DEPLOYMENT FACTORS
SUCH AS SERVICE QUALITY, NETWORK
MANAGEMENT, CUSTOMER SERVICE AND
CONTRACTUAL TERMS. ALTHOUGH THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS PREDICTS THAT
BROADBAND PROVIDERS WOULD ONLY
BE SUBJECT TO LIABILITY IF THEY
DEVIATE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DEPLOYMENT PLANS IN A
DISCRIMINATORY MANNER, WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THE ACTUAL LEGAL
RISK IS MUCH BROADER. THE FCC
ALSO NOTES THE HIGH COST AND
RESOURCE INTENSIVE NATURE OF
REVIEWING AND ASSESSING EXISTING
DEPLOYED INFRASTRUCTURE AND THUS
EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE RULES
PERSPECTIVE WHICH SHOULD BE
ADDED TO AB 2239. LASTLY WE
WOULD HIGHLIGHT THAT THE FCC
DEEMS PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, SUCH AS THE BEAD
PROGRAM, TO HAVE A PRESUMPTION
OF COMPLIANCE. THE BILL DOES
NOT, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
DISCOURAGING PARTICIPATION IN
THE FEDERALLY FUNDED GRANT
PROGRAMS. AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE
THE WORK OF THE AUTHOR, CHAIR,
AND COMMITTEE STAFF WHILE AND
WHILE ISSUES REMAIN. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS PAM
LOOMIS AND I AM TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2239 TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE SMALL TELEPHONE
COMPANIES THAT ARE MEMBERS OF
THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION. THESE SMALL
COMPANIES HAVE BEEN SERVING SOME
OF THE MOST REMOTE AND RUGGED
AREAS OF THE STATE FOR OVER 100
YEARS, THEY OPERATE BROADBAND
CAPABLE NETWORKS IN SPARSELY
POPULATED HISTORIC COMMUNITIES,
AND THEY INCREMENTALLY UPGRADE
THESE NETWORKS AS THEY CAN,
BECAUSE THEIR CUSTOMERS WANT
ACCESS TO THE INTERNET. THEY
HAVE CREATED AFFILIATES TO
PROVIDE BROADBAND SERVICE, OFTEN
AT AN ECONOMIC LOSS, THESE
COMPANIES HAVE BEEN AT THE
FOREFRONT OF CLOSING THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE IN RURAL CALIFORNIA, AND
THANKS IN LARGE PART TO PUBLIC
FUNDING FROM BOTH THE FEDERAL
AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR
HIGH COST SUPPORT. WE ARE A
TESTAMENT TO THE BENEFITS OF
USING A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO CLOSING
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE, RATHER THAN
THE PUNITIVE APPROACH OF AB
2239, THIS BILL WOULD EXPOSE US
TO COSTLY LITIGATION AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LOCAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS. IT WILL
CHILL INVESTMENT AND INCREASE
THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS,
WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY BE BORNE
BY OUR CUSTOMERS. WE ABSOLUTELY
SUPPORT AFFORDABLE BROADBAND FOR
ALL. WE WOULD ASK THE
LEGISLATURE TO HELP US ACHIEVE
THIS THROUGH REDUCING REGULATORY
AND PERMITTING BURDENS AND
REFORMING THE LIFELINE PROGRAM
TO ALLOW LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS TO
APPLY THE CREDIT TO THEIR
BROADBAND SERVICE. THE MEMBERS
OF CAL C¢M ARE ALREADY
STRUGGLING FINANCIALLY. THEY
CANNOT AFFORD THE APPROACH OF AB
2239 AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2239? BEN, GO
ON BACK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
YOLANDA BENSON REPRESENTING US
TELECOM, THE BROADBAND
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN OPPOSITION
TO 2239. THANK YOU, JONATHAN
ARAMBULA, ON BEHALF OF CTIA, THE
TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY. ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ROXANNE
GOULD, REPRESENTING THE WIRELESS
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS. COMMENTS,
MADAM VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU.
CHAIR, I WAS PARTICULARLY TAKEN
WITH THE PROVIDER OF THE RURAL
SERVICES. I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT I DON'T JUST TO STIPULATE
THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ALL
PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY
ACCESSING BROADBAND ARE
NECESSARILY, INCOME IMPAIRED OR
IN LOWER ECONOMIC REGIONS. I
LIVE IN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND I
CANNOT GET BROADBAND ON AN ON A
HIGH SPEED BASIS. AND I'VE BEEN
DEALING WITH CERTAIN TELEPHONE
COMPANIES FOR YEARS, OVER TEN
YEARS, WHILE THEY'RE UPGRADING
AND UPGRADING, UPGRADING. AND I
KNOW THIS IS GOING ON ACROSS THE
STATE AND ESPECIALLY IN THE
RURAL AREAS AS WELL AS THE URBAN
AREAS. IT'S NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW
TECHNOLOGY COMING FASTER AND
FASTER, FASTER. SO I RESIST THE
NOTION THAT IT'S DISCRIMINATORY
BECAUSE I'M NOT IN YOUR TARGETED
AREA, BUT IN ECONOMICALLY, BUT
FROM A GEOGRAPHIC POINT OF VIEW.
AND I DON'T HAVE QUALITY HIGH
SPEED, SERVICE. SO, AND I'VE
CALLED THE PROVIDER MULTIPLE
TIMES, I'VE CHANGED PROVIDERS
AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF BEING
PARTICULARLY IN THIS, IN MY
CASE, IN THE COASTAL ZONE. AND
THE WIRES ARE UNDERGROUND AND
THEY GET FLOODED AND ALL THIS
KIND OF THING. SO I AM TAKEN
WITH YOUR COMMENT BECAUSE IT'S
REALLY A WRIT LARGE ON LARGER
ISSUES WHERE WE SEE A PROBLEM,
WE PUT ON ANOTHER REGULATION AND
WE INHIBIT INVESTMENT AND THE
PROBLEM JUST GETS WORSE. SO
BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THIS, THE
FCC IS LOOKING AT IT AND THEY
ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH A
SOLUTION. I JUST WOULD SAY LET'S
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
REGULATES A LOT OF THIS. I WOULD
SAY LET'S JUST WAIT AND GET THAT
ACCOMPLISHED. BUT TO PILE MORE
REGULATIONS, MORE REGULATIONS,
MORE REGULATIONS, AT SOME POINT
PEOPLE SAY THE HECK WITH IT. BUT
ANYWAY, IT'S NOT JUST IN LOWER
COMMUNITIES. I WISH I HAD BETTER
BROADBAND, SO I SYMPATHIZE. IT
SOUNDS LIKE OUR VICE CHAIR HAS
SOME ISSUES WITH HER PROVIDER.
SHE CAN TAKE THAT UP. SHE CAN
TAKE THAT UP. AFTER THE MEETING,
I SUPPOSE, AND I'LL GIVE YOU
SOME BACKUP FOR THAT, SOME REYES
. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE GOAL
OF THE LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THE
FAIR AND EQUITABLE DEPLOYMENT OF
BROADBAND ACCESS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, THAT SHOULD BE A
GOAL FOR ALL OF US. AND MAKING
SURE THAT, INTERNET PROVIDERS DO
NOT ENGAGE IN DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION. AND I THINK THAT
THIS IS THIS IS IMPORTANT TO
BEGIN TO PROVIDE THE PARAMETERS
AND THE DEFINITIONS THAT THE
PROVIDERS WOULD NEED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE
IS DISCRIMINATION. THERE ARE
COMMENTS MADE BY THE OPPOSITION.
I THINK THAT SOME THINGS THAT
ARE INCLUDED, LIKE CUSTOMER
SERVICE, SERVICE QUALITY, AND
IT'S FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, IT'S
CLEAR THAT THE CONVERSATIONS
CONTINUE WITH THE AUTHOR. AND
I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT, WITH OUR
OUR SMALL PROVIDERS, I THINK
THAT'S WHERE THE BIGGEST ISSUE
IS IN MAKING SURE THAT THAT IT
DOESN'T HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT.
AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF THE
AUTHOR, THIS IS SOMETHING THIS
IS CONVERSATION THAT WILL
CONTINUE BECAUSE WE ABSOLUTELY
NEED THE SMALLER PROVIDERS ALSO,
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
DO REACH EVERYBODY. AND IT'S
GOING TO TAKE ALL OF THE
PROVIDERS TO DO THAT. BUT I
THINK THAT THE GOAL OF MAKING
SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS
BROADBAND, THAT'S THAT'S THE
IMPORTANT GOAL HERE AND MAKING
SURE THAT WE ALL DO EVERYTHING
THAT WE HAVE TO DO. AND YOU
TALKED ABOUT PRIVATE PUBLIC
PARTNERSHIPS, BUT THAT DOESN'T
PRECLUDE ALSO HAVING THE
PARAMETERS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT AS WE PROVIDE THE
SERVICE THAT WE'RE SURE THAT
THERE IS A DISCRIMINATION. AND
I, I FEEL FEEL BAD FOR MY
COLLEAGUE, BUT I'M SURE THAT
EVEN AS THINGS WERE HAPPENING TO
HER, SHE NEVER FELT THAT SHE WAS
BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. AND
YET WE HAVE AREAS WITHIN THE
INNER CITY WHERE, FOR MANY IN
THE COMMUNITY DO ABSOLUTELY FEEL
THAT THEY ARE BEING
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, THAT THE
SERVICES ARE BEING INVESTMENTS
ARE BEING USED IN OTHER AREAS.
AND I'M TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT
INVESTMENTS IN OTHER AREAS
RATHER THAN IN THOSE AREAS THAT
MOST NEED IT. AND MAYBE IT ISN'T
DISCRIMINATION, BUT WHEN YOU ARE
THE RECIPIENT OF IT AND YOU'VE
HAD THESE THINGS HAPPEN TO YOU
BECAUSE OF WHERE YOU LIVE,
BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF YOUR
SKIN, BECAUSE OF SO MANY ISSUES,
YOU CAN'T HELP BUT THINK THAT
THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES TOO, I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE AT
LEAST CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION
, AND I THINK THAT HAVING THIS
PARTICULAR AUTHOR,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BONTA, IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE, AS
WAS MENTIONED BY THE OPPOSITION.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. IS THERE A
SECOND, A SECOND? OKAY. AND AS
WE CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
HERE, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
THERE'S BEEN, MORE THAN JUST
CONVERSATION WITH THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU, LOOK AT
PAGES SIX AND SEVEN, THE
ANALYSIS, I JUST WANT TO POINT
OUT SOME SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS
WERE TAKEN BY THE AUTHOR. SHE
CAN CERTAINLY ELABORATE ON THAT.
IF SHE SO CHOOSES. BUT, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
MOVEMENT HERE, A LOT OF HARD
WORK ON BOTH SIDES, HAS
HAPPENED. AND SO IT'S BEEN AND
SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT. IT'S
NOT JUST BEEN CONVERSATION.
THERE'S ACTUALLY BEEN VERY
CONSTRUCTIVE MOVEMENT THAT I
THINK, HAS SATISFIED SOME OF THE
CONCERNS. THERE ARE STILL OTHER
CONCERNS, BUT I THINK IT REALLY
SHOWS THAT THE AUTHOR IS MAKING
A STRONG EFFORT HERE TO WHILE
MAINTAINING THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE BILL. SO KHN CONTINUED
CONVERSATION. YEAH THANK YOU, I
JUST WANT TO START BY POINTING
OUT THAT THE BILL DOES HAVE AN
EXEMPTION FOR ISSUES THAT ARE
GENUINE ISSUES OF TECHNICAL OR
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, WHICH I
THINK ADDRESSES SOME OF WHAT THE
VICE CHAIR HAD SAID EARLIER WITH
FLOODING AND THE LIKE. THOSE I
THINK WOULD QUALIFY AS TECHNICAL
ISSUES, I IMAGINE. AND SO I
THINK, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED
TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR
AND TO COMMITTEE STAFF, AS
ALWAYS, BECAUSE AS MANY OF YOU
KNOW, I WAS A REGULATORY LAWYER
OPERATING IN LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEMES AND
IT IS NOT EASY TO DO THAT. AND I
THINK THAT THE AUTHOR HAS GONE A
LONG WAY IN ADDRESSING MY MAJOR
CONCERN, WHICH WAS INCONSISTENCY
IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW THAT
MADE IT HARD FOR INDUSTRY TO
COMPLY. AND I THINK THE AUTHOR
AND THE COMMITTEE HAVE CONTINUED
TO MOVE TOWARDS ENSURING
CONSISTENCY IN LAW SO THAT THIS
IS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN
PROTECT PEOPLE FROM
DISCRIMINATION IN A WAY THAT
ALLOWS BROADBAND TO CONTINUE TO
EXPAND, BECAUSE THAT IS
ULTIMATELY HER GOAL IS TO HAVE
BROADBAND IN EVERY SINGLE
COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
IS AIMING TO DO. AND THIS IS THE
SECOND CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING
TODAY WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
QUESTION. AND I THOUGHT MY
COLLEAGUE SAID IT SO BEAUTIFULLY
EARLIER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR
PRIMARY OBLIGATION BEING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND OFTEN IT IS
THESE COMPANIES INTEREST TO
MAXIMIZE THE BOTTOM LINE. AND
THAT IS YOUR JOB. I DON'T
CRITICIZE THAT. IT IS THE
REALITY OF WHAT YOU ARE THERE TO
DO. BUT WE AND ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE, IS
HERE TO LOOK OUT FOR THE
COMMUNITIES AND WHERE PROFIT IT
MAY NOT BE AS MAXIMIZED IN
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LOW INCOME
OR THE LIKE. WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT OUR STATE DOLLARS ARE
BEING EQUALLY USED TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO A SERVICE. NOW THAT
HAS BECOME CRITICAL TO
EDUCATION, TO EMPLOYMENT, TO THE
EVERYDAY THINGS THAT PEOPLE NEED
TO SUCCEED IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL DOES. AND HAVING AN
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT MEANS TO
ENSURE NONDISCRIMINATION IS ONLY
A GOOD THING. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR WORKING HARD ON THIS BILL,
FOR GETTING TO A PLACE WHERE I
FEEL INCREDIBLY COMFORTABLE
SUPPORTING IT. AND I KNOW SHE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SHE DOES.
BUT WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRIAN. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. THERE'S NO ONE
ELSE IN THIS BUILDING I WOULD
TRUST TO NAVIGATE THIS
CONVERSATION AS EFFICIENTLY AND
AS EFFECTIVELY AS AS YOU ARE
DOING IT. I REPRESENT PARTS OF
BEVERLY HILL AND THE BEVERLY
HILLS AND THE CRENSHAW CORRIDOR,
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT ACCESS
TO THE INTERNET IS DIFFERENT
QUALITY AND INTERNET IS
DIFFERENT, IF YOU APPLY FOR
INTERNET AND YOU JUST PUT IN THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE TWO
ZIP CODES, THE RANGE OF OPTIONS,
COME OUT DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S A
LOT OF WORK TO DO IN THIS SPACE
TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
DIFFERENCES ARE NOT ROOTED IN
ANYTHING THAT'S DISCRIMINATORY.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT IS NOT JUST SHARED IN SOUTH
LA AND PARTS OF MY DISTRICT, BUT
ALSO IN OAKLAND AND OTHER PLACES
ACROSS THE STATE, EVEN PIECES OF
THE COASTAL ZONE, AND SO I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THIS, NOT
JUST IN THIS BILL, BUT
HOLISTICALLY, AS WE HAVE THESE
BROADBAND LAST MILE AND MIDDLE
MILE CONVERSATIONS, THANK YOU.
AND I WILL BE VOTING. YES. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLYMEMBER CONNOLLY.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. ALSO WANTED TO
REALLY THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. THE
GOALS THAT IT'S PART OF A
BROADER CONVERSATION TRYING TO
KIND OF BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
IMPACT A BILL LIKE THIS COULD
HAVE, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING. SO
IF SOMEONE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CASES WOULD
FALL UNDER THIS BILL IF ENACTED.
SURE. I THINK, ONE IS THAT, JUST
TO CLARIFY, WE DID NOT INCLUDE
IN THE STATUTE ANY PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION, WHICH I THINK IS VERY
IMPORTANT, WE CONCENTRATED THE,
PROSECUTE THE ABILITY FOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS TO BE ABLE TO BRING
BRING SUIT AT A KIND OF CASE
SCENARIO. A SCENARIO WOULD BE A
COMMUNITY THAT IS LARGELY LATINO
, THAT'S, QUITE FRANKLY, HAS
MANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS
HAVE TAKEN CARE, TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF THE LOWER COST SERVICE THAT
MANY ISP PROVIDERS, OFFER THAT
FOR INCOME, QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUALS, EXPERIENCE A
DIFFERENCE IN EITHER SPEED,
RELIABILITY OR QUALITY OF
SERVICE. AND STILL KIND OF AS A
BROAD SWATH, KNOW THAT THERE IS
SOMETHING GOING ON IN THEIR
COMMUNITY RELATED TO EITHER
DEPLOYMENT OR KIND OF THE FULL
SCALE OF, OF, OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT TO
BEGIN WITH, THEY WOULD
ESSENTIALLY COME FORWARD AND
SEEK TO EITHER HAVE THEIR
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THEIR, THEIR,
THEIR CITY ATTORNEY OR THEIR,
THEIR ATTORNEY GENERAL FILE SUIT
AGAINST THE ISP PROVIDER, WHO
WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO,
THROUGH INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
REMEDY THAT SITUATION. OAN. AND
WE CAN. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND
THEN A FOLLOW UP, THANK YOU. I'M
SORRY. I CAN'T LOOK DIRECTLY AT
YOU WHILE I'M SPEAKING. I JUST
WANT TO POINT OUT THE FCC ORDER
ACTUALLY HAS A SAFE HARBOR. I
KNOW THAT OPPONENTS OF THE BILL
HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT A LACK OF
SAFE HARBOR, BUT THAT SAFE
HARBOR ACTUALLY SAYS IF YOU ARE
PARTICIPATING IN A PROGRAM THAT
GIVES YOU FEDERAL FUNDING TO
PROVIDE BROADBAND SERVICE, AND
YOU ARE COMPLYING WITH THOSE
PROGRAM'S RULES, WE ASSUME YOU
ARE, YOU ARE WE PRESUME YOU'RE
NOT DISCRIMINATING. SO, I THINK
COMPLAINTS THAT, OH, NO, WE
CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN LIFELINE OR
WILL BE AFRAID TO TAKE, FUNDING
FOR THAT, DON'T CAPTURE THE
WHOLE STORY. YEAH, YEAH. AND
JUST AS A FOLLOW UP AND, AND YOU
KIND OF, TOUCH ON THIS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, WAS WHAT ROLE DO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS PLAY IN ENSURING
THAT THERE IS NO DIGITAL
DISCRIMINATION IN ACCESS? I
THINK, AS WAS INDICATED IN THE,
ANALYSIS, MANY OF THE DEPLOYMENT
DECISIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ARE
FUNCTIONALLY A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP. RIGHT, THERE ARE
PERMITS THAT NEED TO BE GOTTEN
IN ORDER FOR AN ISP PROVIDER TO
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE
FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ABLE TO
BE BUILT, SO GOVERNMENTS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AT THE MUNICIPAL AND
COUNTY LEVEL ARE, QUITE FRANKLY,
INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE
OVERALL BEALL, OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE ANY PARTICULAR ISP PROVIDER
EXISTING IN, IN A PARTICULAR
LOCALITY. THAT'S ONE ROLE THAT
THEY PLAY. AND ULTIMATELY, AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BAUER-KAHAN
SHARED, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR LOCAL AND, COUNTY LEVEL
PROVIDERS INDICATE OR AGENTS
INDICATE WHEN THEY SEE THAT THAT
DEPLOYMENT IS RESULTING IN A
DISPARATE IMPACT FOR PARTICULAR
SWATHS OF THEIR SUBPOPULATIONS
WITHIN THEIR, WITHIN THEIR
PURVIEW. SENATOR PACHECO, THANK
YOU. I FIRST WANTED JUST TO
CLARIFY THAT BELL GARDENS IS IN
THE 64TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. IT'S
IN MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT.
REDISTRICTING BUT, I DO
APPRECIATE THAT THE AUTHOR HAS
BEEN WORKING ON A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS AND HAS BEEN PUTTING
A LOT OF WORK ON THIS BILL. I
KNOW OPPOSITION HAS CONCERNS,
AND I KNOW THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE'S, UNIVERSAL BROADBAND AND
EVERYBODY IS ABLE TO CONNECT TO
THE INTERNET. THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT, AS YOU HEARD JUST
FROM THE TESTIMONY, IN BELL
GARDENS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE NEED
RELIABLE INTERNET. THEY NEED
AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE INTERNET.
SO I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT,
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, YOU
KNOW, SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF
OPPOSITION BEING ADDRESSED
BECAUSE I'M SURE, YOU KNOW, THEY
CARE ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT
EVERYBODY HAS RELIABLE INTERNET,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALL
CARE ABOUT. AND SO I'M HOPEFUL
THAT, WITH CONTINUED DIALOG,
THIS BILL WILL BE PERFECTED EVEN
MORE THAN IT ALREADY HAS. AND I
REALLY COMMEND ALL THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE. YOU'VE DONE A LOT
OF WORK, SO I WILL BE AN EYE
TODAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MORE, MORE OF IT, REFINED SO
THAT I CAN HOPEFULLY SUPPORT IT
ALSO ON THE FLOOR. BUT THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD, THANK YOU. THE MEMBERS,
FOR, FOR THIS CONVERSATION. IT'S
IMPORTANT ONE, I REALLY WANT TO
COMMEND THE AUTHOR FOR ALL THE
WORK THAT SHE AND HER STAFF HAVE
DONE, IN WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND TRYING TO ADDRESS
AS MANY OF THEIR CONCERNS AS
POSSIBLE. AND I KNOW THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE, AND
NEXT YEAR, WE CAN START WE CAN
WORK ON THE DIANNE DIXON
EQUITABLE ACCESS ACT, BUT FOR
NOW, FOR BUT MAYBE HANY CAN
OFFER THAT ONE. AND THEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU SO
MUCH, CHAIR. AND AGAIN, I REALLY
WANT TO THANK THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE CNC COMMITTEE THAT ACTUALLY
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP SHAPE
THIS BILL, AB 2239 IS AN
INCREDIBLY CRUCIAL STEP TOWARDS
PROMOTING EQUITY AND FAIRNESS
AND ACCESS TO BROADBAND INTERNET
SERVICE ACROSS CALIFORNIA, I
AUTHORED A BILL LAST YEAR THAT
OR TWO YEARS AGO THAT IDENTIFIED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
CALIFORNIA ENGAGE IN A DIGITAL
EQUITY PLAN. WE'VE FOCUSED A LOT
OF THE ONCE IN A LIFETIME
FUNDING THAT, THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS PROVIDING TO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN BE
ISSUING TO REALLY ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE
EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR EVERYBODY.
THE REALITY IS THAT THIS FOCUS
FOR AB 2239 IS TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, EVEN DESPITE
OUR BEST INTENTS, THOSE OF THE
ISP PROVIDERS, WE STILL HAVE AN
IMPACT THAT LEADS TO MANY PEOPLE
NOT HAVING WHAT ESSENTIALLY IS
NOW AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE AND
QUITE FRANKLY, A CIVIL RIGHT
AROUND BEING ABLE TO HAVE
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO BROADBAND
INTERNET SERVICE. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY
. IF YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL ON AB
2239, PLEASE DO PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL, I CALL I
DIXON. DIXON NØ BAUER KHN BAUER
KHN. AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE.
CONNOLLY CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO PACHECO.
AYE. REYES. AYE REYES. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NØ. WALDRON
THAT BILL IS OUT. AND IF. UP
NEXT. ITEM SIX AB 2297, SUMMER
FRIEDMAN
.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE, SENATOR FRIEDMAN, AB
2297. YOU MAY PROCEED WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, AB 2297
STRENGTHENS THE PATIENTS
PROTECTIONS ACT UNDER THE
HOSPITAL FAIR PRICING ACT. THE
BILL PROHIBITS HOSPITALS AND
DEBT COLLECTORS FROM PLACING
LIENS ON PROPERTY AND ENSURES
THAT PATIENTS CAN APPLY FOR
CHARITY CARE AND FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE AT ANY TIME. THE BILL
BUILDS ON THE WORK WE DID IN
2021 WITH MY BILL AB 1020. AS
YOU'LL HEAR, WE'RE HEARING WHAT
WE ARE WORKING WITH BOTH THE
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
AND THE CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COLLECTORS TO
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. THIS
BILL CAME OUT FROM OUR STORIES.
WE WERE HEARING OF PEOPLE WHO,
UNDER THE LAW ALREADY IN
CALIFORNIA, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
OFFERED CHARITY CARE BY
HOSPITALS AND INSTEAD WERE NOT
TOLD THEIR OPTIONS. AND WE FIXED
THAT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IN
LEGISLATION. BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
WE'RE STILL HEARING THAT
SOMETIMES PATIENTS DON'T FIND
OUT ABOUT THE ABILITY TO APPLY
FOR CHARITY CARE UNTIL SOMETIMES
YEARS LATER. THEY'RE SICK WHEN
THEY'RE LEAVING THE HOSPITAL.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE JUST NOT
CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE
INFORMATION. SOMETIMES THE
INFORMATION IS NOT GIVEN TO THEM
IN A LANGUAGE THAT THEY
UNDERSTAND. THIS WILL ALLOW THEM
TO GO BACK LATER AND APPLY FOR
THAT CARE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF A
TIME, A TIME LIMIT. AND IN
ADDITION, THE LAST THING THAT WE
WANT IS SOMEBODY WHO'S HAS
MEDICAL DEBT, HAVING THEIR
PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THEM, YOU
KNOW, THOUGH MAYBE THEY HAD ONE
APARTMENT THAT THEY OWNED THAT
WAS THEIR NEST EGG. THAT WAS
WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON
RETIRING ON. AND ALL OF A
SUDDEN, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T
PAY A HOSPITAL BILL, WHICH, BY
THE WAY, NOBODY CHOOSES TO HAVE
A HOSPITAL BILL, YOU KNOW, THIS
ISN'T LIKE, OH, I JUST DECIDED
TO GO AND HAVE A HEART ATTACK
LAST WEEK. SO, TO HAVE A DEBT
COLLECTOR GO AND, YOU KNOW,
BASICALLY TAKE THEIR BELONGINGS
JUST DOESN'T SEEM IN KEEPING
WITH CALIFORNIA VALUES. WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO MY
WITNESSES. I HAVE SOMEONE FROM
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY AND LEGAL SERVICES OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. LINDA HèA WITH
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY. PROUD SPONSOR OF AB
2297, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE
USE OF HOME LIENS IN THE
COLLECTION OF UNPAID HOSPITAL
BILLS FROM FINANCIALLY QUALIFIED
PATIENTS. HOSPITALS ARE
CURRENTLY PROHIBITED FROM
PLACING LOANS ON A PATIENT'S
PRIMARY RESIDENCE, BUT ONE WAY
THIS HAS GOTTEN AROUND IS DEBT
COLLECTORS ARE ALLOWED TO PLACE
LIENS ON A PATIENT'S HOME TO
COLLECT UNPAID HOSPITAL,
HOSPITAL BILLS. UNFORTUNATELY,
PROPERTY LIENS ARE REGULARLY
USED TO COLLECT UNPAID PATIENT
DEBT. A REVIEW OF ASSESSOR DATA
FOUND THAT LÀ COUNTY ALONE HAD
OVER 140 PROPERTY LIENS,
PRIMARILY PRIMARY RESIDENTS WERE
PLACED IN 2023 DUE TO MEDICAL
DEBT. IN ADDITION, THE BILL
WOULD ELIMINATE ASSET
CONSIDERATION IN FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE DETERMINATION TO
ALIGN WITH CURRENT MEDI-CAL
ELIGIBILITY RULES TO SIMPLIFY
THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
APPLICATION PROCESS AND HELP
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS SAVINGS
FROM BEING DEPLETED WHEN SEEKING
MEDICAL CARE. CALIF LIENS NEED
THEIR SAVINGS TO PREVENT POVERTY
IN RETIREMENT AND OLDER AGE. AS
OF 2019, 7.4 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS AGED 25 TO 64 DO
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO AN EMPLOYER
SPONSORED RETIREMENT PLAN, AND
NEARLY HALF OF CALIFORNIA'S
PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS HAVE NO
RETIREMENT SAVINGS AT ALL.
FINALLY, THE BILL WOULD CLARIFY
THAT HOSPITALS MUST REVIEW
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY
AT ANY TIME AND PROHIBIT
APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. THIS BILL
PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED RELIEF FROM
LARGE HOSPITAL BILLS FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME CALIFORNIANS,
AND PASSED OUT OF ASSEMBLY
HEALTH WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS TED
MUMFORD. I'M AN ATTORNEY AT THE
LEGAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE A NONPROFIT
LEGAL AID LAW FIRM, AND I
REPRESENT INDIVIDUALS, LOW
INCOME INDIVIDUALS IN 32
COUNTIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA, I
SPECIALIZE IN HEALTHCARE ACCESS
ISSUES. IN MY TEAM, WE SEE
HUNDREDS OF MEDICAL DEBT CASES
EVERY YEAR. SO I'M GOING TO TALK
ABOUT THREE OF THOSE CASES WHERE
HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF CASES
WHERE THE HOSPITAL FAIR PRICING
ACT HAD HOLES IN IT THAT ALLOWED
THE HOSPITALS TO DENY MY
CLIENT'S CHARITY CARE
APPLICATIONS. SO THE FIRST IS I
HAD A CLIENT WHO WAS A SINGLE
MOTHER, AND THE SURVIVOR OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHOSE ABUSER
WAS HIDING HER HER BILLS, HER
MEDICAL DEBT BILLS, HER ALL THE
COURT FILINGS THAT WERE FILED
AGAINST HER TO COLLECT ON THAT
DEBT. AND SHE DIDN'T FIND OUT
THAT SHE WAS BEING SUED BY THE
HOSPITAL AND THAT A JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED AGAINST HER, UNTIL YEARS
LATER. AND HER TAX INTERCEPT OR
HER HER TAX RETURN IS BEING
INTERCEPTED, SHE APPLIED FOR
CHARITY CARE. THE HOSPITAL
DENIED IT BECAUSE IT WAS PAST
THEIR ARBITRARY DEADLINE, THE
SECOND CLIENT IS A RETIRED LOW
INCOME COUPLE WHO WOULD HAVE
BEEN ELIGIBLE WHEN THEY WENT TO
HOSPITAL TEN YEARS AGO, BUT
DIDN'T APPLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
KNOW ABOUT IT, THE HOME LIEN WAS
PLACED AGAINST THEIR THEIR HOME,
AND THEY DILIGENTLY PAID PAID
$100 A MONTH EVERY SINGLE MONTH
UNTIL THE PANDEMIC CAME AND THEY
LOST THEIR JOB. AT THAT POINT,
THEY CONTACTED US AND WE HELPED
THEM APPLY FOR CHARITY CARE.
AGAIN, THAT APPLICATION WAS
DENIED, AND THE THIRD EXAMPLE I
HAVE IS A LOW INCOME FATHER OF
TWO WHO WAS HOMELESS AT THE TIME
THAT HE RECEIVED CARE FROM THE
HOSPITAL. HE DIDN'T GET THE
BILLS BECAUSE HE WAS HOMELESS
AND DIDN'T HAVE AN ADDRESS. AND
THEN HE FOUND OUT YEARS LATER
WHEN HE HAS TWO KIDS, HE HAS A
HAS A JOB THAT HIS WAGES ARE
BEING GARNISHED BECAUSE HE
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS BILL.
THERE WAS A JUDGMENT ENTERED AND
HE AND HE TRIED TO APPLY FOR
CHARITY CARE WITH OUR HELP AT
THAT POINT. AND AGAIN, THAT
APPLICATION WAS DENIED, IN EACH
OF THESE CASES, THEY THESE WERE
PEOPLE WHO CONTACTED US AFTER
BEING SUED, THEY APPLIED FOR
CHARITY CARE. HOSPITAL DENIED
IT. AND THEN IN COURT, THE
HOSPITAL ARGUED THAT THE
EXISTING LAW ALLOWS THE HOSPITAL
TO DENY CHARITY CARE
APPLICATIONS AT ANY TIME, OR
BECAUSE THEY THEY CAN DECIDE
WHEN THERE'S AN APPLICATION
DEADLINE AND WHEN THERE'S NOT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2297? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
CALLER AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
BRIAN MIRAMONTEZ WITH AFSCME
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, LIZZIE KUTSUNA HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MARVIN PINEDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CYNTHIA VALENCIA, ACLU,
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. KATIE VAN DINES WITH
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ERIC HARRIS, DISABILITY
RIGHTS CALIFORNIA STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2297? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK. OH YES. VANESSA GONZALEZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION HERE WITH AN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
APPRECIATE THE ONGOING
DISCUSSIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING
WITH THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE
DISCUSSIONS TO ADDRESS OUR
CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2297? BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
. ESTÁN MCKENNA. YES, GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL.
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR
OUR COMMUNITIES, NO ONE SHOULD
HAVE TO LOSE THEIR HOME,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU GET YOU GET A
PERSON WHO'S ELDERLY, WHO'S PAID
FOR THEIR HOME FOR ALMOST 28
YEARS, 29 YEARS, AND GET SICK
AND THEN LOSE THEIR HOME. NO ONE
SHOULD LOSE THEIR HOME BECAUSE
THEY GOT SICK. AND SO I LOVE
THIS BILL. I MOVED THE BILL AND
I WOULD LIKE TO BE A COAUTHOR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND IS
THERE A SECOND SECOND? OKAY. WE
HAVE A SECOND. ANY OTHER
QUESTION OR COMMENT, YES. I WANT
TO SECOND THOSE COMMENTS, I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. THE REALITY IS
THAT THE NUMBER ONE DEMOGRAPHIC
POPULATION ENTERING INTO
HOMELESSNESS IS OUR ELDERLY
POPULATION. AND THE NUMBER ONE
REASON IS MEDICAL DEBT, OR
MEDICAL MEDICAL INCIDENT THAT
OCCURS. AND IT REALLY PUTS THEM
UNDERWATER. AND SO I APPRECIATE
YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT, NOT
JUST FOR OUR ELDERLY, BUT FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS, I WOULD LIKE
TO ALSO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR.
AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT AND I
THINK WE NEED TO DO BETTER FOR
PEOPLE THAT ARE VULNERABLE
WITHOUT. I WOULD REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU
TAKE THE ROLE ON AB 2297, PLEASE
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA
A KALRA. AYE. DIXON DIXON. NØ
BAUER. KHN. BAUER KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY
HANEY. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
MCKENNA AYE. MCKENNA. AYE.
PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE REYES.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NÓ. WALDRON.
OKAY. WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
AND HE'S ONE MORE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND
THEN ITEM TEN AB 2552. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO
THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK
ON THIS BILL. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE SUGGESTED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AS LAID OUT
IN THE ANALYSIS, EXPOSURE TO
ANTICOAGULANTS CAN RESULT IN
BOTH LETHAL AND SUBLETHAL
EFFECTS ON NON-TARGET WILDLIFE,
INCLUDING SEVERE SKIN DISEASE
AND DECREASED IMMUNE SYSTEM
RESPONSE. WITH YOUR PERMISSION,
I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THESE
PHOTOS AROUND THE DAIS. IF YOU
WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AND PASS
THEM ON TO SEE WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT. ANYBODY WHO'S
SEEN A BOBBY CAT OR A COYOTE
WANDERING AROUND CALIFORNIA WITH
WHAT LOOKS LIKE MANGE HAS
PROBABLY IT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY
SEEN AN ANIMAL SUFFERING FROM
POISON, FROM EATING A RAT WHO
WAS POISONED WITH ANTICOAGULANT.
RODENTICIDE. THE ANIMAL THAT
YOU'RE SEEING IS DYING, USUALLY,
OR VERY, VERY SICK. THEY ARE
BLEEDING OUT INTERNALLY BECAUSE
OF ANTICOAGULANTS WHICH PERMEATE
UP THROUGH THE FOOD CHAIN AND
DON'T DISSIPATE OUT OF THAT
TARGET ANIMAL. AB 2552 ADDS TO
WORK WE HAVE DONE IN CALIFORNIA
TO ADD THE TWO REMAINING FIRST
GENERATION ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDES KNOWN AS FCRS
CHLOROCYPHA LEÓN AND GRYPHON, TO
THE EXISTING RODENTICIDE
MORATORIUM TO BETTER PROTECT
WILDLIFE FROM UNINTENTIONAL
RODENTICIDE POISONINGS WHILE
MAINTAINING EXCEPTIONS. AND THIS
IS IMPORTANT FOR ITS USE TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, WATER
SUPPLIES, AND AGRICULTURE. IT
ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION ENACT STRONGER,
PERMANENT RESTRICTIONS ON FCRS
TO LIMIT UNINTENDED WILDLIFE
POISONINGS, WHILE MAKING CLOSE
CHLOROACETONE AND MORPHINE A
RESTRICTED MATERIAL, SO THAT
YOUR AVERAGE JOE CAN'T BUY IT AT
HOME DEPOT. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE
THING FOR A PROFESSIONAL
PESTICIDE OPERATOR TO PURCHASE
THIS, BUT NOT FOR ANYBODY TO BUY
IT OVER THE INTERNET.
ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES,
BECAUSE OF THEIR WIDESPREAD USE,
CONTINUE TO RESULT IN
UNREASONABLE NUMBER OF PUBLIC
HEALTH INCIDENTS WITH OVER 3000
HUMAN POISONINGS IN 2021 ALONE,
2300 OF THOSE INVOLVING CHILDREN
UNDER SIX YEARS OLD, ACCORDING
TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
POISON CONTROL CENTERS. SO EVEN
IF YOU'RE NOT MOVED BY THOSE
PHOTOS, I HOPE YOU'RE MOVED BY
POISONED CHILDREN. AND YES, THE
US EPA IS UNDERGOING ITS
PERIODIC REVIEW OF RODENTICIDES.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROCESS
IS TOO SLOW AND BEHIND SCHEDULE.
ONE OF MY WITNESSES WILL EXPAND
ON THE DATA TAKEN FROM THE 2023
CDF NECROPSIES, WHICH HIGHLIGHTS
CONTINUED POISONING OF WILDLIFE
FROM FROM ANTICOAGULANT ANTI
RODENTICIDES, INCLUDING THE TWO
LAST REMAINING SAFEGUARDS THIS
BILL SEEKS TO ADDRESS. SO WHILE
OPPOSITION WILL GET UP AND SAY
WE ALREADY HAVE THESE BANS, WE
KNOW AND WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
FROM DATA THAT WHAT WE HAVE
STILL OUT THERE IN THE
RODENTICIDE ARENA IS STILL
LEADING TO WIDESPREAD POISONINGS
, AND THE OTHER THING THAT'S
REALLY IRONIC IS THAT
RODENTICIDES ACTUALLY ARE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO WHAT
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS
RODENT CONTROL, BECAUSE THE
BETTER WAY TO CONTROL RODENTS IS
BY HAVING PREDATORS THAT THAT
ARE OUT THERE IN NATURE
ATTACKING THEM, AND RODENTICIDE
KILLS ANY ANIMAL THAT EATS A
RAT. SO WHAT IT'S DOING IS IT'S
KILLING THE HAWKS, IT'S KILLING
THE BOBCATS, IT'S KILLING THE
COYOTES, THE ANIMALS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE KEEPING THOSE
RODENT CONTROLS IN CHECK. AND WE
KNOW THAT BECAUSE STUDIES HAVE
TESTED THE ANTICOAGULANTS
AGAINST, BETTER PREDATOR, YOU
KNOW, ALLOWING THE PREDATORS TO
DO THEIR JOB. AND GUESS WHAT
WINS? THE PREDATORS TESTIFYING
AND SUPPORT THIS MORNING IS
DOCTOR REBECCA GULLY, A SMITH
FELLOW AND POSTDOC AT UC DAVIS,
AND JONATHAN EVANS EVANS,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LEGAL
DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ATTORNEY
WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY. WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OKAY. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
DOCTOR REBECCA GULLY. I AM A
CONSERVATION SCIENTIST LOOKING
AT THE IMPACTS OF RODENTICIDES
IN CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE. THE
CALIFORNIA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION
ACT OF 2020 RESTRICTED THE USE
OF SECOND GENERATION
ANTICOAGULANTS. HOWEVER
NECROPSIES PERFORMED BY CDFW IN
2023 SHOWED THAT OVER 73% OF
WILDLIFE ARE STILL TESTING
POSITIVE FOR SECOND GENERATION
ANTICOAGULANTS AND OVER 57%
TESTED POSITIVE FOR FIRST
GENERATION ANTICOAGULANTS,
INCLUDING CLOFAZIMINE AND
WARFARIN. THE POISONS ADDRESSED
IN THIS BILL, THE ENDANGERED SAN
JOAQUIN KIT FOX, WAS AMONG THOSE
WITH HIGH EXPOSURE TO BOTH FIRST
AND SECOND GENERATION
RODENTICIDES AND WHEN THESE
POISONS DON'T DIRECTLY KILL
INDIVIDUALS, THEY MAKE THEM SICK
AND WEAK. THE SUBLETHAL IMPACTS
OF ANTICOAGULANTS HAVE BEEN
ASSOCIATED WITH THERMOREGULATORY
DYSFUNCTION, INCREASED PARASITE
AND PATHOGEN LOAD, REDUCED EGG
HATCHING, AND LOWERED FLEDGING
SUCCESS. WILDLIFE HAVE A RIGHT
TO NOT BE POISONED, PROVIDING
PROTECTED BUFFER ZONES AROUND
THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES IS A
WELL-ESTABLISHED AND
SCIENTIFICALLY BACKED MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE, AND ONE THAT IN THIS
CASE ALLOWS HABITAT, HABITAT,
AND HOME RANGE FOR WILDLIFE THAT
IS FREE FROM POISON. WHILE
CONCERN HAS BEEN RAISED THAT THE
REMAINING RODENTICIDES HAVE NO
ANTIDOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT NO RODENTICIDES
SHOULD BE USED AROUND CHILDREN
OR PETS, AND THAT FOR WILDLIFE
POISONED WITH ANTICOAGULANTS,
IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO SAVE
THEM. EVEN WITH AN ANTIDOTE. THE
USE OF ANTICOAGULANTS ARE ALSO A
PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN. IN A 2021
STUDY BY MURRAY AND SANCHEZ, IT
WAS FOUND THAT POISONED RATS
WERE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE LIKELY
TO BE INFECTED WITH LEPTOSPIRA
THAN NON POISONED RATS, AND THIS
CAN BE PASSED TO HUMANS.
FERTILITY CONTROLS SUCCESSFULLY
REDUCES RODENT POPULATIONS, BUT
IT DOES NOT DISRUPT THEIR IMMUNE
SYSTEM. FURTHER ALTERNATIVES
INCLUDE HAWKS AND OWLS. A TWO
YEAR LONG STUDY IN VENTURA
COUNTY FOUND THAT INSTALLING
RAPTOR PATCHES AND OWL BOXES WAS
MORE SUCCESSFUL AND LESS
EXPENSIVE, THAN POISONS IN
CONTROLLING GROUND SQUIRRELS.
THIS BILL WILL HELP KEEP MOVING
CALIFORNIA TO A MORE BIODIVERSE
AND COMPASSIONATE FUTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JONATHAN
EVANS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
LEGAL DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES,
INCLUDING THOSE COVERED BY THE
POISON FREE WILDLIFE ACT, ARE
SOME OF THE MOST SCIENTIFICALLY
STUDIED AND WIDESPREAD WILDLIFE
POISONS, ANTICOAGULANTS HAVE A
UNIQUE MODE OF TOXICITY THAT
MAKES THEM PARTICULARLY LETHAL
TO OTHER ANIMALS IN THE FOOD
WEB, BECAUSE THEY BIOACCUMULATE
AND CREATE A CUMULATIVE BODY
BURDEN IN WILDLIFE AS THEY GO
HIGHER UP THE FOOD CHAIN. THAT'S
WHY WE SEE THIS WIDESPREAD
POISONING. AS DOCTOR GULLY
ALLUDED TO, THE MOST RECENT DATA
FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SHOWED THAT
THE WILDLIFE POISONINGS WERE
WIDESPREAD. OVER 88% OF BIRDS OF
PREY, LIKE HAWKS AND OWLS ARE
TESTING POSITIVE. OVER 86% OF
BOBCATS, INCLUDING THE MAJORITY
OF MOUNTAIN LIONS, ARE TESTING
POSITIVE. THE POISON FREE
WILDLIFE ACT WORKS STEPWISE TO
WITH PREVIOUS BILLS TO ADD THE
REMAINING ANTICOAGULANTS TO THE
MORATORIUMS OF AB 1788 AND AB
1322 TO REDUCE THE CUMULATIVE
THREATS TO NON-TARGET WILDLIFE,
AND THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO ACT
BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR
REGULATORY AGENCIES HAVE FAILED
US. THESE ARE SOME OF THE
RODENTS THAT ARE COVERED BY THIS
BILL, HAVE BEEN IN REEVALUATION
FOR OVER FIVE YEARS. WE SEE DPR
NOT ACTING IN THAT. IN THAT
SENSE, AND THAT'S NOT UNIQUE TO
ANTICOAGULANTS. DPR HAS HAD
CHLOROPICRIN A WORLD WAR ONE
NERVE GAS AND REEVALUATION FOR
OVER 23 YEARS. SO WE NEED THE
LEGISLATURE TO ACT AND
IMPORTANTLY, WE DON'T NEED THESE
DANGEROUS RODENTICIDES. SAFER
COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES ARE
READILY AVAILABLE, NECESSARY AND
FREQUENTLY USED IN PEST CONTROL,
SEALING BUILDINGS, AND
ELIMINATING FOOD AND WATER
SOURCES ARE NECESSARY. FIRST
STEP FERTILITY CONTROL HAS
PROVEN HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN
REDUCING RODENT POPULATIONS AND
IS ALREADY IN USE BY MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENTS IN CALIFORNIA, AND
LETHAL RODENT CONTROL STRATEGIES
THAT INVOLVE SNAP TRAPS AND
ELECTRIC TRAPS CAN THEN BE
IMPLEMENTED. AND IMPORTANTLY,
THERE ARE OVER 100 DIFFERENT
RODENTICIDE PRODUCTS THAT STILL
WOULD BE AVAILABLE AND DON'T
POSE AS GREAT OF A THREAT TO
WILDLIFE IF THIS BILL PASSES. SO
WE HAVE OUR OPPOSITION
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY SAY THAT
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO USE
RODENTICIDES IF A PORTION OF
THIS WILDLIFE BUFFER BUFFER AREA
IS ENACTED. THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF
ALTERNATIVES OUT THERE. WE
REQUEST AN IBO THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2552? GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, SUSAN MADINET W
STRATEGIES HERE ON BEHALF OF
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LIZZIE
KUPTANA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL AND THE HUMANE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. PAT MORAN WITH
AARON REED AND ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL
SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, PAUL
GONSALVES, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF 1000 OAKS AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. KENNY, NICHOLAS HACKETT,
FOR SOCIAL COMPASSION IN
LEGISLATION, IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, JENNIFER
FEERING, ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO
HUMANE SOCIETY AND OUR AFFILIATE
PROJECT WILDLIFE, WHICH IS THE
STATE'S LARGEST NATIVE WILDLIFE
REHABILITATOR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, STOCKTON ANIMAL SAVE AND
SOMEBODY TO LOVE SMALL ANIMAL
RESCUE AND SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CARLA
CABRAL, 16 YEAR RESEARCH
SCIENTIST AND EMERGENCY ROOM
VETERINARY TECHNICIAN IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
NICHOLAS MAZZOTTI, ON BEHALF OF
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2552? GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. TAYLOR OCEAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE RODENTICIDE TASK
FORCE, IN A SERIES OF
AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS AND
OPPOSITION, WE'D LIKE TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
BILL. REGARDING THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION IS CERTAINLY AN
IMPROVEMENT ON THE BILL IN
PRINT, BUT WE'RE STILL OPPOSED
BASED ON A SERIES OF FACTORS.
FIRSTLY, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A WE
HAVE ROBUST ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES FOR THE ILLEGAL SALE,
USE AND POSSESSION OF
PESTICIDES. SO IMPOSING
ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTIES, WE
FEEL, IS AN UNNECESSARY
INCLUSION. MORE SO, THE ANALYSIS
SUGGESTS THAT THE AUTHOR IS
WORKING ON A SERIES OF
AMENDMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC TO
NOTIFY STATE AND LOCAL ATTORNEYS
ABOUT POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS. WE
ALREADY HAVE PROCEDURES IN PLACE
FOR REPORTING, USE VIOLATIONS,
INCLUDING WITH COUNTY AG
COMMISSIONERS, DPR AND THE
STRUCTURAL PEST LICENSING BOARD.
THEY ARE BEST EQUIPPED TO HANDLE
AND VERIFIED PESTICIDE
COMPLAINTS RATHER THAN
INUNDATING LOCAL ATTORNEYS. WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS LANGUAGE
WILL LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE PROCESS
WILL ENTAIL, WHAT THE
EVIDENTIARY STANDARD WILL BE,
AND WHAT THE WORKLOAD WILL BE.
AND AS SUCH, WE ENCOURAGE THE
COMMITTEE TO ASK FOR THE BILL
BACK AND REVIEW THIS NEW
LANGUAGE WHEN AND IF IT IS
INCLUDED. SECONDLY, WE OBJECT TO
THE BILL BASED ON AN ABDICATION
OF THE PROCESS IN PLACE BY DPR.
DPR HAS A PROCEDURE TO REVIEW
IMPACTS, INCLUDING ON NON-TARGET
SPECIES, AND WHEN LEGITIMATE
INFORMATION IS PRESENTED, DPR IS
OBLIGATED TO MITIGATE OR CANCEL
PRODUCTS ALTOGETHER. IRONICALLY,
WE AGREE THAT THE DEPARTMENT
DOESN'T ACT QUICKLY ENOUGH IN
SOME FORM OR FASHION, BUT RATHER
THAN OBLIGATE THEM TO REVIEW THE
DATA AND ISSUE A DETERMINATION
TO THE LEGISLATURE IN A PUBLIC
BY A PARTICULAR DATE, WHICH HAS
BEEN DONE ON RODENTICIDES AND BY
MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND
LEGISLATION. AB 2552 BANS THE
PRODUCTS OUTRIGHT AND THERE IS
NOT AN AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION,
WE BELIEVE OUR AGENCIES ARE BEST
SUITED TO OPINE ON SCIENCE, AND
IT IS THE LEGISLATURE'S PURVIEW
TO DIRECT THEM TO DO SO.
FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THIS IS THE FIFTH BILL THIS
YEAR, DEBATING INDIVIDUAL OR
GROUPS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS,
ARGUING THE STATE IS NOT MOVING
FAST ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT,
THOUGH IT IS NOT THE PURVIEW OF
THIS COMMITTEE. IF WE KEEP
LEGISLATING PRODUCTS AWAY
WITHOUT ENSURING THAT THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVES OR AT LEAST A
PROCESS TO REGISTER
ALTERNATIVES, WE WILL FOREVER BE
IN A FEEDBACK LOOP OF AN
UNDER-RESOURCED DEPARTMENT, MET
WITH CONCERNS THAT ARE NOT
MOVING QUICKLY ENOUGH TO REVIEW
PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT SAFETY,
FOLLOWED BY LEGISLATION TO
REMOVE THEIR FUND SOURCES AND DO
THE WORK THAT THE DEPARTMENT AND
THE PUBLIC EXPECTS TO BE DONE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
BLAIR SMITH. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF
TECHNICAL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
FOR CLARKE PEST CONTROL, A
COMPANY HERE IN THE STATE AND A
MEMBER OF PEACOCK, THE PEST
CONTROL OPERATORS OF CALIFORNIA.
NOW, AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED,
RODENTICIDES ARE A CRUCIAL TOOL
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN
THE STATE. AND THAT'S NOT JUST
ON THE FARM, BUT THROUGHOUT THE
FOOD CHAIN, FROM FARM TO FORK.
NOW, CLARKE PEST CONTROL IS ONE
OF MANY COMPANIES IN THE STATE
THAT SERVICES LARGE AUDITED FOOD
PROCESSING FACILITIES USING
ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES AT
THESE PLACES IS CURRENTLY
ALLOWED UNDER THE EXEMPTION, PUT
IN PLACE BY PREVIOUS BILLS. BUT
OF COURSE THIS WOULD CHANGE
THOSE FOR CUSTOMERS OF OURS WHO
LIE WITHIN A 20 500 FOOT BUFFER
ZONE OF THESE WILDLIFE HABITAT
AREAS. NOW, EXAMPLES THAT COME
TO MY MIND OF CUSTOMERS, THIS
WOULD IMPACT OUR SACRAMENTO
VALLEY RICE OPERATORS, PRODUCE
PROCESSORS IN THE SALINAS VALLEY
AND COUNTLESS WINERIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE ARE
TOOLS IN A COMPREHENSIVE RODENT
MANAGEMENT PLAN, MANY OF THE
ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ARE THINGS
THAT WE ARE INTEGRATED INTO OUR
PROGRAMS AND ARE ACTIVELY
WORKING TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE
OF, YOU KNOW, OF THESE ACTIVES
AND USE THEM RESPONSIBLY, TO
TOUCH ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION PIECE. THIS BILL
MAINTAINS CIVIL LIABILITY AND
ALLOWS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
BRING ACTION BY REQUEST OF
MULTIPLE AGENCIES, WHETHER
THAT'S DFW, DPR, AND OTHERS, BUT
IT FAILS TO ANSWER OTHER KEY
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD
REALLY WORK. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IS
THE CITY PROSECUTOR REQUIRED TO
RESPOND TO THESE REQUESTS? CAN
THEY REFUSE? AND IF SO, WHAT
HAPPENS, AND ARE ANY MINIMUM,
REQUIREMENTS OF EVIDENCE
REQUIRED TO, BE MET, YOU KNOW,
BEFORE THESE CLAIMS ARE BROUGHT
FORTH TO JUST PREVENT AN INFLUX
OF, YOU KNOW, FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS.
SO AS, AS WAS ALSO MENTIONED,
THERE ARE EXISTING WAYS FOR
PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT AND
REGULATION THROUGH DPR AND
THROUGH OUR COUNTY AG
COMMISSIONERS, THESE MECHANISM
SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND
IMPROVED BEFORE CREATING NEW
PATHWAYS. SO FOR THOSE REASONS,
I URGE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2552?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AARON NORWOOD, ON
BEHALF OF THE ALLMAN ALLIANCE,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
DENNIS ALBA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GRAIN AND FEED
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SEED,
SEVERAL OTHER AG ORGANIZATIONS
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, CHRIS
REARDON, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SKYLAR
WONACOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. MARGIE LEE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS, IN OPPOSITION, THANK
YOU, ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, WE WILL BE REMOVING
OUR OPPOSITION IN LIGHT OF THE
AMENDMENTS, REMOVING THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DEAN TALLY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU,
JASON, BRIAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION, WE'RE IN OPPOSITION
AS WELL. THANK YOU. BRING THIS
BACK TO COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS
, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? ANYONE
ANYONE? SO WE'RE BACK AGAIN. I
MEAN, SINCE YOU ASKED THREE
TIMES, MR. CHAIR, SO, YOU KNOW,
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LEADERSHIP IN
THIS SPACE, THIS IS MY FIRST
TIME HEARING THIS IN JUDICIARY,
BUT I HEARD IT ON TÌM. LIKE
DIFFERENT BILLS YOU'VE DONE IN
THIS SPACE MANY TIMES. AND I
THINK YOUR DEDICATION TO
CALIFORNIA'S WILDLIFE, BOTH IN
THIS REGARD AND OTHERS, IS
OBVIOUSLY INCREDIBLY IMPACTFUL.
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU. I KNOW
THAT IN PAST ITERATIONS OF
SIMILAR WORK. SO THIS BILL IS
OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT. YOU HAVE,
DONE CERTAIN THINGS TO ALLOW FOR
AGRICULTURAL USE. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS
BILL. NO AGRICULTURE IS EXEMPT.
OH, IT IS OKAY. WHAT THEY'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THERE IS
A 2500 FOOT BUFFER. IF YOU'RE
NEXT TO A DESIGNATED WILDLIFE
ZONE BEING A PARK. SO NOT JUST
OPEN SPACE, YOU HAVE TO BE A
WILD A WILDLIFE ZONE AS
DESIGNATED BY A CITY BY, BY BY
THE STATE. SO IT HAS TO BE A
WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA. GOT IT.
SUPER HELPFUL. THANK YOU. THE
REST OF AGRICULTURE IS EXEMPT.
THANK YOU. YEAH AND IT'S ONLY
THE 2500FT. IT'S NOT LIKE THE
REST OF YOUR FARM. IT'S THAT
AREA. YEAH ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION
? OH, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE
A SECOND, SECOND. AND WE HAVE A
SECOND, OKAY. SO WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. I ALSO WANT
TO THANK YOU, SENATOR FRIEDMAN,
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS
SPACE, APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR
WORK WITH OPPOSITION AND TAKING
AMENDMENTS, THAT HAVE CLEARLY
REMOVED SOME OF THE OPPOSITION.
I KNOW YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK,
ON THIS BILL AS IT MOVES
FORWARD. HOPEFULLY, IT DOES HAVE
A DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
RECOMMENDATION. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY
ONE THING. FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE LANGUAGE
ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. OF COURSE,
WE'LL WE'LL TALK TO THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT THAT. THE
REASON THAT CAME ABOUT IS THAT
ONE OF OUR URBAN CITY ATTORNEYS
ASKED TO BE INCLUDED SO THAT
THEY COULD DO ENFORCEMENT
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER
AGENCY TO HELP THEM. AND THE
ENFORCEMENT IS NOT AGAINST
SOMEBODY USING THE PESTICIDE.
IT'S AGAINST SOMEBODY WHO SELLS
AN ILLEGAL PESTICIDE, A
PESTICIDE THAT'S BANNED. SO I
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. WITH THAT,
I WOULD REQUEST AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IF YOU
TAKE A ROLL CALL ON AB 2552,
PLEASE DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALLER. AYE. DIXON DIXON. NØ
BAUER-KAHAN. BAUER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN AYE. BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY.
HANEY HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
MCKENNA. PACHECO PACHECO. AYE.
REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NØ.
WALDRON. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL AND A COUPLE
MORE VOTES. UP NEXT, ITEM SEVEN
AB 2404. LEE IN THE MEANTIME,
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, PLEASE? WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. TAKE
A ROLL CALL ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. CONSENT IS AB 2228 VÆ
VALLAPUDUA AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2420 402
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2625 BRIAN TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2859 JIM
PATTERSON, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB 2898 WENDY
CORREA TO THE FLOOR. AB 2992.
NGUYEN, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATION AB 2993 GRAYSON TO
APPROPRIATIONS, AB 3139 WEBER,
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS,
AB 3265 BRIAN TO APPROPRIATIONS.
ACR 169 COBRA TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHOLERA I CHOLERA I DIXON. DIXON
I BAUER. KHN BAUER-KAHAN I
BRIAN. BRIAN I CONNOLLY. HANEY.
HANEY I MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA.
PACHECO. I. PACHECO. I REYES.
SANCHEZ. WALDRON ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL PLACE THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ON CALL. I NEED ONE MORE VOTE
FOR THAT ONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. I'M EARLY. YOU MAY
BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. THIS BILL AB TWO
404, WILL PROTECT PUBLIC SECTOR
WORKERS RIGHTS TO HONOR OTHER
UNIONS PICKET LINES DURING A
STRIKE. THE RIGHT TO
COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN AND STRIKE
ARE FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC
RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS. THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
GIVES PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. A FURTHER
SPECIFIES THAT NOTHING IN THE
ACT CAN INTERFERE WITH, OR
IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE OR TO AFFECT
THE LIMITATIONS OR
QUALIFICATIONS ON THAT RIGHT.
LIKE THE FEDERAL LAW, CALIFORNIA
HAS ENACTED LAWS GIVING PUBLIC
SECTOR WORKERS THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE. THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD HAS AFFIRMED
THAT PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES
HAVE THE STATUTORILY PROTECTED
RIGHT TO STRIKE, AND THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES THAT GO ON STRIKE ARE
PROTECTED FROM DISCIPLINE BY
EMPLOYER FOR PARTICIPATION.
THÀNH AB 2404 DECLARES THAT
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MAY DEMONSTRATE
SOLIDARITY WITH OTHER PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES BY HONORING A STRIKE
OR REFUSING TO ENTER THE
PREMISES OR PERFORM WORK FOR A
PUBLIC EMPLOYER. ENGAGE IN A
PRIMARY STRIKE. THE RIGHT TO
HONOR A PICKET LINE IS NOT JUST
A DEMOCRATIC RIGHT. IT IS A
MATTER OF CONSCIENCE FOR MANY
CALIFORNIANS, IT IS A CHOICE
THAT PEOPLE MAKE ACCORDING TO
WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS MORALLY
CORRECT. IN LIGHT OF RECENT
EMPLOYER ACTIONS, CALIFORNIA
NEEDS TO ENSURE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RIGHT TO HONOR AND SUPPORT
STRIKES. I'M RESPECTFULLY ASKING
FOR YOUR I VOTE AND SPEAKING IN
SUPPORT TODAY. I HAVE NEIL
SWEENEY, WHO'S CO-PRESIDENT OF
UAW 4811, THE UNION OF
REPRESENTING NEARLY 50,000
ACADEMIC WORKERS AT UC, AND IVAN
FERNANDEZ WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE SAID, MY
NAME IS NEIL SWEENEY. I'M
CO-PRESIDENT OF UAW 4811,
REPRESENTING ABOUT 50,000
ECONOMIC WORKERS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. I'M A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT GIVING INDIVIDUAL WORKERS
THE RIGHT TO PERSONALLY CHOOSE
TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH
THEIR COWORKERS WITHOUT BEING
DISCIPLINED OR FIRED, AND THE
RIGHT TO HONOR THEIR OWN MORAL
COMPASSES. IN LATE 2022, FOUR
BARGAINING UNITS OF MY UNION
WENT ON STRIKE TOGETHER OVER
UC'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
BAD FAITH BARGAINING. WE FELT
SOLIDARITY FROM EVERY CORNER OF
THE LABOR MOVEMENT, INCLUDING
UPS TEAMSTERS, WHO HAVE THE
CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO RESPECT
PICKET LINES AND TURN THEIR
TRUCKS AROUND. HOWEVER, WE ALSO
EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND THE MORAL
INJURY THAT IS CAUSED WHEN
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS DO NOT RESPECT
THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF
WORKERS TO ABIDE BY THEIR
CONSCIENCE AND HONOR A PICKET
LINE. WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR
BARGAINING UNITS SETTLED THEIR
CONTRACTS AFTER ABOUT A MONTH ON
STRIKE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF
THOSE UNITS WERE FORCED TO CROSS
THE PICKET LINES OF THE OTHER
TWO UNITS, WHO REMAINED ON
STRIKE FOR ABOUT TWO MORE WEEKS
BY PITTING WORKERS AGAINST
WORKERS. THIS CREATED A HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR MEMBERS OF
EVERY OTHER UNION AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WERE
ALSO FORCED TO CROSS THE PICKET
LINE OR FACE DISCIPLINE, FORCING
THEM TO ACT AGAINST THEIR
CONSCIENCE. AB TWO 404 WILL
PROTECT THE RIGHT TO HONOR
PICKET LINES AS AN ESSENTIAL
RIGHT FOR ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES,
AND ENSHRINE THIS FIRST
AMENDMENT FREEDOM INTO
CALIFORNIA LAW. IT WILL ALSO
ENCOURAGE GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS AND SPEEDY
RESOLUTIONS SO THAT WORKERS CAN
GET BACK TO THE WORK THEY WANT
TO DO. SERVING THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA. I RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOU TO VOTE AYE ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. YVONNE FERNANDES,
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
AB 2404, A BILL THAT, AS
MENTIONED, WILL PROTECT A PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO HONOR A
PICKET LINE DURING A LABOR
STRIKE. AS HIGHLIGHTED BY MY
COLLEAGUE REPRESENTING UAW, 4811
AB 2404 SERVES AS A DIRECT
RESPONSE TO THE UC WIDE UAW
STRIKES THAT OCCURRED AT THE END
OF 2022. DURING THIS PERIOD, UC
WORKERS REPRESENTED BY OTHER
CAMPUS UNIONS WERE UNABLE TO
HONOR THEIR COLLEAGUES PICKET
LINES, IN ADDITION TO NOT BEING
FORCED INTO HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENTS BY CROSSING STRIKE
LINES, WORKERS SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO COMPROMISE THEIR RIGHTS AND
ABILITY TO ACT ACCORDING TO
THEIR CONSCIENCE IN ORDER TO
AVOID DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FROM
THEIR EMPLOYERS, WHILE
PROTECTING WORKERS ACROSS THE
STATE. AB 2402 2404 DOES NOT
COMPEL ANY WORKER TO GO ON
STRIKE, BUT RATHER IT PROTECTS
THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO
RESPECT A PICKET LINE. DECIDING
TO GO ON STRIKE. DECIDING TO
RESPECT A PICKET LINE IS AN
EXTREMELY CHALLENGING DECISION,
ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS
WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THEIR
WORK, AND THAT DECISION IS NOT
MADE ANY EASIER BY THIS BILL. AB
2404 IS ABOUT GIVING AN
INDIVIDUAL WORKER THE RIGHT TO
PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO STAND IN
SOLIDARITY WITH THEIR COWORKERS
WITHOUT BEING DISCIPLINED OR
FIRED, AND THEIR RIGHT TO HONOR
THEIR OWN MORAL COMPASS. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY ANYONE
ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE SUPPORT AB
2404. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
KOBE BOUZIDI WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRIC
TECHNICIANS, ALSO IN SUPPORT.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, SHANE
GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS, THE AMALGAMATED
TRANSIT UNION AND THE MACHINISTS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHRIS
MYERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SANDRA
BREWER FROM SEIU CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, BRIAN
MIRAMONTES WITH ASK ME
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. LOUIE
COSTA WITH SMART TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, PAT
BROWN WITH AARON REID AND
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, UAW IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SETH BROWN.
BILL, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2404?
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS SARAH DUQUETTE, ON
BEHALF OF THE RURAL COUNTY, THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, OUR CONCERNS WITH AB
TWO 404 ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
ISSUES RAISED IN RESPONSE TO
LAST YEAR'S AB 504, WHICH THIS
IS A REINTRODUCTION OF, AND IS
ALSO REFLECTED IN THE VETOES
MESSAGE BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM,
STATING UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BILL
IS OVERLY BROAD IN SCOPE AND
IMPACT. THE BILL HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO SERIOUSLY DISRUPT
OR EVEN HALT THE DELIVERY OF
CRITICAL SERVICES, PARTICULARLY
IN PLACES WHERE THE PUBLIC
SERVICES ARE CO-LOCATED. THIS
COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ON A VARIETY OF
GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING
PROVISIONS OF SERVICES AND RURAL
COMMUNITY WHERE CO-LOCATION IS
COMMON AND ACCESSIBILITY OF A
VARIETY OF SAFETY NET PROGRAMS
FOR MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS IN
RURAL COMMUNITIES IS COMMON. TO
SEE CO-LOCATION OF GOVERNMENT
SERVICES FOR EXAMPLE, MOST OF
OUR COURTS AND OUR COUNTIES HAVE
CO-LOCATED SERVICES. I HAVE A
REMOTE HEALTH CARE DISTRICT THAT
ALSO HAS COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES CO-LOCATED.
I HAVE A CAMPUS WHERE WE HAVE A
PUBLIC LIBRARY, A COUNTY MUSEUM,
AND THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES, OR A
REALLY REMOTE COASTAL CITY WHERE
WE HAVE CO-LOCATION OF PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES WITH THE
COUNTY, BECAUSE THERE ARE
ANYWHERE FROM 2 TO 4 HOURS AWAY
FROM THE COUNTY SEAT, PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS THAT BARGAINED IN GOOD
FAITH AND HAVE AN APPROVED MOU
AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT BE
PENALIZED FOR SHARING A BUSINESS
SPACE WITH ANOTHER ANOTHER
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
CO-LOCATED AGENCIES, OUR
COMMUNITIES MAY BE LEFT WITHOUT
NEEDED SERVICES, SHUTTING DOWN
NON STRUCK AGENCIES FOR SYMPATHY
STRIKES. AS AN EXTREME APPROACH
THAT GOES WELL BEYOND WHAT IS
ALLOWED FOR PRIMARY STRIKES AND
RISKED THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND
SAFETY. FOR THESE REASONS, OUR
CRC IS OPPOSED. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. JOHNNY PINA WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HERE
TODAY IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
OF 2420 404, STATE LAW GOVERNING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARE IN
PLACE TO ENSURE A FAIR PROCESS
FOR BOTH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND
PUBLIC ENTITIES. AB 2404 WOULD
UPEND THE CURRENT BARGAINING
PROCESS, WHICH ALLOWS WHICH
WHICH ALLOWS STRIKING ONLY AND
SPECIFIED LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND WOULD POSE A SERIOUS PROBLEM
FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT ARE
PROVIDING ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
SERVICES. THIS BILL WOULD ALLOW
THOSE WHO HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS TO NOW
REFUSE TO WORK, SIMPLY BECAUSE
ANOTHER BARGAINING UNIT IS
ENGAGING IN STRIKING, ALLOWING
ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, WITH
LIMITED EXCEPTION TO JOIN A
STRIKING BARGAINING UNIT IN
WHICH THAT EMPLOYEE IS NOT A
MEMBER, COULD LEAD TO SEVERE
WORKFORCE STOPPAGE. LOCAL MAS.
LOCAL. LOCAL. LOCAL. MOU
PROVISIONS AROUND STRIKING AND
SYMPATHY STRIKING ENSURE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE CRITICAL
SERVICES. THE NO STRIKE
PROVISIONS IN LOCAL CONTRACTS
HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY BOTH
PARTIES IN GOOD FAITH, OFTEN DUE
TO CRITICAL NATURE OF THE
EMPLOYEES JOBS. AS LOCAL
AGENCIES, WE HAVE A STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE
SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THIS BILL
JEOPARDIZES THE DELIVERY OF
THOSE SERVICES AND UNDERMINES
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PROCESS. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE'RE OPPOSED, BUT LOOK FORWARD
TO A CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2404? CAITLIN DEAN,
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF PRISM
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
AARON AVERY, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. JEAN HURST
ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES
OF CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. I'LL BRING THIS BACK
TO COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS. SURE. MADAM
VICE CHAIR, I WANT TO BE
CERTAINLY RESPECTFUL OF THE
EXISTING LAWS, BUT I JUST WANT
TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO
IF THERE IS A STRIKE BY ONE,
BARGAINING UNIT ON PROXIMITY OR
ON THE SAME PREMISES OF A
SCHOOL, SO THE TEACHERS WOULD
STRIKE, BE ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE IN A FRIENDLY STRIKE
AS WELL, STOP WORK STOPPAGE,
TEACHERS. THAT'S MY SPECIFIC
QUESTION, YES. THIS THIS BILL
DOES APPLY TO ALL PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES WITH THOSE EXEMPTED IN
THE BILL THAT WE WORKED WITH
LAST YEAR. AND WITH,
STAKEHOLDERS. SO CURRENTLY,
THOSE WHO ARE NOT INCLUDED UNDER
THE BILL ARE CERTAIN PEACE
OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS. BUT
YES, TEACHERS ARE COVERED. SO
THE RISK TO OUR STUDENTS, OUR
CHILDREN HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH SO
MUCH THROUGH THE PANDEMIC AND
LOST THEIR PRESENCE IN THE
CLASSROOM AND HERE'S THE RISK TO
THEIR CONTINUED PRESENCE. IT
CONCERNS ME. JUST TO CLARIFY,
TEACHERS CAN STRIKE NOW. I'M
SORRY TEACHERS CAN STRIKE NOW.
NO, I KNOW, BUT THIS WOULD BE
SOME OTHER UNIT. AND THERE'S
STRIKING AND SYMPATHY. SO IT'S
NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTING THEIR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S ADJACENCY.
AND SO IN SYMPATHY AS I
UNDERSTAND YOUR BILL, THEN THE
TEACHERS WOULD BE PERMITTED TO
STRIKE. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH.
OKAY. THANK YOU, SENATOR
O'BRIEN. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT
IS SOME PEACE OFFICERS MEAN,
YEAH. SO LAST YEAR WE INCLUDED
CERTAIN, LIKE HIGHWAY PATROL
FROM LAST YEAR. AND WE CAN GET
YOU SPECIFICS ON THE TYPES OF
PEACE OFFICERS THAT ARE EXEMPT.
PRISON GUARDS, LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT, SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENTS, WE CAN WE CAN GIVE
YOU THE SPECIFICS ON IT. MOVE IT
DOWN, SIR, A SECOND SECOND, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. I KNOW IT'S,
IT'S BEEN A JOURNEY FOR IT. AND
HOPEFULLY IT'LL CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
, I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
THIS BILL AND DISCUSSIONS WITH
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED.
AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THE
DEMOCRATIC AND WORKER RIGHT TO
HONOR STRIKES, ESPECIALLY WHEN
YOU'RE ON THE, ESPECIALLY WITH
YOUR FELLOW WORKERS. SO
CONTINUE, LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS,
AND WE'LL CONTINUE A
CONVERSATION WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE OF COURSE, THIS WAS A
BILL THAT WAS CARRIED BY A
SIMILAR REYES LAST YEAR AND WAS
VETOED. BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO
MOVE FORWARD. CONVERSATION.
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. Þ. YEAH. SO I CAN
JUST I JUST BECAUSE OF THE
QUESTION ASKED, MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THE BILL WAS THAT THE
SYMPATHY STRIKE WOULD HAVE TO BE
AT THIS WORK SITE, SO THE
TEACHER WOULD ONLY NOT BE ABLE
TO WORK IF IT WAS, SAY, A
CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE AT THEIR
WORK SITE, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT IS
CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT
SAYS I HOW I UNDERSTOOD THE
QUESTION TO CLARIFY TO RESPECT
THE ASTROS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL A CALL LARA
I DIXON. DIXON NØ BAUER KHN
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN. BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY.
HANEY I MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
MCKINNON I PACHECO. REYES
SANCHEZ. NÓ SANCHEZ. NÓ. WALDRON
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD TO ITEM
THREE. AB 2187. BRIAN.
ALL RIGHT. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. READY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
MR. CHAIR, YOU SAID 2187. YES
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
COLLEAGUES, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
AB 2187, A BILL THAT WILL
ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE OFFICE OF
TENANT RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.
THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE
OFFICE ARE SIMPLE AND COMMON
SENSE. CREATE AND MAINTAIN AN UP
TO DATE, LANGUAGE INCLUSIVE LIST
OF OUR STATE'S TENANT RIGHTS AND
PROTECTIONS. AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS APTLY POINTS OUT, THE
ONLY STATE ENTITY WITH A
RESPONSIBILITY TO PUBLISH ANY
KIND OF GUIDE IS THE DEPARTMENT
OF REAL ESTATE, WHICH IN 2022
RELEASED 150 PAGE GUIDE TO
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES. DESPITE THE
LENGTH OF THIS GUIDE, IT'S
ALREADY OUTDATED AND IT DOES NOT
MENTION THE STATE'S NEW SECURITY
DEPOSIT CAP. NOR DOES IT MENTION
THE UPDATES TO OUR STATE'S JUST
CAUSE EVICTION STATUSES ALREADY
THIS YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN
NUMEROUS PROPOSALS ON PET
POLICIES FOR RENTALS AND CAPS ON
RENTAL APPLICATION FEES. OUR
STATE IS THE HOME TO 17 MILLION
RENTERS, MYSELF INCLUDED 54% OF
OUR LARGEST CITY, LOS ANGELES
RESIDENTS ARE RENTERS. MANY OF
THESE RENTERS ARE NON-ENGLISH
SPEAKING. I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS STRONG RENTERS
PROTECTIONS, BUT AS WE CONTINUE
TO PASS LAWS TO ENSURE THAT RENT
IS AFFORDABLE AND RESIDENTS
AREN'T UNJUSTLY EVICTED, WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE RENTERS KNOW ABOUT
THOSE PROTECTIONS. CURRENTLY,
NONPROFITS AND TENANT RIGHTS
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS ARE
FORCED TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF
SUPPORTING AND EDUCATING OUR
STATE'S RENTERS. IT'S TIME THAT
THE STATE STEPS IN TO SHARE THAT
WEIGHT AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT AS
WE SEE THE GROWTH OF APP BASED
LEASE AGREEMENTS ON SITES SUCH
AS ZILLOW AND APARTMENTS.COM,
WHICH ISSUE A DISCLAIMER THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THEIR LEASE
AGREEMENTS MAY NOT BE UP TO DATE
WITH STATE LAWS. HERE WITH ME TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ARE JESUS, PACO ESTRADA AND
SEBASTIAN RUIZ FROM POWER
CALIFORNIA ACTION. THANK YOU.
SOME GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS OF
THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, I APPRECIATE AND
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY TODAY IN SUPPORT OF AB
2187 THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THE
OFFICE OF TENANTS AND RIGHTS AND
PROTECTIONS, WITH THE PRIMARY
GOAL TO EDUCATE TENANTS ON THEIR
RIGHTS. MY NAME IS JESUS PACO
ESTRADA, AND I'M A FIRST
GENERATION MEXICAN AMERICAN FROM
SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES. IN MY
FOURTH YEAR AT LOYOLA MARYMOUNT
UNIVERSITY, I'M HERE TODAY ON AN
EARLY TUESDAY MORNING, JUST A
WEEK BEFORE FINALS. REPRESENTING
POWER CALIFORNIA ACTION AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, REPRESENTING THE
VOICES OF YOUNG PEOPLE ALL
ACROSS OUR BEAUTIFUL STATE. IN A
RECENT YOUTH POLL CONDUCTED BY
POWER CALIFORNIA ACTION YOUTH
ACROSS THE ACROSS CALIFORNIA
IDENTIFIED THE HOUSING CRISIS AS
THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE
IMPACTING OUR GENERATION. NINE
OUT OF TEN YOUNGER CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT POLICIES THAT MAKE
HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE AND
PROTECT RENTERS. FOR A MOMENT.
BLESS YOU. I'D LIKE TO SHARE A
LITTLE OF MY OWN STORY AND
EXPERIENCE. WHEN I TURNED TEN,
MY FAMILY WAS FORCED TO MOVE
FROM SOUTH GATE TO SOUTH CENTRAL
DUE TO THE RISING RENT COSTS.
FOR OVER 20 YEARS, MY FATHER
WORKED AT FARMER JOHN'S AS A
MEAT PROCESSOR, BARELY MAKING
MINIMUM WAGE. AFTER HIS COMPANY
LEFT LOS ANGELES, HE WAS LEFT
WITH WORK INJURIES IN HIS LEGS.
BUT HE HAS NOT ALLOWED THAT TO
STOP HIM FROM SUPPORTING OUR
FAMILY, WORKING AS A SECURITY
GUARD FOR FAMILIES LIKE MINE, WE
CAN'T AFFORD THE LUXURY OF DOING
OTHERWISE. THAT IS WHY I'M HERE
TODAY. FOR FAR TOO LONG HAVE OUR
FAMILIES SUFFERED DUE TO THE
HIGH COST OF HOUSING AND THE
CREEPING FEAR OF EVICTION FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE ME, WE WANT TO
PROTECT OUR FAMILIES BUT ARE
UNSURE OF WHAT THE FUTURE WILL
BRING. ADVANCING AB 2187 WILL
CREATE THE OFFICE OF TENANT
RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS, CHARGED
WITH EDUCATING TENANTS ON THE
RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS AVAILABLE
TO THEM. RENTERS SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO MANEUVER THE SYSTEM ALONE.
TODAY I CALL ON YOU, AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS GREAT
STATE, TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT
WILL MAKE SURE TENANTS AND
LANDLORDS KNOW WHAT THEY CAN
ACCESS, AND AN EASY READ LIST OF
THEIR RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES. REYES. THIS
WILL BRING US ONE STEP CLOSER TO
CREATING MORE SUPPORTIVE AND A
MORE EQUITABLE FUTURE FOR
FAMILIES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK
YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS SEBASTIAN
KARINA REYES AND I'M A POWER
ADVOCATE AT POWER CALIFORNIA
ACTION. I WAS RAISED IN ROHNERT
PARK, CALIFORNIA, AB 20 2187 IS
A VERY IMPORTANT BILL FOR ME AND
THE 44% OF CALIFORNIANS WHO RENT
I HAVE LIVED IN AN APARTMENT FOR
THE BETTER PART OF MY LIFE.
THANKFULLY FOR MY FAMILY, OUR
LANDLORDS HAVE BEEN
UNDERSTANDING AND OUR CONTRACTS
HAVE BEEN EASY TO UNDERSTAND. WE
HAVE A STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF
OUR RIGHTS AS TENANTS. I LIKE
MANY OTHERS MY AGE, SEE
OURSELVES MORE THAN LIKELY
HAVING TO RENT FOR AT LEAST A
FEW YEARS, IF NOT THE MAJORITY
OF OUR LIVES. EVEN THEN, WHEN A
MAJOR PART OF THE POPULATION
RENTS MOST OF US DO NOT KNOW OUR
RENTERS RIGHTS. SO TO BE ABLE TO
SEE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS ONLINE IN
A SIMPLE WAY, TO HELP US BE
INFORMED OF WHAT IS ALREADY THE
LAW, THAT WOULD ALLOW MANY
RENTERS TO STOP LANDLORDS FROM
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THEM BECAUSE
THEY DO NOT KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.
THIS IS A WELL KNOWN PROBLEM, AS
I'VE SEEN MANY FRIENDS LIVE IN
INHABITABLE, INHABITABLE UNITS
AND THEIR LANDLORDS MAKE THEM
PAY TO FIX ISSUES THAT THE
LANDLORDS SHOULD PAY FOR. I'VE
SEEN WRONGFUL LANDLORD. NO SIR.
I'VE SEEN WRONGFUL EVICTIONS
WHERE THE TENANT THINKS THEY
CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. A
VERY BAD CASE SHOWING HOW THIS
CAN GET OUT OF HAND IS A FRIEND
OF MINE, SHIZU. SHIZU WAS LIVING
WITH MOLD LEAKS AND CRACKS FROM
THE CEILING AND COCKROACHES. HIS
LANDLORD WAS WILLING, WILLINGLY
NEGLECTFUL. AND BECAUSE HE
DIDN'T KNOW HIS RIGHTS AS A
TENANT, HE GOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF. HE HAD. HE HAS HAD TO RESORT
TO LEGAL HELP IN ORDER TO GET
THROUGH THIS. THIS, THIS
SITUATION SHOULD HAVE NEVER
HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, HE
WISHED HE KNEW WHAT HIS RIGHTS
WERE. THIS WOULD HAVE HELPED HIM
SO MUCH IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS
THE GOVERNMENT'S DUTY TO INFORM
AND PROTECT RENTERS RIGHTS. AND
FOR THESE MANY REASONS, I HOPE
YOU WILL ALL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL AND TO CONTINUE
SUPPORTING IT AS IT MOVES
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2187? GOOD
MORNING. MARGARET DEMATTEO,
HOUSING POLICY ATTORNEY AT LEGAL
AID OF SONOMA COUNTY IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO. KAREN
STOUT HERE ON BEHALF OF POWER
CALIFORNIA ACTION, AS WELL AS
THE SAN DIEGO HOUSING
COMMISSION. WE'RE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2187?
ARE YOU COMING ALL THE WAY UP?
ALL RIGHT. COME ON. LET'S TAKE A
SEAT ON. JUST TAKE A SEAT ON
EACH SIDE OF IT. SENATOR BRIAN,
THERE. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. PAT
MORAN, WITH AARON REED AND
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATION, BOTTOM
LINE, WE THINK, CREATING THIS
WOULD BE REDUNDANT. THERE ARE
ALREADY AMPLE PLACES WHERE.
TENANTS CAN GO TO SEE THEIR
RIGHTS, WHETHER IT'S, COURTS OR
TENANTS RIGHTS. DOJ TENANTS
RIGHTS, BCS TENANTS RIGHTS,
ALONG WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
SITES. YOU CAN GO TO AND FIND
OUT YOUR TENANTS RIGHTS THERE,
IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY TO
ESTABLISH THIS, WE'D, WE'D
PREFER TO SEE THE MONEY, GO TO
RENTAL ASSISTANCE. WHERE, LET MY
CLIENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE
KEPT WHOLE, AND, AND TENANTS ARE
KEPT IN THEIR, IN THEIR HOUSING.
SO, THAT'S WHY WE'RE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, RON KINGSTON. I
REPRESENT TWO REGIONAL APARTMENT
ASSOCIATIONS. APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION IN ORANGE COUNTY AND
THE EAST BAY RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, THE AUTHOR IS
CORRECT. THE, THE ADVICE AND
DIRECTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED
INNUMERABLE TIMES BY THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA TO THE BILL
PROVIDES NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS,
BOOKLET WOULD BE UPDATED
QUARTERLY VÆ ANNUALLY, EVERY TWO
YEARS. FIVE YEARS. THREE THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF LOCAL LAWS THAT
INTERSECT AND AFFECT LANDLORD
TENANT LAW. THIS BILL DOES NOT
AFFECT THAT, NOR CAN IT. IT'S
NOT REALISTIC. SO WE HAVE A
ROBUST HISTORY STARTING WITH
1998. AND EVERY TWO YEARS THE
STATE BOOKLET IS PUBLISHED. AND
UPDATED. WHY DO WE NEED A STATE
DEPARTMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE?
JUST DIRECT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO UPDATE ITS
EXISTING BOOKLET. THAT IS THE
ABSOLUTE PERFECT SOLUTION. AND
FOR THESE AND MANY OTHER REASONS
, WE URGE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2187?
GOOD MORNING KATE BELL, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATION AND AGUILAR
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. APOLOGIES FOR
GOING OUT OF ORDER. CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION, CAITLIN VEGA
FOR THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR HANEY, THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. AND I'M A COAUTHOR
OF THIS. SO OF COURSE I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF IT. I ALSO WANT TO
WISH THE WITNESS THE BEST OF
LUCK WITH HIS FINALS, I THINK.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, BOTH.
OF YOU. BOTH OF YOU, SO, YOU
KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
HEAR A LOT ABOUT FROM PROPERTY
MANAGERS, FROM LANDLORDS, IS HOW
MUCH THE LAW IS CHANGING. AND
SOMETIMES THAT IS GIVEN AS A
REASON OF CONCERN FOR SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING
HERE, AND WE ARE CONSTANTLY
TRYING TO ADAPT OUR PROTECTIONS
AND RIGHTS SO THAT THEY'RE
RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF BOTH
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS AND IT
DOES SEEM AND JUST EVEN IN THE
ANALYSIS, IT'S VERY CONCERNING
THAT AS WE MAKE THESE CHANGES,
THAT THEY'RE NOT PROVIDED IN A
WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THEM,
THEY'RE NOT UPDATED REGULARLY, I
ACTUALLY, THERE'S A LOT THAT I,
THAT I WOULD AGREE WITH AROUND
WHAT, ONE OF THE OPPONENTS SAID
AROUND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT
EVEN IF WE CREATED THIS OFFICE,
THAT THE INFORMATION WAS
PROVIDED IN AN ACCESSIBLE WAY
AND IS UPDATED REGULARLY AND HOW
ARE YOU ENSURING THAT THAT'S THE
CASE IN THIS, IN THIS
LEGISLATION? YOU KNOW, I RIGHT
NOW, IF YOU ARE A TENANT OR IF
YOU'RE A LANDLORD AND YOU'RE
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
LAW IS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO
FIGURE OUT. AND YOU MIGHT FIND
YOURSELF, YOU KNOW, IN THE
DEPTHS OF SOME GUIDE THAT SOME
NONPROFIT HAS PUT UP THAT IS OLD
OR IS NOT NECESSARILY RIGHT FOR
YOU. AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY
THE RESULT OF THAT IS THAT YOU
HAVE MORE CONFLICT AND YOU HAVE
MORE CONFUSION, AND YOU HAVE,
MAYBE TENANTS WHO MIGHT HAVE
OTHERWISE BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW
THE LAW BUT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT WAS. MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE
RESPONDED IN THE RIGHT WAY OR
FOLLOWED CERTAIN POLICIES, BUT
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND VICE
VERSA. SO I THINK THAT THIS
ACTUALLY PROVIDING THIS KIND OF
INFORMATION IN A CLEARER WAY,
TRANSPARENT WAY AND UPDATED WAY
THAT ACTUALLY HELPS BOTH
LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AVOID
CONFLICTS AND AVOID LITIGATION
AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, BUT I
DO I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE VIEW
THAT WHY ISN'T THE RIGHT WAY TO
DO THIS SIMPLY, TO HAVE THE
FOLKS WHO ARE TASKED WITH IT NOW
TO SOME DEGREE, THE DEPARTMENT
OF REAL ESTATE, THE COURTS, ETC.
WHY NOT KEEP IT WITH THEM AND
HAVE MAYBE SOME MORE CLEARER
PRESCRIPTIONS AROUND HOW TO
PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION AND
UPDATE IT. WHY DO WE NEED A NEW
OFFICE? YEAH, TO BE CLEAR, I
KNOW THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
CAN BE CONFUSING FOR FOLKS, BUT
THIS WOULD BE AN OFFICE THAT
EXISTS INSIDE OF A DEPARTMENT.
IN THE SAME WAY, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS MANY DIFFERENT
OFFICES INSIDE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE. ESSENTIALLY, A
DEPARTMENT WOULD THEN OUTLINE A
KEY SET OF EMPLOYEES DEDICATED
TOWARDS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
OFFICE OF TENANT RIGHTS AND
PROTECTIONS SO THAT THEY CAN'T
BE DIVERTED TO OTHER TASKS WHEN
IT'S CONVENIENT. WE SAW DURING
THE PANDEMIC THAT THAT WAS A
CONVENIENT TIME FOR THE STATE TO
REPURPOSE, SOME OF THE WORKFORCE
IN THE DEPARTMENT TO CREATE AN
UPDATED GUIDE, BECAUSE WE WERE
ALL UNDER STAY AT HOME ORDERS.
BUT THAT ISN'T, STATUTORILY
REQUIRED, IN PERPETUITY. AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ESTABLISH HERE. PERMANENCY THAT
ALLOWS FOR BOTH TENANTS AND
LANDLORDS TO BE ABLE TO GO TO A
GOVERNMENT BACKED, ACCESSIBLE,
UPDATED PUBLIC PLACE TO FIND OUT
WHAT THEIR RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE. FOR ALL OF
THE REASONS THAT YOU MENTIONED.
THANK YOU. AND IT'S UNDER THE
OFFICE IS UNDER WHICH
DEPARTMENT, THAT. CRD SO CIVIL
RIGHTS OKAY. THANK YOU. THE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE HAS
DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. BUT WHEN
WE LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE OF ALL
OF THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS,
THAT'S WHAT OUR TEAM IS STILL,
HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHERE
THE BEST PLACE TO HOUSE THIS SO
THAT IT DOESN'T, TAKE AWAY FROM
TOO MANY OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES
THE DEPARTMENT ALREADY HAS.
THANK YOU. SENATOR, CAN THANK
YOU, I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT
WAS SAID BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM
SAN FRANCISCO. I THINK ONE OF
THE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT A LOT
WHEN IT COMES TO, THESE TENANT
RIGHTS BILLS, THIS IS A SMALL
LANDLORDS WHO DON'T KNOW THE WAY
THE LAW WORKS AND DON'T HAVE BIG
DEPARTMENTS TO HELP ADVISE THEM.
THE BIG LANDLORDS CAN HANDLE IT.
THEY GOT THE LAWYERS AND THE
EXPERTS. BUT I DO THINK SO. I
GUESS I ONE REQUEST I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY IS THAT I
ALSO THINK THE BILL SHOULD
SPECIFY THAT THE OFFICE SHOULD
LIST THE TENANT OR THE
LANDLORD'S OBLIGATIONS. RIGHT.
IT SAYS TO LIST THE TENANTS
RIGHTS, BUT I ALSO THINK IT
SHOULD SPECIFY THE LANDLORD'S
OBLIGATION SO THAT THE LANDLORDS
CAN GO, BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF
LANDLORDS THAT VIOLATE THE
RIGHTS OF TENANTS DO SO
UNKNOWINGLY. NOT ALL YOU ARE
OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT
EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES, BUT WE ALSO
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
LANDLORDS ARE AWARE OF WHAT
THEIR OBLIGATIONS ARE. SO I
THINK SPECIFYING THAT SO THIS IS
A PLACE WHERE BOTH PARTIES CAN
GO AND GET THE INFORMATION, AND
EVERYONE CAN BE. I THINK THAT
WOULD FURTHER PROTECT TENANTS.
NOT ALL OBVIOUSLY, BUT SOME, AND
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE AND I
WASN'T CLEAR TO ME, BUT MAYBE
THIS IS THAT IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT IN THE BAY AREA,
OBVIOUSLY, AND SAN FRANCISCO
BEING A GOOD EXAMPLE, CITIES GO
OR COUNTIES GO FURTHER. AND IT
IS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT IF THIS
IS WHERE EVERYONE GOES, THEY
ACTUALLY ARE AWARE THAT THEIR
RIGHTS MAY BE EVEN BEYOND WHAT
THE STATE PROVIDES, SO THAT THEY
DON'T STOP HERE AND THEY KNOW TO
GO LOOK ONE STEP FURTHER,
POTENTIALLY, MAYBE WE COULD LIST
THE JURISDICTIONS WHERE ONE
SHOULD DO THAT. JUST SO PEOPLE
DO HAVE A ONE STOP SHOP TO FIND
OUT WHERE ALL THEIR RIGHTS ARE.
SO JUST A COUPLE SUGGESTIONS,
BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT BILL.
THANK YOU. I THINK THAT IS A
FANTASTIC SUGGESTION AND I THINK
THE RESPONSIBILITIES IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. I HAD A SITUATION, A
COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE
LEAVING A PLACE MOVING TO
ANOTHER PLACE WHERE LANDLORD
TOOK OUR SECURITY DEPOSIT AND
CITED FOR PAINTING AN AND WE
THOUGHT TO OURSELVES, THAT
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING YOU
CAN TAKE OUR SECURITY DEPOSIT
FOR. AND HOW DO WE KNOW AND HOW
DO WE FIND OUT? AND LIKE, I'M
ALREADY A MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATURE AT THIS POINT, AND
I'M STRUGGLING FIGURING OUT
WHERE TO FIND OUT WHETHER YOU
CAN TAKE IT FOR PAINTING, AFTER
CONSULTING MY WONDERFUL TEAM TO
COMPILE A LIST OF IMPORTANT
TENANT PROTECTIONS THAT WE COULD
DO A GUIDE FOR OUR DISTRICT, WE
DID FIND OUT THAT IT WAS USEFUL
FOR ME PERSONALLY, AND FINDING
OUT THAT YOU CAN'T, ACTUALLY
TAKE SOMEBODY'S SECURITY DEPOSIT
FOR NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AND
PAINTING, AND WE SENT THAT LAW
TO OUR LANDLORD. BUT THAT
SHOULDN'T BE THE PROCESS THAT
LANDLORDS HAVE TO GO. AND THEY
WEREN'T TRYING TO BE MALICIOUS.
THIS IS LIKE A GREAT LANDLORD TO
SOMEBODY WHO WASN'T TRYING TO DO
MORE THAN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO,
JUST INADVERTENTLY DID, BECAUSE
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES AND WE DIDN'T
KNOW OUR RIGHTS. SO I THINK
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND THE
REGIONAL VARIATION IS DEFINITELY
SOMETHING WE CAN WORK THROUGH.
THANK YOU, MADAM VICE CHAIR,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BRIAN, I KNOW YOUR HEART
IS ALWAYS IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
I'VE NEVER QUESTIONED THAT. YOU
ALWAYS WANT TO DO THE RIGHT
THING. MY QUESTION TO RESPOND TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HAYNIE, THOUGH,
WHEN YOU SAY THAT THERE'S SO
MANY LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF
WHERE DOES ONE GO? I HAVE A
SIMPLE SOLUTION. LET'S STOP
PASSING SO MANY LAWS THAT THAT
IS A SOLUTION THERE. THERE HAVE
BEEN OVER BY ROUGH COUNT. I JUST
CONSULTED WITH MY GUIDE HERE
OVER TEN NEW LAWS IN THE LAST
TWO YEARS. PERHAPS AND I'M NOT
QUESTIONING THE JUSTIFICATION OR
THE VALIDITY OF THOSE LAWS, BUT
THE OVERWHELMING LAWS AFFECTING
LANDLORDS AND PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT TO ME ARE CAUSE FOR
CONCERN. FROM A BUSINESS
STANDPOINT, HOW CAN ANYBODY KEEP
UP WITH IT? BUT I KNOW WITH THE
WITH THE YOUNG PEOPLE, THE YOUNG
COLLEGE STUDENTS AND YOUNGER,
THEY DO NOT LACK FOR AN ABILITY
TO FIND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS,
JUST CURIOUSLY, DID YOU GOOGLE,
TEN RENTERS TENANT RIGHTS AND
WHAT DID YOU FIND? I'M JUST
CURIOUS, DID NOT GOOGLE
RETROCEDED PROTECTION RIGHTS
THROUGH POWER CALIFORNIA ACTION,
WE CONDUCTED A YOUTH POLL, AND
THAT'S WHERE WE GATHERED MOST OF
OUR INFORMATION, AND ALSO JUST
THROUGH THE HOUSING RIGHTS
ADVOCACY THAT WE'VE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH. SO, I SEE JUST
LOOKING HERE IN AN ANALYSIS, THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH CALIFORNIA
COURTS HAS HAS INFORMATION. THE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE, AS
YOU MENTIONED, THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT, THE STATE BAR. I
THINK AT THE MINIMUM, IT COULD
BE CONSOLIDATED. I THINK THAT'S
A GREAT IDEA, POTENTIALLY IN AN
OFFICE OF TENANT RIGHTS AND
PROTECTIONS. BUT BUT BUT I WOULD
SAY, DOES IT REALLY NEED TO GO.
IS ARE WE TALKING DISCRIMINATION
OR JUST GETTING ANSWERS TO
COMMON RENTER QUESTIONS? COULD
IT GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOR EXAMPLE?
WELL, AND I THINK SIMILAR TO
YOUR THINKING, THERE'S A REASON
WE DIDN'T OFFER TO HOUSE THIS IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
RIGHT? THIS ACTUALLY ISN'T TO
FORCE SUPER STRINGENT,
REGULATION OR SCARY REGULATION.
IT IS ABOUT PROVIDING
INFORMATION. IT IS ABOUT
CONSOLIDATING ALL OF THESE
AVENUES WHERE INFORMATION IS NOT
REQUIRED TO BE REGULARLY UPDATED
AND THEREFORE IS NOT, SO THAT
TENANTS AND LANDLORDS HAVE A
PLACE THAT IS RELIABLE, THAT
THAT WE HAVE PUT INTO STATUTE TO
BE UPDATED REGULARLY AS WE
CONTINUE TO DO OUR WORK. I KNOW
I JUST CIVIL RIGHTS SOUNDS JUST
A LOT MORE SOUNDS A BIT SCARY.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR WHAT
YOU'RE DOING. I HAVE TO SCOOT
OVER TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE. ALL
RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENT? DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? I WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, THANK YOU
SO MUCH, SAMIR, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AND YOUR CONTINUING
ADVOCACY, FOR TENANTS AND
TENANTS PROTECTIONS. AND I DO
THINK THIS WILL BE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL
THE INFORMATION SO THAT NOT JUST
TENANTS, BUT LANDLORDS CAN
BENEFIT AS WELL SO THAT WE
REDUCE CONFUSION, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I THINK IT'S AS MY,
COLLEAGUE FROM THE BAY AREA AND
CHAIR OF OUR RENTERS CAUCUS
EXPLAINED EARLIER, IT'S A
DIFFICULT TIME BOTH FOR TENANTS
AND FOR LANDLORDS, AND THAT
CONFUSION HURTS WELL-MEANING AND
GOOD INTENTIONED LANDLORDS AND
TENANTS BOTH. IT LEADS TO
UNNECESSARY LITIGATION WHERE
RIGHTS OR PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED, NOT EVEN FOR MALICE OR
BAD INTENT. AND IT ALSO LEAVES
TENANTS FEELING VULNERABLE AND
ALONE IN COMPLEX SITUATIONS
WHERE THEIR ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD IS
AT STAKE. AND THESE PROTECTIONS
ARE LARGELY CREATED TO PROTECT
THAT LIVELIHOOD. BUT IF YOU
DON'T KNOW THEM, YOU FALL, YOU
KNOW, VULNERABLE TO FINANCIAL
INSECURITY, HOUSING INSECURITY
AND AT THE MOST EXTREME
SITUATIONS, LOSING YOUR HOUSING.
WE'VE GOT TO DO BETTER. WE'VE
GOT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS ARE
EDUCATED IN A LANGUAGE INCLUSIVE
WAY. THE STATE HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY HERE. WE HAVEN'T.
IT'S NOT OKAY THAT WE'VE SHIFTED
SO MUCH OF THE BURDEN TO THE
NONPROFIT AND THE COMMUNITY
BASED COMMUNITY WHO DOES A
FANTASTIC JOB. THIS IS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY
, ON AB 2187 DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL.
AYE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN. AYE.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY
AYE. HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA AYE.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO. NOT
VOTING. REYES SANCHEZ. WALDRON
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL AND
WE'LL GET. WE'LL GET BACK TO
YOUR NEXT ONE A LITTLE BIT
LATER. IF WE COULD. WE HAVE SOME
NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT ARE
HERE. SO I'D LIKE TO GO TO ITEM
EIGHT AB 2049 A SUMMER AWARD.
OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS I WANT TO START
BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE FOR
YOUR ENGAGEMENT AND THE STAFF
FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS
BILL. AND I PRESENT AB 2049.
REALLY? JUST ON A FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE. CIVIL SERVICE JOBS
ARE THE BACKBONE OF BOTH A
STRONG MIDDLE CLASS AND
RESPONSIBLE, EFFECTIVE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. PUBLIC WORKERS ARE
SKILLED PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TO FILL THESE
JOBS AND ARE DEDICATED TO CIVIL
SERVICE, OFTEN FOR THEIR FULL
CAREERS. FOR VARIOUS REASONS,
CONTRACTING OUT OF GOVERNMENT
JOBS HAS BEEN STEADILY RISING
OVER THE DECADES. NOW,
TYPICALLY, THIS IS DONE TO
ADDRESS BUDGETARY PROBLEMS, BUT
WHAT WE'VE OBSERVED IS THAT WHEN
THESE JOBS EXIT, THE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT ROLES, THEY RARELY
RETURN. PUBLIC WORKS ARE THE
EXPECTATION OF TAXPAYERS AND
CONSTITUENTS. ONGOING PUBLIC
FUNCTIONS ARE BEST ADDRESSED
WITH A RIGHT SIZED WORKFORCE TO
MEET THOSE DEMANDS OF USE, WITH
CONTRACTING OUT OVER TIME, THE
GOVERNMENT'S INSTITUTIONAL
TALENT POOL IS INHERENTLY
DIMINISHED, AND BOTH RISKS THE
PUBLIC OUTCOMES BECAUSE OF
BARRIERS TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND
HURTS THE WORKER BECAUSE THEY
ARE NO LONGER ENTITLED TO
GOVERNMENT PAY RATES AND OTHER
BENEFITS. AND A TROUBLING TREND
IS THAT HAS BECOME A PART OF
CONTRACTING IS THE LACK OF
PARITY OF QUALIFICATIONS, AS
EVERY CIVIL SERVICE JOB HAS A
STATED EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
REQUIREMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THEIR PAY
SCALES. CONTRACTED JOBS OFTEN
WILL ASK FOR LESSER
QUALIFICATIONS TO DO THE SAME
JOB THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
HISTORICALLY BEEN DOING. THIS
CREATES AN IMBALANCE AND
UNFORTUNATELY, IT PITS CIVIL
SERVICE EMPLOYEES AGAINST
CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES. CIVIL
SERVICE EMPLOYEES BECOME
UNDERCUT BY LESS SKILLED
CONTRACTED HIRES, WHILE ALSO
HAVING TO COMPETE WITH THEM ON A
LOWER PAY SCALE. GOVERNMENT,
HOWEVER, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
WORK GETTING DONE, MAINTAINING A
PATTERN OF RELIANCE ON PRIVATE
WORKERS REDUCES ACCOUNTABILITY,
CREATES A LAYER OF REPORTING AND
DELAYS, DIRECTS PUBLIC DOLLARS
TO SUPPORT MANAGEMENT
COMPENSATION AND COMPANY PROFIT
AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS, AND
LESS ASSURANCE THAT THE WORK
DELIVERABLE WILL BE
SATISFACTORILY PERFORMED,
LEAVING THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS
TAXPAYERS HOLDING THE BAG.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE
PARTNERS CAN BE POSITIVE AND
PRESENT GOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PUBLIC VALUE IN SUPPLEMENTARY OR
COMPLEMENTARY SITUATIONS. THERE
ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS IN AB
2489 DOESN'T IMPEDE THIS LONG
STANDING RELATIONSHIP. THIS BILL
SIMPLY SAYS THAT IF THERE WERE
JOB CLASSIFICATIONS CURRENTLY OR
RECENTLY PERFORMED BY PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT
WE AREN'T REDUCING OUR
QUALIFICATIONS OR CREATING A
LESS QUALIFIED STANDARD TO
PERFORM THE PUBLIC'S INTERESTS.
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE NOTED
CONCERNS, I PRESENTED AUTHORS
AMENDMENTS IN THIS COMMITTEE
THAT WILL EXEMPT CONTRACTING
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
BILL IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS,
AND I'M AWARE OF ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS COMING IN BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM ON
SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS WITH ME
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. TODAY,
I HAVE AB, SANDRA BORRERO, THE
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ADVOCATE
FOR SEIU, AND BRIAN MIRAMONTES,
THE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR,
ACP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MISTER CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, BRIAN MIRAMONTES WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
AB 2489. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT
THE INTENT OF THE BILL. AB 2049
IS ABOUT ENSURING PUBLIC
SERVICES THROUGH ACCOUNTABLE
PUBLIC CONTRACTING PRACTICES.
THIS BILL SIMPLY STATES THREE
THINGS. CIVIL SERVICE JOBS HAVE
CLEAR QUALIFICATIONS
REQUIREMENTS SET BY LOCAL
AGENCIES, WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. IF
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS ARE GOING TO
RECEIVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO
PROVIDE SPECIFIC SERVICES THAT A
LOCAL AGENCY, CIVIL SERVICE
WORKERS ARE OR WERE RECENTLY
PROVIDING, THEY NEED TO MEET THE
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED
BY THAT AGENCY AND THREE BEFORE
BEGINNING TO CONTRACT OUT LOCAL
AGENCIES ARE TO NOTIFY
BARGAINING UNITS IN ADVANCE,
WHICH WE HAVE AGREED TO WAIVE IN
CERTAIN EMERGENCIES. AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HAVE NOTED, THIS
BILL IS NOT ABOUT REQUIRING THAT
CONTRACTORS MEET ANY SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENT. IT'S NOT EXPECTED
OF PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS
PERFORMING THE SAME FUNCTIONS.
AND IT'S NOT ABOUT PENALIZING
ANY PARTICULAR CONTRACTOR. THIS
IS ABOUT REINVESTING IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE AND
ENSURING THAT LOCAL AGENCIES
STAND BY THE QUALIFICATIONS
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY SET TO
ENSURE QUALITY PUBLIC SERVICE
DELIVERY. WITH THAT SAID, WE
WANT TO MAKE THIS WORKABLE AND
HAVE BEEN ENGAGING WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND ARE PUTTING IN A
GOOD FAITH EFFORT AND ENSURE TO
ENSURE THAT THEIR DECISION,
THEIR CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED AS
WELL. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SANDRA BORRERO. ON BEHALF OF
SEIU CALIFORNIA, WE ARE
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL. A
CIVIL SERVICE OR MERIT SYSTEMS
WERE DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO
PUBLIC OUTCRY OVER CRONYISM AND
NEPOTISM IN GOVERNMENT HIRING.
THEY EXIST TO ENSURE THAT THE
MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR A
JOB ARE SELECTED AND PART OF
THAT GOAL IS ESTABLISHING
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS. SOME OF
THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION GIVE THE IMPRESSION
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CONTRACT
FOR SERVICES TO GET AROUND
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, BUT IF
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR A JOB
ARE NOT APPROPRIATE, THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AS THE EMPLOYER CAN
PUT THE WORK INTO CHANGING THEM.
AS FAR AS BACKGROUND CHECKS,
MOST WOULD AGREE THAT FOR SOME
POSITIONS, LIKE POSITIONS THAT
REQUIRE DRIVING OR INTERACTING
WITH CHILDREN, THEY ARE
NECESSARY FOR EVERYONE'S SAFETY.
BUT FOR OTHER POSITIONS. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAVE FULL DISCRETION
TO ASSESS CRIMINAL HISTORY AND
MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER IT
ACTUALLY IMPACTS JOB FITNESS,
OTHER THINGS LIKE LIVED
EXPERIENCE CAN ALSO BE INCLUDED
AS A MINIMUM QUALIFICATION. SO
THIS BILL IS LIMITED TO
BARGAINING UNIT WORK, WHICH IS
DEFINED IN AN MOU BECAUSE ONE
EMPLOYERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO
DIRECTLY HIRE FOR THESE
POSITIONS, AND TWO IN CIVIL
SERVICE SYSTEMS BARGAINING UNIT
JOB QUALIFICATIONS WERE
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE
A QUALIFIED WORKFORCE, AND IF A
CONTRACTOR IS PERFORMING
BARGAINING UNIT WORK, THE PUBLIC
IS GENERALLY GOING TO ASSUME AND
TRUST THAT CONTRACTORS ARE
EQUALLY QUALIFIED. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2049? YVONNE
FERNANDEZ, CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION PROUD CO-SPONSOR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS
MYERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2049?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, I'M GENE HEARST, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA OR.
EXCUSE ME, THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA, AN ASSOCIATION OF
THE STATE'S LARGEST 14 COUNTIES
WHO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ABOUT
80% OF THE CALIFORNIA POPULATION
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, I'M HERE TODAY TO
EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION TO AB
2489. I WANT TO BEGIN BY MAKING
CLEAR THAT THE CURRENT PUBLIC
SECTOR WORKFORCE CRISIS IS THE
NUMBER ONE CHALLENGE FACING
COUNTIES. THIS CRISIS DIRECTLY
IMPACTS OUR CAPACITY AND ABILITY
TO ADDRESS THE MULTIPLE CRISES
OF THE DAY AND EVENTUALLY
UNDERMINES TRUST IN GOVERNMENT,
WHICH WE KNOW WE CAN ILL AFFORD.
IN ADDITION, CALIFORNIA'S LOCAL
AGENCIES HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY
CHALLENGED TO DO MORE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES TO MORE EFFECTIVELY
ADDRESS THE CRISES AND
CHALLENGES OF OUR TIME,
INCLUDING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
HOMELESSNESS, AND THE IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE. TO SERVE
INDIVIDUALS IN NEED IN A MORE
EQUITABLE, CULTURALLY AWARE
MANNER THAT PROVIDES BETTER
RESULTS. AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE
FACING A PERFECT STORM OF
WORKFORCE CHALLENGES. THE BABY
BOOMERS HAVE REACHED RETIREMENT
AGE AND ARE LEAVING THE
WORKPLACE IN MASS. THE GREAT
RESIGNATION HAS TAKEN HOLD, AND
WE LACK A PIPELINE SUPPLY OF
TRAINED NEW WORKERS TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
COMPOUNDING THAT CHALLENGE IS A
CHRONIC AND SUSTAINED
UNDERINVESTMENT IN FUNDING LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES. IN FACT, MOST OF THE
RESOURCES THAT THE LOCAL
AGENCIES HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE
STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS HAVE
BEEN ONE TIME IN NATURE. THE
STATE REPEATEDLY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT ONE TIME REVENUES SHOULD BE
SPENT ON ONE TIME EXPENDITURES
IN ITS OWN BUDGETING. LOCAL
AGENCIES, OF COURSE, MUST DO THE
SAME. AB 2489 IS AN UNNECESSARY
AND INFLEXIBLE PROPOSAL THAT
WILL NOT ASSIST LOCAL AGENCIES
IN HIRING AND KEEPING A PUBLIC
SECTOR WORKFORCE THAT CAN MEET
THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITIES. IT
WILL NOT IMPROVE SERVICES,
REDUCE COSTS OR PROTECT PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
REQUIRE LOCAL AGENCIES TO NOTIFY
THE RELEVANT EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATION. ITS DETERMINATION
TO BE IN A PROCUREMENT PROCESS
BY THE GOVERNING BODY TEN MONTHS
PRIOR TO CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL
SERVICES, UNLESS THERE IS AN
EMERGENCY AS PROPOSED TO BE
DEFINED FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,
EXCEPTIONALLY NARROWLY, EVEN
WITH THIS AMENDED DEFINITION,
THIS REMAINS AN INFEASIBLE
OBLIGATION AS WE ARE UNAWARE OF
THE NEED FOR A PROCUREMENT
PROCESS TEN MONTHS PRIOR. WE
OBVIOUSLY HAVE OTHER CONCERNS
WITH THE MEASURE AND OUR, REMAIN
OPPOSED TO THE BILL AT THIS
POINT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS JEFF GREEN,
THE CEO OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF NONPROFITS. IT'S
A POLICY ALLIANCE OF MORE THAN
10,000 MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
STATEWIDE. WE DO NOT HAVE A
FORMAL POSITION AT THIS TIME,
BUT WE DO HAVE STRONG CONCERNS
ABOUT AB 2489, WHICH ARE SHARED
BY MANY OTHER NONPROFITS WORKING
TO STRENGTHEN OUR PARTNERSHIPS
WITH GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE STATE
. AS DRAFTED 2049 APPEARS TO
COVER A BROAD AND AS YET UNCLEAR
SCOPE OF SERVICE TYPES AND JOB
FUNCTIONS AND GOVERNMENTS. OF
COURSE, PARTNER WITH NONPROFITS
FOR MANY REASONS, BUT WE ARE
UNAWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR DATA
SUGGESTING THAT NONPROFIT
WORKERS ARE LESS QUALIFIED THAN
PUBLIC WORKERS, OR THAT
DIFFERENT HIRING QUALIFICATIONS
BY NONPROFITS RESULT IN
INADEQUATE SERVICES OR POSE SOME
DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH. AB 2049
APPEARS TO IMPLY THIS, AND THE
BILL IMPOSES REQUIREMENTS THAT
CONTRACTORS, QUOTE, MEET OR
EXCEED THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT CRITERIA
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE
CHOSEN TO REQUIRE FOR THE SAME
WORK, WHEREAS THE NONPROFIT
WORKFORCE STRIVES TO PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES TO PEOPLE THAT ARE
EXCLUDED BY CERTAIN HISTORICAL
HIRING REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE
CULTURAL COMPETENCE AND LIFT UP
VOICES OF THOSE WHO HAVE THE
LIVED EXPERIENCE OF THE VERY
PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TASKED TO
CONFRONT. MANY NONPROFITS HAVE
REEXAMINED THESE HIRING CRITERIA
AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO REINFORCE
INEQUALITIES AND CREATE BARRIERS
FOR JUSTICE IMPACTED INDIVIDUALS
IN PARTICULAR, SOME OF WHICH
ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE HIGH
VACANCY RATES THAT WE KNOW LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER SECTORS
ARE EXPERIENCING. AND WE WOULD
NOT WANT TO RETREAT FROM THOSE
PRACTICES TO QUALIFY AS
CONTRACTED PARTNERS WITH WITH
GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL, AS WE
WANT TO CONTINUE TO HIRE FROM
MEMBERS OF HISTORICALLY
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. IT'S
ALSO UNCLEAR HOW NONPROFIT
EMPLOYEES WOULD MEET OR EXCEED
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT EXAMS OR
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REQUIRED
IN THE BILL. AND FINALLY, 2489
COULD RESULT IN DELAYED OR
REDUCED CRITICAL LEVELS OF
CRITICAL SERVICES. WHILE WE
APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THE
EMERGENCY EXEMPTION BEING ADDED
BY THE BILL, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IT IS STILL, AS DRAFTED, TOO
NARROW AND WE PREFER TO FIND A
PATH FORWARD THAT ENSURES ROBUST
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, IMPROVES THE
QUALITY, THE ABILITY OF
NONPROFITS TO SERVE AS PARTNERS
WITH GOVERNMENT AND CONTINUES TO
ENSURE QUALITY SERVICES TO
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE, IN FACT,
COUNTING ON BOTH PUBLIC AND
NONPROFIT SECTORS TO WORK
TOGETHER ON THEIR BEHALF. SO AT
THIS TIME, WE MUST REGISTER JUST
OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2489? MR. CHAIR
DARBY KERNAN, ON BEHALF OF MEALS
ON WHEELS, CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
CONCERNED WITH THIS BILL. WE
DON'T HAVE FORMAL OPPOSITION
YET, BUT ARE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE IMPACT. THANK YOU.
TAYLOR ROSHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING
COMPANIES IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MICROBES SID, ON BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN STAFFING
ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA
STAFFING PROFESSIONALS OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. CAITLIN DEAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AS WELL
AS THE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, THE
COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE COUNTY
WELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING. ASHLEY HOFFMAN,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, DOROTHY JOHNSON,
ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. JOHNNY PINA,
WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, SARAH
DUQUETTE, ON BEHALF OF THE RURAL
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. AARON AVERY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE DISTRICTS
AND THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF SANITATION AGENCIES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND ALYSSA
SALEHI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTS,
ALSO OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS? SENATOR BAUER KHN,
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR
THIS BILL, SO A COUPLE THINGS. I
WANT TO START BY THE CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CHECK. I KNOW THAT
THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION
ABOUT THAT, AND IT'S EFFECT ON
PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO
REINTEGRATE INTO SOCIETY, WHICH
I DON'T THINK WOULD BE YOUR
INTENT. SO I WANT YOU TO TOUCH
ON THAT FIRST OR YOUR RESPONSE
OR, THERE'S WAS ACTUALLY THE
RECENT LAW, OR THE RECENT ACT
AND, THE NAME ESCAPES ME, BUT
ESSENTIALLY NOW WHAT? WHAT? BAN
THE BOX. YEAH. YES. SO, NOW
EMPLOYERS, INCLUDING PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS, CANNOT PERFORM A
BACKGROUND CHECK UNTIL THEY HAVE
MADE A JOB OFFER. AND THEN THEY
ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN
ASSESSMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT,
ANY SORT OF CRIMINAL HISTORY
ACTUALLY IMPACTS JOB PERFORMANCE
. SO IT IS ON THE, THE EMPLOYER.
SO THE EMPLOYERS DO HAVE
FLEXIBILITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT SOMEONE IS STILL QUALIFIED.
AND I THINK ON BEHALF OF CITY,
AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS A COUNCIL
MEMBER PRIOR TO THIS JOB, YOU
KNOW, I THINK I'M MINDFUL THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAVE TO BE VERY
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE INFORMATION
THAT COMES IN THERE. YOU
WOULDN'T WANT SOMEBODY WHO WAS A
VIOLENT, PREVIOUS, VIOLENT
FELON, FOR EXAMPLE, POSSIBLY OUT
THERE WORKING ON JOBS THAT
INTERFACE WITH SENSITIVE
POPULATIONS. ALL, AGAIN,
INFORMATION, I THINK THAT NEEDS
TO COME IN AFTER THAT JOB OFFER
IS FINALIZED, TO BE ABLE TO
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS
STILL GOING TO BE A VERY STRONG
FIT, THAT SAID, I THINK OUR
PUBLIC SECTOR HAS DEMONSTRATED A
VERY STRONG COMMITMENT TO THE
OUTREACH AND THE RECRUITMENT, TO
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT MEMBERS OF
OUR COMMUNITY THAT HAVE
HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED, AND
THE RECORD IS STILL ONGOING
TODAY. YEAH. SO I JUST I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HONE IN ON
THAT POINT BECAUSE I DO THINK,
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DONE A LOT AS
A LEGISLATURE TO MAKE SURE THAT
JOBS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR
PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN FORMERLY
INCARCERATED ARE AVAILABLE TO
THEM. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT'S STILL IN THE
CONVERSATION. AND THEN I GUESS
SO AS YOU KNOW, THE AUTHOR AND I
HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT, I'VE DONE A
LOT OF WORK SPECIFICALLY IN
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REALM. NOW, I
KNOW THIS APPLIES BEYOND THAT,
BUT IN THAT SITUATION, WE ARE AS
A STATE, RE-ENVISIONING HOW WE
SUPPORT PEOPLE IN MENTAL HEALTH,
CRISIS OR ALONG THE ENTIRE
MENTAL HEALTH CARE CONTINUUM,
AND IN DOING SO, WE'RE
REIMAGINING WHAT THOSE TEAMS
LOOK LIKE. AND A HUGE PIECE OF
THAT THAT I THINK HAS BEEN
REALLY POSITIVE FOR PEOPLE IN
THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM IS
THE ADDITION OF PIERS, WHICH IS
A RELATIVELY IN MANY COUNTIES,
NEW PHENOMENON. AND, YOU KNOW, I
THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE ARE
TRYING TO INTEGRATE BECAUSE IT
IS SOMETHING THAT LIVED
EXPERIENCE REALLY MATTERS TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE, GETTING CARE.
AND SO ONE CONCERN I HAD, WHICH
I DID CONVEY TO THE AUTHOR, AND
IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME.
AND SO I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP
AGAIN. IS THAT WHERE A COUNTY IS
REIMAGINING THE WAY THEY SUPPORT
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, SPECIFICALLY
IN THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REALM?
IF TRADITIONALLY YOU HAD HAD ALL
SOCIAL WORKERS SUPPORTING PEOPLE
AND NOW YOU'VE DECIDED THAT
ISN'T ACTUALLY THE BEST WAY TO
SERVE THE COMMUNITY. AND I WANT
THIS TEAM TO HAVE DIVERSE
BACKGROUNDS, IF YOU WILL, THAT
WE ALLOW FOR COUNTIES TO
RE-ENVISION THAT SUPPORT SYSTEM
AND NOT BE SORT OF REQUIRED TO
LIVE WITH OLD REQUIREMENTS,
BECAUSE NOW THAT WAS WHAT WAS.
BUT IT ISN'T WHAT WE WANT THE
FUTURE TO LOOK LIKE. AND THIS
ISN'T A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WE'RE DOING THAT
JUST TO CONTRACT OUT. WE'RE
DOING IT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND SO I GUESS THAT
WAS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE I THINK
WE NEED TO BALANCE WHAT'S IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITIES
AS IT RELATES TO THOSE REQUIRE
THOSE, QUALIFICATIONS. ÓRDENES
AND WHAT'S HAPPENED NOW, I KNOW
THERE'S AN EMERGENCY. SO
EXEMPTIONS. SO WHERE YOU, FOR
EXAMPLE, COULDN'T HIRE SOCIAL
WORKERS, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
HIRING OF OTHER FOLKS. BUT I
DON'T MEAN JUST WHERE THERE
ISN'T THE AVAILABILITY, BUT
WHERE WE DECIDED A DIFFERENT
TEAM IS THE APPROPRIATE THING
FOR COMMUNITIES. AND SO I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT AS THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD, WE'RE PAYING
ATTENTION TO AND WE'RE WORKING
WITH THE I KNOW I HEARD THE
COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
SPECIALISTS WERE HERE. I THINK
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO BEST KNOW
THIS SYSTEM AND KNOW WHERE IT'S
GOING, ESPECIALLY IN COUNTIES
LIKE LA, SAN DIEGO, CONTRA COSTA
AND OTHERS THAT ARE REALLY
LEADING IN THIS REVOLUTION
AROUND HOW WE CARE FOR PEOPLE.
SO IT'S JUST A CONCERN, BUT ONE
THAT I WANTED TO RAISE BECAUSE
IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AND I THINK
TO OUR COMMUNITIES, I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING.
THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT
CONCERN FOR THE TIME TO DISCUSS
THIS BEFOREHAND. HAD A CHANCE TO
LOOK INTO THE ISSUE AND UNDER MY
UNDERSTANDING, THIS WOULD NOT BE
CAPTURED, UNDER FOR YOUR
EXAMPLE, UNDER AB 2489, FOR THE
REASONS THAT IF THERE WAS, FIRST
OF ALL, YOU KNOW, A NEW MODEL,
YOU MENTIONED A REIMAGINED SORT
OF, YOU KNOW, TEAMWORK THAT'S
GOING TO INVOLVE DIFFERENT JOBS,
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS,
DIFFERENT APPROACHES, THE PEER
WORKERS, RIGHT, THAT ARE COMING
IN AS A PART OF A COMPLEMENTARY
WAY TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM SOME
OF THIS WORK. WEREN'T PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES BEFOREHAND. THAT
WASN'T A JOB CLASSIFICATION OR A
SPECIALTY THAT WAS ACTUALLY
SUBSUMED WITHIN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR. AND FURTHERMORE, SAU THE
BILL DOES REQUIRE THAT WE WOULD
BE CONSULTING WITH THE AFFECTED
BARGAINING UNITS TO BE ABLE TO
DETERMINE DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THAT WORK WAS CURRENTLY OR
RECENTLY PERFORMED BY SOME OF
THE AGENCY'S EMPLOYEES. SO A
SPECIALIST LIKE YOU'RE
DESCRIBING WAS NOT REPRESENTED
BY THOSE BARGAINING UNITS AHEAD
OF TIME. SO THAT'S WHERE WE CAN
COMFORTABLY SAY THAT IT WOULDN'T
BE CAPTURED BY AB 2489. RIGHT.
BUT I WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU
HAD A SITUATION NOW WHERE ALL
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH WAS BEING DONE
ON BY REPRESENTED SOCIAL
WORKERS, LET'S SAY, RIGHT, AND
NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DIVERSIFY
THAT TEAM. AND THE BUDGET'S NOT
GROWING RIGHT NOW Y'ALL. SO YOU
DON'T HAVE NEW MONEY TO SPEND ON
THESE ADDITIONAL WORKERS, THEN I
GUESS MY CONCERN WOULD BE YOU
COULD ARGUE THAT THAT WORK HAD
BEEN DONE BY THIS CLASSIFICATION
THÀNH BY THIS QUALIFICATION. AND
EVEN THOUGH WE NOW HAVE DECIDED
WE NEED OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF
QUALIFICATIONS, YOU KNOW, WITHIN
THE SAME BUDGET, RIGHT? I MEAN,
AND AGAIN, I'M NOT REPLACING, TO
BE HONEST, THERE ARE PLENTY OF
OPENINGS IN THE SOCIAL WORK
SPACE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE
FIRING SOMEONE. YOU'RE EVERY
SINGLE COUNTY HAS OPENINGS IN
THIS REGARD, AND SO BUT TO THE
EXTENT THAT NOW WE'VE DECIDED WE
WANT TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS
WITH A DIFFERENT MODEL, I GUESS
THAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO WHAT YOU
SAID, BUT MAYBE I'M
MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE IS SOME
NUANCE, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, SEIU
ALSO REPRESENTS BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH WORKERS. YEAH. AND I
THINK SO. IF THERE WAS A
DISPUTE, THEN IT WOULD BE, THE
BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE UNION TO
FILE A GRIEVANCE, AND THEN THERE
WOULD HAVE TO BE A DETERMINATION
MADE EVENTUALLY BY AN ARBITRATOR
IF THERE WAS EVER A CONCERN THAT
THERE WERE, DUTIES BEING
PERFORMED THAT WEREN'T, THAT
WERE PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED BY THE
BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS. BUT,
WAS SOMETHING LIKE THE EXAMPLE
YOU USED WHERE IT'S SPECIFICALLY
A PEER POSITION. THEN, YOU KNOW,
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO
CURRENT EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD FIT
THAT DESCRIPTION. OAN GOT IT.
OKAY. SO, I MEAN, I COULD SEE A
DISPUTE THERE WHERE THERE'S NO
EMPLOYEE, BUT IT'S A IT'S A JOB.
YOUR WORKERS CURRENTLY ARGUABLY
HAVE THAT FUNCTION. I MEAN, I
GUESS I THINK THERE'S SOME
NUANCE THERE THAT AS AND THAT'S
WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION AND
DIDN'T JUST SAY IT BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME, TO
BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT THIS
BILL AT THIS POINT WOULD ALLOW
FOR THAT REIMAGINING. AND I
THINK IT'S REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY IN THE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SPACE. RIGHT
NOW. AND I KNOW YOU REPRESENT
THESE WORKERS AND THEY ARE
WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK AND
DOING I MEAN, REALLY KUDOS TO
EVERY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH WORKER
RIGHT NOW. THE MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS IS ABSOLUTELY REAL. AND I
KNOW OUR COUNTIES ARE THROWING
EVERYTHING THEY CAN, AND SO ARE
THE WORKERS WHO DO THIS JOB DAY
IN AND DAY OUT. AND I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GIVING THEM
THE SPACE TO MEET THE
COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY ARE. AND
I KNOW IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU
GUYS WOULD STAND IN THE WAY OF.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, AS
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD, THAT
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MAKE
SURE WE PAY ATTENTION TO. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SENATOR
CONNELLY. THANKS. ALSO
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S GONE
INTO IT. AND REALLY THE GOAL, I
THINK WE ALL AGREE DELIVERING
HIGH CALIBER SERVICES TO THE
PUBLIC, BUT A FEW QUESTIONS. AND
THESE HAVE KIND OF BEEN TOUCHED
ON. BUT MAYBE TO DELVE A LITTLE
BIT MORE. THE FIRST BEING THE
DEFINITION OF EMERGENCY AND HOW
THAT WOULD PLAY OUT, IT SOUNDS
LIKE RIGHT NOW IT CERTAINLY
COVERS NATURAL DISASTERS,
SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S KIND OF
AN IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED. TO
A THREAT OF SERIOUS HARM. WHAT
ABOUT IF THERE'S A SERIOUS
SITUATION? IT'S NOT QUITE AS
TIME SENSITIVE AS SAYING
IMMEDIATE, BUT SOMETHING ALONG
THE LINES OF, A WATER LINE
REPAIR THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE
WITHIN A FEW MONTHS OF
DISCOVERING, A MAJOR ISSUE,
PERHAPS. OOPS, THE PUBLIC STAFF
IS SHORT STAFFED AT THE MOMENT
OR DOES NOT HAVE THAT PARTICULAR
EXPERTISE. HOW HOW WOULD THAT
SITUATION BE HANDLED? I WOULD
TAKE A STAB AND JUST SAY, WE
ALREADY KIND OF HAVE THAT AS
MUNICIPAL, MUNICIPALITY ARE
ADDRESSING, YOU KNOW, AN
INFRASTRUCTURE NEED THAT'S
IMMINENT, THERE IS THE ABILITY
TO PERFORM THE WORK AND THEN SAY
THROUGH CEQA EXEMPTIONS TO BE
ABLE TO, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TIE
UP THE LOOSE ENDS SORT OF ON THE
BACK END. SO IT WOULD, I THINK
THERE THERE ARE EXISTING
PROCESSES, THAT I'M HAPPY TO
WORK ON, THAT DEFINITION OF AN
EMERGENCY OR IMMINENT EMERGENCY,
THAT MAKES SURE THAT WE'RE NOT
BEING TOO NARROW. GREAT I WOULD,
RECOMMEND THAT TEN MONTHS, IN
TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF NOTICE,
WHY THAT TIME PERIOD? WHY NOT
THREE MONTHS FOR MONTHS? SO WE
ACTUALLY USE PRECEDENT BY SOME
OF OUR COLLEAGUES FROM AB 96
THAT ADDRESSED A SIMILAR ISSUE
WITH REGARD TO TRANSIT AGENCY
OPERATORS THAT WAS ENACTED LAST
YEAR, AND IT'S SOMETHING I'M
OPEN TO CONVERSATION ON TO SEE
IF THAT'S A TIME PERIOD THAT IS
MOST, REASONABLE, WITHOUT AND
REVISITING THAT WITH, WITH
RESPECT TO OUR CHAIR, TO BE ABLE
TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR MUTUAL
GOALS ARE MET. GREAT. AND THEN,
ARE THERE PARTICULARLY
PARTICULAR CATEGORIES OF
EMPLOYMENT OR JOBS THAT, ARE A
PARTICULAR CONCERN WE'RE SEEING
THAT ARE BEING CONTRACTED OUT OR
THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT, THE
QUESTION IS, WHY NOT TAILOR THIS
BILL TO THOSE JOBS IF THAT'S THE
CASE THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE
CONTRACTED OUT, I'LL DEFER TO MY
SPONSORS. WELL, FOR SEIU, IT'S
THAT WE SEE CONTRACTING OUT
HAPPENING ACROSS ALL JOBS AND
ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT RIGHT
NOW, SO THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED
THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO MAKE
IT PRETTY BROAD. I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU. YES. SIMILARLY ASKED ME. WE
REPRESENT LOCAL COUNTIES,
SPECIAL DISTRICT WORKERS, AND
IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING ACROSS
THE BOARD. THE WORK IS GETTING
CONTRACTED OUT. AND THIS IS
ABOUT ASSURING ACCOUNTABILITY
OVER THAT. AND I WOULD JUST
RESPOND THAT I KNOW SOMETIMES WE
DO WORK HERE AT THE CAPITOL THAT
IS VERY NARROW TO A CERTAIN
CONDITION, AND THERE'S GOOD
REASONS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I STARTED OFF MY
OPENING PRESENTATION REALLY
TRYING TO CENTER THIS
CONVERSATION ON A PRINCIPLE,
RIGHT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
SEEING A PATTERN ACROSS THE
BOARD THAT WE ARE HAVING
CONTRACTED WORK THAT WAS
PREVIOUSLY HELD BY A PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE. AND SO THIS BILL AIMS
TO BE ABLE TO LEVEL TO SET A
STANDARD FOR WHEN IT WOULD APPLY
OR NOT APPLY GOING FORWARD.
GREAT. AND THEN FINAL ISSUE
WE'RE HEARING FROM SOME
NONPROFITS AND SURE, WE
CERTAINLY ALL VALUE THE WORK
THAT THEY DO IN OUR COMMUNITIES,
ARE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ONGOING TO
TRY TO MEET SOME OF THOSE ISSUES
THAT ARE BEING RAISED? THEY THEY
THEY CAN THEY CERTAINLY WILL BE.
I KNOW WE HAD, I THINK, SIX DAYS
SINCE THIS BILL'S LAST HEARING
LAST WEEK, PROBABLY TWO BUSINESS
DAYS UP HERE AT THE CAPITOL. SO
THIS WAS KIND OF BACK TO BACK,
BUT WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR A
NUMBER OF STEPS AHEAD OF US. I
CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE
SPRING TIME AND SUMMER TO MAKE
SURE AGAIN, I STATED IN MY
OPENING, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN,
I THINK, SUBVERTING OUR
PRODUCTIVE AND HELPFUL
RELATIONSHIP THAT WE'VE ALWAYS
HAD FOR DECADES. WHERE WE ARE
ADDING VALUE, WHERE WE ARE
SUPPLEMENTING OR COMPLEMENTING
THE WORK THAT'S DONE BY PUBLIC
AGENCIES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE WANT TO GET RIGHT IN OUR
DEFINITIONS. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS OR ANY MOTIONS?
DO WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION TO
HAVE A SECOND. SECOND WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, THANK YOU,
SENATOR WARD, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. AND JUST TO CLARIFY,
YOU DO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. YES, I THINK THEY'RE
THERE. BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M
ACCEPTING AMENDMENTS. YES. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. AND SOME OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS ALSO DO INCUR,
CREATE AN EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO
THE REQUIREMENT AS WELL, ON TOP
OF WHAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED IN
TERMS OF URGENT MATTERS, SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES. THANK YOU,
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION TODAY
AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER
THE MERITS OF THIS BILL. I THINK
IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO, REALLY
ESSENTIALLY LEVEL THE PLAYING
FIELD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
SUPPORTING OUR PUBLIC WORKFORCE.
AND I AGREE, WE HAVE A PUBLIC
WORKFORCE CRISIS, WE'VE GOT A
LOT OF REASONS. THAT IS, SOME OF
THOSE ARE WITHIN OUR OWN
MUNICIPALITIES TO BE ABLE TO
SORT OF PROCESS, IMPROVE, TO,
HIRE FASTER AND, BE ABLE TO
ATTRACT BETTER, BUT IT SHOULDN'T
COME AT THE DEFAULT, SHOULDN'T
BE THAT WE ARE, DECIDING THAT WE
ARE SOMEHOW GOING TO LET GO OF
THESE JOBS, THESE GOOD MIDDLE
CLASS JOBS FOREVER AND END UP IN
THIS VICIOUS CYCLE. AND I SAW
THAT HAPPENING PRETTY REGULARLY
IN MY OWN TIME ON CITY COUNCIL,
WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO ENGAGE
ON THIS ISSUE. I HEARD A LOT
THAT WE AGREED ON WITH THE
OPPOSITION AS WELL, I THINK JUST
PRINCIPALLY. AND SO I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING, WITH YOU AND
MANY OF YOUR COALITION PARTNERS
AS WELL, TO TRY TO GET THESE
ISSUES RIGHT, I THINK THAT A LOT
OF, I'LL JUST WITHOUT GETTING
INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL, I'LL
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR THE
COMMITTEE'S, I VOTE ON THIS,
BUT, YOU KNOW, MY COMMITMENT IS,
THERE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING A ROLL
CALL. VOTE. PLEASE DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
I CALL I DIXON. DIXON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN,
BRIAN I CONNOLLY, CONNOLLY I
HANEY, HANEY I MAINTAIN MCKENNA.
PACHECO NOT VOTING. REYES
SANCHEZ. NO. SANCHEZ. NO.
WALDRON ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PLACE
THAT ON CALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT,
UP NEXT ITEM 11 AB 2557. ORTEGA
AND I WANT TO DO A JUST A
PROGRESS CHECK. WE'VE BEEN AT
WORK FOR ALMOST THREE HOURS,
AND, WE'VE COMPLETED NINE ITEMS
OUT OF 20. WE HAD THIS ROOM
UNTIL 1 P.M, AND WE HAVE 11
ITEMS LEFT. SO WE HAD TWO HOURS
WITH THE 11 ITEMS. THERE ARE
QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET RESOLVED
OFFLINE WITH OUR COLLEAGUES.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO THAT. BUT
IF WE DON'T COMPLETE BY 1 P.M,
WE DO NOT HAVE A ROOM ASSIGNED
IN THE AFTERNOON BECAUSE NONE OF
EM ARE AVAILABLE. WE HAVE VERY
LIMITED OPTIONS, WHICH MEANS
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK
TONIGHT IF WE DON'T FINISH BY 1
P.M. OKAY SOME OF YOU HAVE, AB
2557 TONIGHT AVAILABLE, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. MEMBER, THANK
YOU, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. WITH
THAT WARNING, I WILL MAKE SURE
TO KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT AB 2557 TODAY. I WOULD
LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH WILL
REMOVE THE TEN MONTH NOTICE
REQUIREMENT AND REMOVE THE
ABILITY TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT FROM
A CONTRACTOR. TWO OF THE MAIN
CONCERNS BROUGHT TO US BY THE
OPPOSITION. THIS BILL IS ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY AND RESULTS, SO
THAT WE CAN MAKE INFORMED
DECISIONS ABOUT WHO WE CONTRACT
WITH. I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING
CLEAR. I AM NOT IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM TRYING TO PUNISH
ANYONE. I AM SIMPLY WANT TO KNOW
THAT OUTCOMES OF THE PROGRAMS
THAT OUR TAXPAYERS ARE FUNDING.
THIS BILL DOES NOT, AGAIN, DOES
NOT PREVENT ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FROM CONTRACTING OUT FOR
SERVICES. MEMBERS I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT YOU, BUT EVERY TIME I SEE
A HEADLINE OR AN ARTICLE THAT
COMES OUT THAT'S SAYING THAT
THAT SAYS THAT WE ARE FAILING TO
TRACK OUR SPENDING WHEN IT COMES
TO RESULTS, WHETHER IT'S
HOMELESSNESS OR OTHER ISSUES. IT
I'M EMBARRASSED BECAUSE IT IS
ULTIMATELY OUR DECISION AND HOW
WE SPEND OUR DOLLARS, AND IT'S
UP TO US TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
AND THAT IS WHAT MY BILL DOES.
IT SIMPLY ASKS FOR INFORMATION
THÀNH DATA THAT SHOULD BE
COLLECTED REGARDLESS.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, I
CONTINUE TO HEAR
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF THIS
BILL. AND AGAIN, I LOVE OUR
NONPROFITS. IF IT WASN'T FOR OUR
NONPROFIT COMMUNITY IN THE AREA
IN WHICH I GREW UP, I WOULD NOT
BE HERE BEFORE YOU AS AN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SO, YOU KNOW,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO
CONTINUE TO WORKING WITH IN
TERMS OF THE OPPOSITION. BUT TO
TESTIFY WITH ME TODAY IS BRIAN
MIRAMONTES WITH AFSCME
CALIFORNIA AND YVONNE FERNANDEZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, AND SANDRA BARREIRO.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, SO I WILL
PASS IT OVER TO OUR WITNESSES.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING AGAIN,
BRYANT MIRAMONTEZ WITH ACM
CALIFORNIA, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THE BILL. AB 2557 ESTABLISHES
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WHO PERFORM
LOCAL AGENCY EMPLOYEES WORK. THE
REPORTS ARE IN WITH AN UPTICK OF
AN ARRAY OF CONTRACTORS BEING
CAUGHT MISUSING TAXPAYER DOLLARS
. THE EXISTING REPORTING
PRACTICES ARE SIMPLY NOT WORKING
. THE REPORTS ARE INTENDED TO
CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT ALL
CONTRACT LAWS SHOULD ALREADY BE
TRACKING FOR PUBLIC CONTRACTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MUCH THEY'RE
PAYING THEIR WORKERS AND WHETHER
THEY ARE ENGAGED WITH
SUBCONTRACTORS, HOW MUCH ARE THE
WORK THEY'RE DOING AND HOW MUCH
OF THE MONEY THEY'RE ACTUALLY
SPENDING ON SERVICES. THIS BILL
IS NOT ABOUT PENALIZING THE GOOD
ACTORS. IT'S ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
OF PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY AND
PUBLIC SERVICE. QUALITY AS WELL.
WE ARE AWARE OF THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERN TO THE BILL, AND WE HAVE
BEEN CONTINUING TO WORK TO
ADDRESS THEIR ISSUES, AND WE SEE
THIS AS A COMMON SENSE TRACKING
MEASURE THAT WILL ENSURE QUALITY
SERVICE DELIVERY AND MITIGATE
THE DEGRADATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR
WORK. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
YVONNE FERNANDEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF AB 2557,
WHICH, AS STATED, IS A BILL THAT
WILL REQUIRE PRIVATE COMPANIES
TO PROVIDE THAT PROVIDE SERVICES
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, SERVICES
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED
BY BARGAINING UNIT WORKERS TO
SUBMIT REPORTS DETAILING, AS
WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED,
PUBLIC SECTOR. PUBLIC SECTOR
JOBS WERE ONCE CONSIDERED THE
BACKBONE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS,
AND THAT WAS SAID TODAY BECAUSE
IT'S VERY MUCH TRUE, BUT DECADES
OF LOW FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT
AUSTERITY HAVE LED TO THE
DECLINE OF THESE STABLE JOBS.
TODAY, GOVERNMENTS CONTRACT
PUBLIC SERVICES SUCH AS
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND
HEALTH SERVICES TO A VARIETY OF
SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO ARE NOT
HELD TO THE SAME PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS THAT PUBLIC AGENCIES
AND THEIR WORKERS ARE HELD TO.
NOT ONLY DOES CONTRACTING OUT
LEAD TO THE ELIMINATION OF LONG
TERME MIDDLE CLASS CAREER
OPPORTUNITIES, ESPECIALLY FOR
WOMEN AND BIPOC INDIVIDUALS, BUT
THIS PRACTICE HAS AT TIMES LED
TO THE DEGRADATION OF SERVICES
THAT COMMUNITIES RELY ON. VERY
CRUCIAL SERVICES. THE CURRENT
PROCESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
APPROVING AND RE APPROVING
CONTRACTS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.
CONTRACTOR MISMANAGEMENT HAS LED
TO THE DECLINE OF SERVICES AND
THE MISUSE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
GIVEN THE FISCAL ENVIRONMENT
THAT WE ARE IN AND THE NEED TO
ENSURE EVERY DOLLAR IS SPENT
EFFECTIVELY, AB 2557 CREATES
FAIR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND
INCREASES TRANSPARENCY ON
CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE
SERVICE PROVIDERS AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AND FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2557? SANDRA BURR, ON BEHALF
OF SEIU, WE ARE CO-SPONSORS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS
MYERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2557.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CAITLIN DEAN, LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.
THE VOICE OF ALL 58 COUNTIES. WE
ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO AB
2557. EVEN WITH THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE SERIOUS
CONCERNS REQUIRING A CONTRACTOR
TO SUBMIT QUARTERLY REPORTS
EVERY 90 DAYS AND CONTRACTORS
FOR TEMPORARY SERVICES TO SUBMIT
EVERY MONTH, AND REQUIRING AN
AUDIT BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE,
REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR TO
ULTIMATELY ABSORB THE COSTS FOR
THE AUDIT AND TAKING UP TIME TO
PRESENT THE AUDIT DURING A
PUBLIC SESSION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, AND TYING THE HANDS
OF THE BOARD TO NOT BE ABLE TO
RENEW OR EXTEND A CONTRACT
BEFORE RECEIVING AND EVALUATING
THE AUDIT REPORT IS BURDENSOME,
INFLEXIBLE, AND IMPRACTICAL. ON
TOP OF THAT, THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE REPORTS TO INCLUDE PERSONAL
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION BY THE
CONTRACTORS THAT IS THEN SUBJECT
TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT, IS DEEPLY CONCERNING.
COUNTIES ALREADY EXPERIENCED
SAFETY CONCERNS FOR COUNTY
EMPLOYEES. NOW AB 2557 WILL
REQUIRE CONTRACTORS TO
POTENTIALLY PUT THEIR OWN
EMPLOYEES IN A SIMILAR
SITUATION. THESE PROVISIONS
WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DETER
NONPROFIT PROVIDERS, COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER
PRIVATE SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM
ENGAGING WITH COUNTIES AND OTHER
LOCAL AGENCIES, COUNTIES PROVIDE
VITAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES AND PARTNER WITH THE
STATE TO ACT AS THE SAFETY NET
FOR MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS. WE
ARE CONCERNED THAT AB 2557
CREATES A DE FACTO PROHIBITION
ON LOCAL AGENCY SERVICE
CONTRACTS. COUNTIES ARE
CONSTANTLY CHALLENGED BY THE
STATE TO DO MORE TO PARTNER MORE
COUNTIES. ARE COMMITTED TO
PROVIDING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE AND TO BE ACCOUNTABLE
TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE RESOURCES
THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MANAGING EFFORTS LIKE 2557 TIE
THE HANDS OF LOCAL AGENCIES IN
THEIR MOST BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTION. ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE FOR THE COMMITTEE THAT THIS
BILL AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARDS
AB 2489 AMEND THE SAME SECTION
OF THE LAW. THAT MEANS THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS MEASURE
EXIST IN THOSE OF AB 2489,
MAKING CONTRACTING EVEN LESS
WORKABLE FOR LOCAL AGENCIES. ON
BEHALF OF COUNTIES, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MISTER
CHAIR. MEMBERS, JEFF GREEN, CEO
OF CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
NONPROFITS. AND WHILE WE DON'T
YET HAVE A FORMAL POSITION ON
THIS BILL, WE ARE JOINED BY MANY
NONPROFITS CONCERNED WITH AB
2557. WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND STRIKING
THE PROVISIONS THAT WOULD HAVE
ALLOWED CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO
DIRECT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT TO
PAY FOR WORK ALREADY COMPLETED.
UNFORTUNATELY, FOR DETAILS
DETAILED IN OUR LETTERS AND IN
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, WE
REMAIN TROUBLED BY SOME OF THE
CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD RESULT
FROM ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL.
GOVERNMENTS TURN TO NONPROFITS
TO HELP DELIVER CRITICAL
SERVICES OF ALL KINDS. AS YOU
KNOW FROM JUVENILE JUSTICE,
SUPPORT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
ANIMAL WELFARE, HUMAN SERVICES
OF VARIOUS TYPES. AND WE HAVE A
LONG AND PROVEN TRACK RECORD
PROVIDING QUALITY, COST
EFFECTIVE, LINGUISTICALLY
APPROPRIATE, CULTURALLY
COMPETENT SERVICES THAT ARE
TRUSTED BY AND DEEPLY CONNECTED
TO COMMUNITIES HERE, OF ALL
TYPES. CALIFORNIANS TRUST
NONPROFITS TO DELIVER AB 2557 IS
DRAFTED, COVERS A WIDE RANGE AS
YET UNCLEAR SCOPE OF SERVICES
AND JOB FUNCTIONS POTENTIALLY
EXPOSES SENSITIVE INFORMATION,
AS MENTIONED ABOUT NONPROFIT
WORKERS POTENTIALLY IN VIOLATION
OF SOME PRIVACY LAWS. REQUIRES
NEW REPORTS THAT ARE LARGELY
DUPLICATIVE OF THOSE ALREADY
APPEARING IN MANY CONTRACTS. WE
CREATE SIGNIFICANT NEW RISKS,
UNCERTAINTY AND COMPLIANCE COSTS
FOR THE NONPROFITS THEMSELVES,
ALL WITHOUT IDENTIFYING A
FUNDING SOURCE. A ROBUST A
ROBUST NONPROFIT SECTOR
COMPLEMENTS A STRONG PUBLIC
SECTOR, HAS FOR DECADES, AND
BOTH BENEFIT FROM A MORE
COLLABORATIVE COLLABORATION. AND
I'LL POINT OUT ONE IN LOS
ANGELES, CIVIC LEADERS NONPROFIT
PROVIDERS, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
UNIONS WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP
A FRAMEWORK THAT'S PART OF A
BALLOT MEASURE HEADED TO THIS
NOVEMBER'S BALLOT THAT WOULD
RAISE MORE THAN $1 BILLION
ANNUALLY SUPPORTING HOMELESS
SERVICES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION. AGAIN, WE WOULD
PREFER TO FIND A PATH FORWARD
THAT ENSURES ROBUST PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT, IMPROVES THE ABILITY
OF NONPROFITS TO SERVE AS
PARTNERS TO GOVERNMENT, AND
CONTINUES TO ENSURE QUALITY
SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIANS WHO
ARE COUNTING ON BOTH THE PUBLIC
AND NONPROFIT SECTORS TO WORK
TOGETHER ON THEIR BEHALF. THIS
TIME, WE MUST REGISTER THESE
CONCERNS. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2557? MISTER CHAIR DARBY
KERNAN FOR MEALS ON WHEELS,
CALIFORNIA. WE REMAIN CONCERNED
WITH THIS MEASURE AS WELL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. TAYLOR MOTION,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SIERRA DE CETTE, ON BEHALF OF
THE RURAL COUNTY,
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GENE HEARST, HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS MY
COLLEAGUES AT THE COUNTY HEALTH
EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, AT THE COUNTY
WELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
AND THE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING, DOROTHY JOHNSON,
ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
. RESPECTFULLY POSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, AARON AVERY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED, ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
SANITATION AGENCIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, JOHNNY PINA WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALYSSA SALEHI,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICT, ALSO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MIKE ROBISON. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STAFFING PROFESSIONALS IN THE
AMERICAN STAFFING ASSOCIATION.
OPPOSED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. SORRY FOR BEING
LATE, BUT PAT MORAN, AARON REED
AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, WE'RE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'LL BRING THIS BACK
TO COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS. YEAH, OKAY.
THE MOTION AND A SECOND, MADAM
VICE CHAIR. I'LL TALK FAST, I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL. I
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR NOBLE
INTENT. I'M ASSUMING THAT I'LL.
I'LL MAKE THAT STIPULATION. I
DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS HEADED.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE LIFE THE
MANAGEMENT, THE OPERATION OF
NONPROFITS SO DIFFICULT BY
HAVING TO COMPLY WITH ONE MORE,
ONE MORE, ONE MORE REGULATION BY
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I
MYSELF HAVE SERVED ON A NUMBER
OF NONPROFIT BOARDS FOR THE LAST
30 YEARS. UNITED WAY IN LOS
ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY, AND
YMCA IN LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE
COUNTY, AND KCET IN LOS ANGELES
AND ORANGE COUNTY. I SEE THEY
RUN AS BUSINESSES. THEY COMPLY
WITH STATE LAWS, LABOR LAWS, ALL
THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS OF
OPERATING A NONPROFIT BUSINESS.
BUT NOW TO IMPOSE MORE ONEROUS
REQUIREMENTS ON THE HIRING
PRACTICES, OR EVERY MONTH AND
EVERY QUARTER, I, I THINK YOU'RE
TRYING TO JUST, MAKE IT LIFE SO
DIFFICULT FOR NONPROFITS. SO
WHAT IS, AND THEN TURN IT OVER
TO THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE
THOSE SOCIAL SERVICES? I DON'T
KNOW, I'M NOT. I'M JUST SAYING
IT'S VERY TROUBLESOME TO ME TO
IMPOSE THESE KIND OF REGULATIONS
AND OWNERS REQUIREMENTS WHERE
THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM. ON
NONPROFITS, I SEE BUSINESS.
BUSINESS CAN DEFEND ITSELF. AND
I CERTAINLY PRO-BUSINESS ON
THESE KINDS OF THINGS. BUT FOR
NONPROFIT CGRTS WHO DON'T HAVE
THE WHEREWITHAL, TO FIGHT THIS
TYPE OF OVERREGULATION, THAT'S
VERY CONCERNING, NOT ONLY FOR
THIS BILL, BUT THIS GENERALLY
WHAT THIS IS REALLY ALL ABOUT.
SO I WILL BE A NO, OBVIOUSLY,
BUT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT
WHAT THIS PORTENDS FOR THE
FUTURE IN CALIFORNIA. WHAT ARE
WE TRYING TO DO TO BUSINESS?
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO TO
NONPROFITS? WHAT ARE WE TRYING
TO DO? AS I SAID EARLIER, TO
PROPERTY OWNERS, IT'S VERY
CONCERNING THAT THE GOVERNMENT
IS THE ONLY PROVIDER OF SERVICES
OF THE LAST RESORT. I STAUNCHLY
AM OPPOSED TO THAT NOTION. AND I
WILL BE VOTING NO. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR BARRAGAN.
YEAH I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT
THE BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO
EVERYONE WHO'S PROVIDING
SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITIES. IT
ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE THAT ARE
PROVIDING FUNCTIONS THAT
CURRENTLY ARE IN THE LAST TEN
YEARS, WERE PERFORMED BY PUBLIC
UNION EMPLOYEES. SO THIS IS
SPECIFICALLY CRAFTED TO DEAL
WITH WHERE THOSE JOBS ARE GOING
ELSEWHERE. AND MY GUESS IS THAT
THE AUTHOR, ALTHOUGH SHE CAN
SPEAK FOR HERSELF, WOULD HAVE NO
SUCH CONCERNS IF THE NONPROFITS
WERE PROVIDING THE SAME WAGES
AND BENEFITS THAT OUR COUNTIES
ARE, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. AND SO
THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM HERE
THAT SHE'S TRYING TO ADDRESS,
AND I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. BUT SAY
WITH THAT, IT'S HAPPY TO MOVE
THE BILL AND SUPPORT IT. THANK
YOU. WELL, THE BILL'S BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED, APPRECIATE SENATOR
ORTEGA, FOR WORKING WITH OUR
COMMITTEE STAFF AND ACCEPTING
AMENDMENTS, BUT ULTIMATELY, THE
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES ARE
IMPORTANT, HAVING COME FROM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, I'VE
DEFINITELY SEEN THE PERILS OF
OUTSOURCING WHEN THEY'RE,
OTHERWISE, UNION WORK WITHOUT
THE PROPER, GUARDS RAILS. SO
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. DO PASS
IS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
CALLER I CALLER I DIXON. DIXON
NØ BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN I
BRIAN. BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I HANEY. HANEY I
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. MCKENNA. I
PACHECO. REYES. SANCHEZ. NO.
SANCHEZ. NO WALDRON. I WILL
PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU
.
THANK YOU. THIS IS, ITEM 14 AB
2794.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. TODAY I'M HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2794, A BILL THAT
WOULD CREATE THE ANTI
DISPLACEMENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
ACQUISITION PROGRAM FOR
CALIFORNIA. WHEN WE THINK OF
GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT,
WE OFTEN THINK OF RESIDENTIAL
TENANTS. BUT WE FORGET OFTEN
ABOUT OUR MOM AND POP
BUSINESSES, OUR LOCAL BARBER
SHOPS, OUR GO TO VEGAN SOUL FOOD
SPOTS, THE DRY CLEANER WHO
CLEANS OUR SUITS EVERY DAY. ALL
ARE VALUABLE, AND ARE BEING
PRICED OUT AND EVICTED AS WELL.
THESE BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN PARTS
OF OUR COMMUNITIES FOR YEARS AND
EVEN DECADES IN SOME CASES. NOT
ONLY DO THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CULTURE AND VIBRANCY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS THEY SERVE, THEY
ALSO CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO
THE LOCAL AND STATE ECONOMY.
ACCORDING TO A 2023 REPORT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF SMALL
BUSINESS ADVOCATE, MINORITY
OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES
CONTRIBUTED $192.8 BILLION IN
ECONOMIC OUTPUT, MORE THAN THE
ANNUAL GDP OF 18 UNITED STATES.
IT GENERATED 28.7 MILLION IN TAX
REVENUE, AND THEY SUPPORTED
NEARLY 2.5 MILLION JOBS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. DESPITE THEIR
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR
STATE, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND
PARTICULARLY MINORITY OWNED
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE STRUGGLING
IN A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD. MORE
THAN 40% OF PANDEMIC INDUCED
BUSINESS CLOSURES WERE FOR BLACK
BUSINESSES. IN RECOGNITION OF
THESE HARDSHIPS, THE INCREDIBLE
CITY OF SAN JOSE, WHERE SMALL
BUSINESSES HAVE STRUGGLED WITH
DISPLACEMENT SINCE BEFORE THE
PANDEMIC, ESTABLISHED THE
COMMUNITY STABILIZATION AND
OPPORTUNITY PATHWAYS FUND TO
STABILIZE LOCAL SMALL
BUSINESSES, ACCORDING TO A STUDY
BY UC BERKELEY. BUSINESSES THAT
OWN THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY
OPERATE THEIR BUSINESSES ARE
LESS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
HOWEVER, THE STUDY SHOWED THAT
ONLY ONE THIRD OF BUSINESSES ARE
OWNER OCCUPIED, AND WITHIN THAT
ONE THIRD, MANY ARE OWNER
OCCUPIED BECAUSE THEY ARE
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS OR ART
TEACHERS OPERATING OUT OF THEIR
HOMES. AB 2794 DIRECTS THE GO.
DIRECTS GO-BIZ TO ESTABLISH THE
ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD
PROVIDE LOW INTEREST LOANS TO
NONPROFITS OR LAND TRUSTS TO
PURCHASE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN
AREAS THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO
DISPLACEMENT. IT BUILDS OFF THE
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LAND TRUST
MODEL, A PROVEN METHOD FOR
REDUCING DISPLACEMENT AND
PRESERVING AFFORDABILITY. HERE
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL IS ROBBIE LEE, THE CEO FOR
BLACK OWNED AND OPERATED
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, AND
PROPHET WALKER, THE FOUNDER OF C
HOUSE, TREEHOUSE CO-LIVING.
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR, AN
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ROBBIE
LEE, AND I'M THE INTERIM CEO OF
BLACK OWNED AND OPERATED
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, SERVING
LEIMERT PARK COMMUNITY, WHERE WE
TIRELESSLY SUPPORT AND UPLIFT
OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES,
CONCENTRATING OUR EFFORTS ON
THOSE MOST VULNERABLE TO
ECONOMIC DISPARITIES AND
GENTRIFICATION. MANY COMMUNITIES
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND SO
MANY OTHERS THROUGHOUT OUR
STATE, ARE EXPERIENCING A
CRISIS. THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC
EXACERBATED AN ALREADY DIRE
SITUATION FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS, RESULTING IN UNPAID
COMMERCIAL RENTS ESTIMATED
BETWEEN 993 MILLION AND $2.3
BILLION. THESE BUSINESSES, MANY
LED BY WOMEN AND BIPOC
INDIVIDUALS, ARE NOT JUST
COMMERCIAL ENTITIES, BUT
CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS THAT HOLD
OUR COMMUNITIES TOGETHER. THEY
PROVIDE ESSENTIAL JOBS, SERVICES
AND SERVE AS A FOUNDATION FOR
THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF MANY OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AB 2794
PROPOSES A VISIONARY SOLUTION
THROUGH LOW INTEREST LOANS TO
COMMUNITY BASED ACQUISITION
PARTNERS. THIS WILL ENABLE THE
PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
IN AREAS AT RISK OF
GENTRIFICATION, THEREBY ENSURING
THESE BUSINESSES CAN CONTINUE TO
OPERATE AND THRIVE. BY FOCUSING
ON PRESERVING BUSINESSES OWNED
BY BIPOC AND WOMEN INDIVIDUALS.
THE BILL NOT ONLY ADDRESSES
ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES, BUT ALSO
SERVES AS A MODEL FOR
SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AS
CALIFORNIA PREPARES TO HOST
MAJOR INTERNATIONAL EVENTS,
INCLUDING THE UPCOMING LOS
ANGELES GAMES OLYMPIC GAMES IN
2028, THE ECONOMIC SPOTLIGHT
WILL INEVITABLY SHINE ON OUR
GOLDEN STATE. WHILE SUCH EVENTS
PROMISE SUSTAINABLE AND
SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS.
ESTIMATED OVER $11 BILLION AND
BRINGING OVER 79,000 JOBS TO THE
AREA, THEY CAN ALSO ACCELERATE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES THAT
CAN LEAD TO DISPLACEMENT OF
CULTURAL COMMUNITIES. AB 2794 IS
CRUCIAL IN THIS CONTEXT, AS IT
AIMS TO FORTIFY COMMUNITIES
AGAINST THESE PRESSURES,
ENSURING THAT BENEFITS OF
HOSTING GLOBAL EVENTS WILL BE
EQUITABLY SHARED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS PROPHET
WALKER. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE
BOARD OF BLACK OWNED AND
OPERATED COMMUNITY LAND TRUST.
MY DAY JOB. MY DAY JOB ACTUALLY
IS A DEVELOPER. I KNOW VERY WELL
THE IMPACTS THAT, THOUGHTLESS
DEVELOPMENT CAN HAVE ON OUR
COMMUNITIES, I ALSO GREW UP IN
SOUTH LA AND WATTS. I GREW UP
WATCHING MY PARENTS SEE THEIR
ONLY WAY POSSIBLY OUT IS THROUGH
SMALL BUSINESSES AND UPLIFTING
THEMSELVES, I HAD THE BEAUTIFUL
BENEFIT OF COMING TO THE LEIMERT
PARK COMMUNITY, WHICH ACTUALLY
IS A HUB OF BLACK AND LOCAL
SMALL BUSINESSES, AND WHILE THE
BUSINESSES WERE ATTEMPTING TO
THRIVE, A LARGER FORCE OF, OF,
ECONOMIC UPLIFT WAS HAPPENING.
AND PEOPLE WERE AFRAID. IN FACT,
A BUILDING THAT WAS FOR SALE FOR
HALF $1 MILLION, LITERALLY THREE
YEARS AGO WAS UP FOR WAS UP FOR
SALE FOR $6.5 MILLION. IN MY
WORLD, THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THAT
PENCIL IS TO DISPLACE EVERY
EXISTING TENANT, REMOVE THEM,
UPLIFT THE BUILDING, AND
DISPLACE FOLKS, THROUGH A BILL
WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
WE WERE ABLE TO PASS, A $14
MILLION MEASURE THAT ALLOWED FOR
NONPROFITS AND LAND TRUSTS TO
ACQUIRE COMMERCIAL ASSETS SUCH
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES AND
ARTISANS COULD STAY THERE, THIS
BILL FURTHER REINFORCES THIS
MEASURE. AND GIVES NONPROFITS
AND LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS A
PATHWAY TO ACTUALLY BUY AND OWN
THEIR BUSINESSES AND REMAIN
STABILIZED. SO I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2794? SKYLAR WONACOTT WITH
THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2794? ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? WE
HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A
SECOND. I DO WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. WE'VE
BEEN OFTENTIMES WHERE WE'RE
REACTIONARY TO GENTRIFICATION.
THIS IS A UNIQUELY PROACTIVE
BILL. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW WHAT
YOU'RE DOING. WHEN YOU MENTIONED
VEGAN SOUL FOOD, WHICH I HAVE
ENJOYED IN SOUTH LA IN THE PAST,
AND SO I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED
AS A COAUTHOR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? ABSOLUTELY. I WASN'T EVEN
THINKING ABOUT OUR LUNCH AS
SIMPLY WHOLESOME, NO. I MEAN,
THIS BILL WAS INSPIRED WORK FOR
ME WALKING THROUGH LEIMERT PARK,
NAPOLI NATURALS, A BUSINESS.
THEY'RE DOING ALMOST 2 MILLION
IN GROSS SALES ON A MONTH TO
MONTH LEASE. THOSE ARE THE
CONDITIONS, IN COMMUNITIES ALL
ACROSS CALIFORNIA. AND WE HAVE
TO DO OUR PART TO STEP IN AND
FIGHT BACK AGAINST THAT KIND OF
DISPLACEMENT. THERE'S DEFINITELY
A ROLE FOR PRIVATE EQUITY AND
VENTURE CAPITAL AND THE BANKING
INDUSTRY, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THOSE
SAME COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT ARE
ALSO VULNERABLE. BEALL, TO BEING
BOXED OUT OF THOSE KINDS OF
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS. THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STATE TO
MAKE MONEY AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. TAKE A ROLL
CALL ON AB 2794. PLEASE DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA A
KALRA. AYE. DIXON. DIXON AYE.
BAUER. KHN. BAUER. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. AYE BRYANT. AYE.
CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE PACHECO.
AYE. PACHECO. AYE. REYES.
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. AYE. WALDRON
ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. SENATOR O'BRIEN.
OKAY, LET'S DO IT UP. NEXT ITEM
17 AB 3043 IS SOMETHING THREE OF
US.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, FIRST, I'D LIKE
TO START BY THANKING YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF, MANUELA, FOR
WORKING WITH MY STAFF ON THIS
BILL. AS YOU MAY KNOW, SILICOSIS
IS A TYPE OF PULMONARY FIBROSIS.
A LUNG DISEASE RESULTING FROM
BREATHING IN TINY BITS OF
SILICA, A COMMON MINERAL FOUND
IN QUARTZ SAND AND MANY OTHER
ROCK TYPES. HOWEVER ARTIFICIAL
STONE IS DANGEROUS DUE TO ITS
HIGH SILICA CONCENTRATION AND
HARMFUL POLYMER RESINS, DYES,
AND OTHER BINDING MATERIALS TO
FORM A SLAB. WORKERS WHO CUT,
GRIND, POLISH AND DRILL
ARTIFICIAL STONE ARE AT THE
HIGHEST RISK OF CONTRACTING
SILICOSIS DUE TO THE
OVEREXPOSURE AND HIGH LEVELS OF
SILICA USED TO MAKE PRODUCTS
LIKE ARTIFICIAL STONE
COUNTERTOPS. WORKERS WHO BREATHE
IN SILICA PARTICLES CAN DEVELOP
SILICOSIS. THIS IS AN INCURABLE,
PROGRESSIVE DISEASE THAT CAUSES
SEVERE AND FATAL HEALTH EFFECTS,
WITH OVER 60% OF REPORTED CASES
IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY OF
LOS ANGELES, THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH HAS
IDENTIFIED APPROXIMATELY 95
COUNTERTOP WORKERS WITH
SILICOSIS BETWEEN 2019 AND 2022,
52 ARTIFICIAL STONE WORKERS WERE
DIAGNOSED WITH SILICOSIS, 51 OF
WHOM WERE IMMIGRANTS FROM MEXICO
AND CENTRAL AMERICA. THE MEDIAN
AGE OF DIAGNOSIS IS 45. HOWEVER,
I HAVE CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE
DIAGNOSED WITH SILICOSIS AND
THEY ARE AS YOUNG AS 27. SOME
PATIENTS HAVE TO PUT ON OXYGEN
AND LOSE THE ABILITY TO WORK AND
PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES. IN
SEVERE CASES, A LUNG TRANSPLANT
MAY BE AN OPTION FOR SOME
PATIENTS. HOWEVER, A LUNG
TRANSPLANT CAN COST OVER $1
MILLION. ADDITIONALLY, PATIENTS
ON THE LUNG TRANSPLANT LIST
RARELY LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO
RECEIVE THE LUNG TRANSPLANT. IF
A PERSON DOES RECEIVE THE
TRANSPLANT, IT ONLY PROLONGS A
PERSON'S LIFE. FOR AN AVERAGE OF
TEN YEARS, THERE IS NO CURE FOR
SILICOSIS. MY SPONSOR, THE STATE
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL, WHOM YOU WILL HEAR FROM
TODAY, HAS BEEN SOUNDING ALARMS
OF SILICOSIS WITH CAL OSHA FAR
BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE. UNFORTUNATELY,
SILICON CASES IN CALIFORNIA HAVE
INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY,
SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER THE WATCHFUL
EYE OF OUR STATE REGULATORS. MY
DISTRICT IS AT THE CENTER OF
THIS GLOBAL EPIDEMIC. LATINO
WORKERS ARE NOT DISPENSABLE. Ã
SILICOSIS DIAGNOSIS IS A DEATH
SENTENCE. WE APPRECIATE STATE
REGULATORS ISSUING EMERGENCY
TEMPORARY STANDARDS THIS
DECEMBER. HOWEVER THESE
STANDARDS DO NOT GO FAR ENOUGH
TO PROTECT WORKERS, AS AB 3043
ESTABLISHES A SYSTEM FOR
TRACKING ARTIFICIAL STONE TO
ENSURE FABRICATION. FABRICATION
SHOPS IMPLEMENT THE STATE'S
TEMPORARY STANDARDS AND
ENCOURAGE STATE ENFORCEMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS BILL WILL
CODIFY THE PROHIBITION OF DRY
CUTTING OF ARTIFICIAL STONES,
CREATE A LICENSURE PROGRAM FOR
FABRICATION SHOPS, REQUIRE ALL
WORKERS TO UNDERGO A TRAINING
PROGRAM AND REQUIRE THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS AND CAL OSHA TO REPORT
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARDS
AND FUTURE ADOPTED STANDARDS. I
HAVE TAKEN A NUMBER OF OTHER
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION. ADDITIONALLY, THE
STONE INDUSTRY, WHICH WE WILL
HEAR FROM TODAY, WILL SUPPORT AB
3043 WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE
PREVAILING WAGE LANGUAGE. I MADE
A COMMITMENT IN ASSEMBLY LABOR
COMMITTEE THAT THE PREVAILING
WAGE LANGUAGE WILL COME OUT IN
THE NEXT COMMITTEE TODAY I HAVE
KEITH DUNN REPRESENTING THE
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL AND GLENN FARRELL
REPRESENT THE SILICA SAFETY
COALITION AS WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, SOMETIMES WE HAVE
DIFFICULT BILLS TO DISCUSS TODAY
. I HOPE TO MAKE IT VERY EASY
FOR YOU. THERE'S TWO THINGS YOU
NEED TO KNOW. NUMBER ONE,
SILICOSIS IS ALWAYS FATAL.
NUMBER TWO, SILICOSIS IS 100%
PREVENTABLE. WE'RE GOING TO BE
WORKING WITH INDUSTRY TO SET UP
GUIDELINES AND STRUCTURES SO
THAT WE CAN SAVE LIVES. THIS
SHOULD BE AN EASY VOTE FOR ALL
OF YOU. IT'S A BIPARTISAN BILL
OUT OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE. I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
GLENN FARRELL WITH GGF ADVOCACY
ON BEHALF OF THE SILICA SAFETY
COALITION. IT'S A COALITION
COMPRISED OF STONE
MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS,
FABRICATORS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY AT THE OUTSET
, JUST KIND OF ECHO MY COLLEAGUE
THAT, YOU KNOW, SILICA SAFETY
COALITION STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE
PRIORITIZATION OF STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND
ENFORCEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS
THAT PROTECT EMPLOYEES FROM
SILICOSIS, WE CONCUR COMPLETELY
THAT SILICOSIS IS ENTIRELY
PREVENTABLE, WITH SOME OF THE
STANDARDS AND PRACTICES THAT ARE
OUTLINED IN AB 3043, REGARDING
THE PROHIBITION ON USE OF DRY
METHODS AND THE REQUIRED USE OF
EFFECTIVE WET METHODS AND A
NUMBER OF OTHER BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES, WE REALLY WANT TO
EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO THE
AUTHOR AND TO THE SPONSORS AND
HER STAFF, FOR THE WORK AND THE
ENGAGEMENT OVER THE OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL MONTHS ON THIS
BILL, WE'RE REALLY PROUD TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. AND I
WILL JUST SAY, JUST FOR THE
RECORD, AND I KNOW THE AUTHOR'S
ALREADY STATED IT, AS HAS THE
SPONSOR. YOU KNOW, WE'RE
INTERESTED IN ONGOING ENGAGEMENT
TO KIND OF SHAPE THE TRAINING
PROVISIONS, TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S AN EFFECTIVE TRAINING
PROGRAM TO PROTECT WORKERS. SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO THAT CONTINUED
ENGAGEMENT AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT
TODAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 343? GOOD MORNING, ANDY
LIEBERMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND PROUD
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, YVONNE
FERNANDEZ, CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, KURT CAMPBELL ESHOO, FOR
THE ENGINEERED STONE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ASKED
A WORLDWIDE ALSO IN A SUPPORT
POSITION. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND HER TEAM FOR THE WORK
ON THE REMAINING ITEMS. THANK
YOU. JEFF SIEVERS, ON BEHALF OF
THE COSENTINO GROUP. ALSO WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND ON THEIR
STAFF FOR ALL THE HELP AND WE'RE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3043? ALL RIGHT
. BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY, MOTIONS,
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND,
SECOND? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION. IT'S
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. AS WAS
MENTIONED BY THE WITNESSES, IS
LITERALLY TO SAVE LIVES. AND I
THINK BOTH INDUSTRY WORKERS CAN
COME TOGETHER AND REMOVE THESE
UNNECESSARY Kò HARMS AND
ULTIMATELY DEATH FROM OUR
COMMUNITY. AND SO I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AS YOU SAID, THIS IS A
GREAT EXAMPLE OF AN ISSUE WHERE
WE WERE ABLE TO BRING LABOR AND
INDUSTRY TOGETHER EITHER TO SAVE
LIVES. AND I'D LIKE TO THANK MY
TEAM FOR SPENDING HOURS BRINGING
THIS COALITION TOGETHER HERE,
AND COMING TO THIS AGREEMENT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. TAKE A ROLL
CALL ON AB 3043. PLEASE DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I CALL I
DIXON NOT VOTING BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN. BRYANT. AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKINNON AYE.
MCHENRY. AYE. PACHECO. PACHECO.
AYE. REYES SANCHEZ. WALDRON AYE.
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON. WE'LL PLACE
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU. A
SUMMARY, CONNELLY. ITEM NINE AB
2539.
THIS IS THE FOR THE OPPOSITION.
OKAY IT HAS AMENDMENTS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY
. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
WE'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING
THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF, AS
ALWAYS, FOR THEIR WORK AND INPUT
ON THIS BILL. I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AB 2539 WOULD ALLOW
RESIDENTS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS
THE TIME NECESSARY TO ORGANIZE
AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE
THEIR PARK. WHEN AN OWNER IS
INTERESTED IN SELLING. MOBILE
HOMES ARE ONE OF THE LAST FORMS
OF NATURALLY OCCURRING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
CALIFORNIA. THESE PARKS HOUSE AN
ESTIMATED 363,000 CALIFORNIANS
IN RECENT YEARS, INVESTMENT
FIRMS AND CORPORATIONS
NATIONWIDE HAVE BEGUN BUYING UP
MOBILE HOME PARKS. MANY
VULNERABLE RESIDENTS, LIKE
SENIORS OR PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES WHO LIVE ON FIXED
INCOMES, CANNOT AFFORD THE RENT
SPIKES THAT ARE NOW COMMONPLACE
WHEN PARK OWNERSHIP SWITCHES
FROM AN INDIVIDUAL PARK OWNER TO
CORPORATE OWNERSHIP, NOT OWNING
THE LAND THEIR HOME SITS ON,
EFFECTIVELY TRAPS HOMEOWNERS AND
FORCES THEM TO PAY ENDLESSLY.
RISING RENTS AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE PARK OWNER OR ABANDON
THEIR HOME. SINCE MOVING, IT IS
EITHER FINANCIAL OR PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE, AS MOST HOMES ARE
NOT ACTUALLY ABLE TO BE
RELOCATED. AB 2539 BUILDS ON AN
EXISTING RESOURCE LEASE AT NO
COST TO THE STATE, BY ALLOWING
RESIDENTS TO SECURE THEIR OWN
LONG TERME HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
AND STABILITY BY PURCHASING THE
PARK AND CONTROLLING FUTURE RENT
INCREASES, IT CAN HELP ADDRESS
THE GROWING ISSUE OF
DISPLACEMENT AND LOSS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS,
PARTICULARLY FOR VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS LIKE FIXED INCOME
SENIORS. ADDITIONALLY, OWNING
THE PARK INCENTIVIZES RESIDENTS
TO INVEST IN REPAIRS AND
UPGRADES, WHEREAS CORPORATE
OWNERS OR INVESTORS HAVE LITTLE
INCENTIVE TO MAKE THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS. SO MANY PARKS NEED
TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS, AS
SEVERAL STATES HAVE PASSED SOME
FORM OF RIGHT TO FIRST REFUSE
REFUSAL LAW WITH SUCCESS, AS IS
BEING RECOMMENDED THROUGH THIS
LAW UNDER THE CURRENT MOBILE
HOME RESIDENCY LAW OR MÀ MRL, A
PARK OWNER IS REQUIRED TO GIVE
AN EXISTING RESIDENT
ORGANIZATION A MINIMUM OF 30
DAYS NOTICE OF THEIR INTENT TO
SELL. THE AB 2539, AS AMENDED,
WOULD PROVIDE A LONGER MINIMUM
NOTICE PERIOD OF 120 DAYS TO,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, GIVE
RESIDENTS THE TIME NEEDED TO
FORM A RESIDENT ORGANIZATION,
THÀNH, FOR PURPOSES OF
PURCHASING THE PARK AND WOULD
CREATE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
FOR A RESIDENT ORGANIZATION TO
MAKE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE A PARK
WITHIN THAT 120 DAY TIME PERIOD,
THE PARK OWNER MUST ENGAGE IN
GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION AND WOULD
BE PROHIBITED FROM NEGOTIATING
WITH OR ACCEPTING AN OFFER FROM
ANOTHER PARTY UNTIL THE 120 DAY
PERIOD HAS ELAPSED. I APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK AND INPUT ON THIS
BILL. MOST NOTABLY, WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE LANGUAGE
TO INCORPORATE THE COMMITTEE'S
SUGGESTIONS IN THE ANALYSIS.
THIS, INCLUDING ON A REOPENER
PROVISION MAKING THE CONTENT
REQUIREMENT OF THE NOTICE MORE
ROBUST, AND FURTHER CLARIFYING
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR
VIOLATION OF THIS BILL. WE ARE
WORKING ON LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS EACH OF THOSE
ISSUES, SO I WILL NOW PASS IT
OFF TO MY WITNESSES. MARGARET
DIMAGGIO, REPRESENTING LEGAL AID
OF SONOMA COUNTY, THE BILL
SPONSOR, AND MICHELLE MONNING
MOBILE HOME OWNER AND MEMBER OF
THE GOLDEN STATE MANUFACTURED
HOME OWNERS LEAGUE. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALRA.
HONORABLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND A
SPECIAL THANKS TO STAFF WHO
WORKED VERY HARD ON THE ANALYSIS
AND THE AMENDMENTS HERE, MY NAME
IS MARGARET DIMAGGIO. I'M THE
HOUSING POLICY ATTORNEY WITH
LEGAL AID OF SONOMA COUNTY, OUR
HOUSING TEAM REPRESENTS MOBILE
HOME OWNERS IN SONOMA COUNTY
FACING EVICTION, FORECLOSURES,
HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATE ATION
AND MORE, WE ALSO WORK WITH THE
TENANTS UNION TO ORGANIZE PARKS,
THE SONOMA COUNTY TENANTS UNION,
MOBILE HOMES OFFER A CHANCE FOR
LOW INCOME FOLKS TO OWN A HOME
AND SET DOWN ROOTS INTO A
COMMUNITY. PARKS ARE OFTEN
REFERRED TO AS THE LAST
NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. IF WE DON'T PASS AB
TWO, FIVE, THREE, NINE AND OTHER
LAWS TO PROTECT THESE PARKS,
THEIR AFFORDABILITY WILL
CONTINUE TO WANE. AND EVEN AS WE
SIT HERE IN PETALUMA, THE
RESIDENTS OF LITTLEWOODS MOBILE
HOME PARK ARE UNDERGOING A FOUR
DAY ARBITRATION WHERE THE
CORPORATE OWNER, HARMONY
COMMUNITIES, HAS IMPOSED A $350
RENT INCREASE ON A PARK FULL OF
PRIMARILY MONOLINGUAL SPANISH
SPEAKING FAMILIES, WORKING
FAMILIES, SO THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN HERE TO TESTIFY IF THEY HAD
NOT BEEN IN THAT, SO I WISH SOME
LUCK, SO THAT BEING SAID, YOU
KNOW, I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT PROTECTING AND PRESERVING
EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A
WELL ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT
INTEREST. IT COSTS THE STATE
NOTHING. A SELLER CAN OBTAIN
FAIR MARKET VALUE AND RESIDENTS
GAIN STABLE GROUND. SO I WOULD
ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PASS TWO AB
2539 SO RESIDENTS CAN GET A
STAKE IN THEIR FUTURE WHILE
AVOIDING DISPLACEMENT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS MICHELLE MONNING. I'M
ACTUALLY A MOBILE HOME OWNER OF
ONE AS ASSEMBLYMAN REFERRED TO
MANY THOUSANDS, I AM A MEMBER OF
THE GOLDEN STATE MANUFACTURED
HOME OWNERS LEAGUE, AND GSML IS
A RESIDENT BASED ORGANIZATION.
VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF HIS
BILL. GSML FOR OVER 60 YEARS HAS
ADVOCATED FOR OUR SENIORS ON
FIXED INCOMES AND MODERATE
INCOME TO LOW INCOME CALIFORNIA
ASIANS WHO LIVE IN MOBILE HOMES.
WE OWN OUR HOMES, BUT WE RENT
THE LAND THAT THEY SIT ON.
THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY MOBILE. AS
MOST OF YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW. WE
CAN'T JUST PICK THEM UP AND MOVE
THEM. BUT I'D LIKE TO SHARE A
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. MY PARK OF
319 HOMES WAS OWNED AND OPERATED
BY A SAME FAMILY AND MANAGEMENT
COMPANY FOR OVER 42 YEARS. IN
AUGUST OF 2021, IT WAS SOLD TO
AN OUT OF STATE CORPORATION THAT
HAS ACQUIRED 78 MOBILE HOME
PARKS NATIONWIDE. 33 OF THOSE
ARE HERE IN CALIFORNIA. NONE OF
US HOMEOWNERS EVEN KNEW THAT THE
PARK WAS FOR SALE, LET ALONE
SOLD AND WE HEARD ABOUT THE NEW
OWNERSHIP AFTER THE FACT. THE
DEAL WAS DONE. A PROSPECTIVE
BUYER IN MY PARK NOW WILL PAY 3
TO $400 MORE IN LOT RENT THAN
THE SELLER IS PAYING THAT 30 TO
40% SPIKE IN SPACE. RENT IS NOT
ONLY A DETERRENT FOR BUYERS, BUT
IT'S A SELLER'S NIGHTMARE. WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE ANOTHER
MOBILE HOME PARK SHUT DOWN IN A
REAL ESTATE GAME THAT DEALS US
OUT. WHEN A PARK OWNER DECIDES
TO SELL THE PARK, WE SHOULD HAVE
A FAIR CHANCE TO LOOK INTO THE
POSSIBILITY OF POOLING OUR MONEY
TO BUY IT. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE
MORE TIME TO SEE IF PURCHASING
THE LAND UNDER OUR HOMES WOULD
BE DOABLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2539? DANNY
KENDALL KAISER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
LINDA, LINDA AND I MOBILE HOME
RESIDENT IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ERIC HARRIS, DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
IN SUPPORT BEVERLY PURCELL,
SMALL MEMBER AND HOMEOWNER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JOSEPH NYE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2539? I'M GOING TO CLOSE. OKAY.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, CHRIS HOSOKAWA, MAN, I
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
ITS INDULGENCE AND ALLOW US
ALLOW US TO TURN OVER OUR
COLLECTIVE OPPOSITION. TIME TO
DAN RUDDEROW, WHO IS ONE OF
CALIFORNIA'S LEADING ATTORNEYS
SPECIALIZING IN THE MORRELL LAW.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS. I AM HONORED TO BE
ASKED BY MÀ TO TESTIFY TODAY. I
HAVE BEEN A PRACTICING ATTORNEY
FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS, AND FOR
THE PAST 18 YEARS I HAVE
SPECIALIZE IN MOBILE HOME LAW.
BEFORE I DISCUSS CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT
OUT THAT IT'S REALLY
QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THIS BILL
IS EVEN NEEDED. AS IT WAS
MENTIONED IN THE WORKUP IN
CALIFORNIA. THERE ARE ALREADY
183 PARKS CONTAINING ALMOST
34,000 MOBILE HOME SPACES AND
1300 RV SPACES, WHICH ARE TODAY
OWNED BY PARK RESIDENTS. THAT'S
ALMOST 10% OF THE TOTAL MOBILE
HOME PARK SPACES IN THE STATE.
IN ADDITION, THERE ARE CURRENTLY
70 MOBILE HOME PARKS FOR SALE IN
THE STATE RIGHT NOW. WHICH
RESIDENT GROUPS MAY PURCHASE IF
THEY CHOOSE. FINALLY, IT SHOULD
BE NOTED THAT PARKS ARE BEING
BOUGHT AND SOLD EVERY DAY IN
JUST THE PAST THREE YEARS, SOME
114 PARKS HAVE BEEN SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA FOR TURNING TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. WHILE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS ALWAYS
EVOLVING, THE SPECIFIC QUESTION
AS TO WHETHER A RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL LEGISLATIVELY GIVEN TO
THE PARK RESIDENTS IS
CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT IS
SOMETHING THAT WAS DECIDED AND
RESOLVED SOME FOUR DECADES AGO.
FOR THE PAST 41 YEARS, IT HAS
BEEN THE LAW OF THE LAND IN
CALIFORNIA THAT A RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL LEGISLATIVELY GIVEN TO
PARK RESIDENTS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AS
WELL AS UNDER OUR CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. THÀNH AN INTEREST
IN PROPERTY INCLUDES MANY RIGHTS
, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS
PROPERTY, TO USE PROPERTY, AND
DISPOSE OF PROPERTY. IN 1983,
THE COURT IN GREGORY VERSUS THE
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO HELD
THAT A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTS WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
TAKES AWAY THE PARK OWNER'S
RIGHT TO DISPOSE AND SELL OF HIS
PROPERTY OR HER PROPERTY TO A
PERSON OF HIS CHOOSING. THE
GREGORY COURT ALSO RECOGNIZED
THAT, SEPARATE AND APART FROM
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
DISPOSE OF ONE'S PROPERTY, THE
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL ITSELF IS
ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL,
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
PROPERTY RIGHT. WHEN A LAW SUCH
AS AB 2539 IS PASSED, THE
PROPERTY OWNER CAN NO LONGER
SELL THIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TAKEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND GRANTED TO THE
RESIDENTS GOVERNMENT. SURELY CAN
TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY BY WAY OF
EMINENT DOMAIN, BUT THE TAKING
MUST BE FOR A PUBLIC USE IN THE
GREGORY CASE, THE GOVERNMENT
ARGUED THAT THE PUBLIC USE WAS
ADVANCED BECAUSE THEY WERE
GIVING THE RESIDENTS AN ABILITY
TO A TO AFFORD RESIDENTS A
MEASURE OF CONTROL OVER THEIR
LIVING SITUATION. THE COURT HELD
THAT THIS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A
PUBLIC USE, SUFFICIENT TO MAKE
THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL.
SIMILARLY, HERE THE SPONSORS OF
THIS BILL ARE ADVANCING THAT
THIS LAW WOULD FOSTER RESILIENT
COMMUNITIES, PRESERVE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND EMPOWER RESIDENTS
IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
AS AS THE COURT AND GREGORY
EXPLAINED, THESE TYPE OF PUBLIC
BENEFIT ARGUMENTS, SECURING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DO NOT
CONVERT THE PRIVATE USE OF THE
OPTION BY THE RESIDENTS TO A
PUBLIC USE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION. IN ITS SIMPLEST
TERMS, A LAW SUCH AS AB 2539 IS
SIMPLY TAKING A PROPERTY
INTEREST AWAY FROM A PRIVATE
PERSON, NAMELY THE PARK OWNER
AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER PRIVATE
PERSON, NAMELY THE RESIDENTS.
THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. FINALLY YES,
THE GREGORY CASE WAS DECIDED 41
YEARS AGO, BUT IT REMAINS THE
LAW IN CALIFORNIA. AND IN ALL OF
THAT TIME, IT HAS NOT BEEN
CHALLENGED OR CHANGED. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2539. TRENT
SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MOBILE HOME PARK
OWNERS ALLIANCE, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, KATE
BELL, ON BEHALF OF THE CABRILLO
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. KALRA
AND AGUILAR IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. YES, VICE CHAIR, ARE YOU
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU MENTIONED
THERE WERE 114 MOBILE HOME PARKS
SOLD. HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE
SOLD TO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION? I
DON'T HAVE THAT READILY
AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT. 1414
114 OKAY, SO THE PROCESS IS
WORKING WHERE THEY'RE BOUGHT BY
THE RESIDENTS, AND IT WASN'T
NECESSARY TO HAVE AN ENFORCED
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TIME
PERIOD. IS IT 120 DAYS OR
CORRECT? THERE THERE ARE
ORGANIZATIONS OUT THERE TO HELP
RESIDENTS LIKE RESIDENT OWNED
PARKS. YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF
ROP AND THEY ARE UP AND DOWN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND THESE
ORGANIZATIONS HELP RESIDENTS
OUT, WHO WANT TO PURCHASE THE
PARK TO GET TOGETHER, GET THE
FINANCING, FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
COST IS, AND BUY THE PARK. AND
THAT HAPPENS. AND THAT HAPPENS
IN ROP, SOME OF THE STATISTICS
THAT WAS IN THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYSIS, I THINK CAME FROM ROP,
FROM THEIR ORGANIZATION, THEM
OUT THERE HELPING RESIDENTS. SO
THE POINT, THE FIRST POINT
OBVIOUSLY, IN OUR PRESENTATION
IS THAT THIS LAW IS NOT
NECESSARY BECAUSE RESIDENTS ARE
GETTING THE HELP FROM
ORGANIZATIONS TO BUY PARKS IF
THEY SO WISH. OKAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SENATOR
BAUER. KHN, THANK YOU. AS I WAS
LISTENING TO THESE ARGUMENTS, I
HAVE TO SAY, I REMEMBER VOTING
ON QUITE A FEW RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL BILLS IN THE HOUSING
SPACE, AND I DON'T RECALL EVER
BEING AFRAID THEY WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND I THINK
THE ANALYSIS DOES A GOOD JOB OF
EXPLAINING THE PENN CENTRAL TEST
IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT A TAKINGS
ACTUALLY IS, AND IF THERE'S NO
IF WE'RE ALLOWING FOR THEM TO
FULLY APPRECIATE THEIR ECONOMIC
INTEREST, THEN THAT DOESN'T
CONSTITUTE A TAKINGS. BUT I DO
HAVE A CONCERN WITH THIS BILL AS
DRAFTED, BECAUSE IT ISN'T CLEAR
FOR ME HOW YOU WOULD DEFINE THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUCH THAT
WE ARE ENSURING THE PROPERTY
OWNERS DO GET THE FULL ECONOMIC
VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY. THEY'RE
NOT ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE WITH
ANOTHER PARTY UNDER THE BILL.
AND SO HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT
THE VALUE OF IT IS? RIGHT? I
MEAN, ONE WAY TO DO IT IS TO
ALLOW FOR AN OPEN MARKET TO
ALLOW FOR BIDS TO COME IN AND
THEN SAY TO THE FOLKS, OKAY,
THIS WAS THE TOP BID, YOU CAN
MATCH IT, WHICH I THINK IS A
FAIR WAY TO DO IT, ENSURES THE
ECONOMIC INTEREST IS PROTECTED.
SO I AND I DON'T SEE IN THE BILL
ANY WAY THAT WE'RE ENSURING OF
THAT, WHICH I DO ACTUALLY THINK
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST WOULD
REQUIRE. SO CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON
THAT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A
LEGITIMATE POINT. I THINK OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ISSUE IS
ALSO FLAGGED, BY THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. SO IT'S SOMETHING WE
WOULD TAKE UP AROUND WHAT RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL ACTUALLY MEANS
AND IS DEFINED AS, SO I THINK WE
NEED MORE CLARIFICATION AROUND
THAT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE
WORKING ON. WOULD RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE WITH THE LEGAL ANALYSIS
, GREGORY IS DISTINGUISHABLE.
MOREOVER IT WAS DECIDED BEFORE
PENN CENTRAL. SO I THINK THE
OPERATIVE TEST NOW WOULD BE THE
PENN CENTRAL TEST BY THE US
SUPREME COURT. COURT, AND THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT LIKE THE
ANALYSIS, I BELIEVE WE WOULD
WITHSTAND. AND BUT THAT HAVING
BEEN SAID, I THINK THERE ARE
SOME MORE CLARIFICATION IS IN
ORDER AROUND THAT. SO A QUICK
RESPONSE TO THAT. IT'S UP TO THE
CHAIR. YEAH. GO AHEAD. JUST A
REAL QUICK RESPONSE. I DON'T
THINK, PENN CENTRAL WAS DECIDED
IN 1978. I BELIEVE GREGORY IS
DECIDED AFTERWARDS IN 1983. SO I
DON'T THINK IT WAS DECIDED
BEFORE, YEAH, I DO THINK KUDOS
TO OUR WONDERFUL CONSULTANT WHO
DOES A GOOD JOB OF LAYING OUT
WHY PENN CENTRAL IS THE
APPROPRIATE TEST, BUT SO I, I'M
A LITTLE BIT TORN BECAUSE I DO
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT YOU
HAVE BANNED THE NEGOTIATION WITH
OTHER PARTIES, WHICH WAS
CONCERNING TO ME, BECAUSE I DO
THINK THAT WILL LEAD TO THE BEST
DECISION OF WHAT THE VALUE IS.
AND YOU CAN STILL PROVIDE THE
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IF YOU
ALLOW FOR THAT, SO I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT HOW IT'S LAID OUT HERE,
BUT I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. AND I DO
THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THESE FOLKS
THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.
AGAIN, ON THE ACTUAL VALUE THAT
CAN BE SOUGHT BY THE LANDOWNER.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I HOPE THAT
BY THE TIME IT GETS BEFORE WE
SEE THAT CLARIFICATION. DO YOU
HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT?
YEAH. ONE ONE THING ABOUT PENN
CENTRAL, THOUGH, I WOULD JUST
SAY THAT, IT'S COMMONLY BEEN
NOTED IN OTHER CASES THAT THE
GREGORY CASE, IF THEY HAD
APPLIED THE CORRECT STANDARD,
THE PENN CENTRAL STANDARD, THAT
IT WOULD HAVE COME OUT
DIFFERENTLY. AND ALSO, REALLY
IMPORTANTLY, THE SIGNIFICANT
GOVERNMENT INTEREST THAT WE HAVE
HERE, WHICH WAS LAID OUT VERY
WELL IN THE IN THE BILL
ANALYSIS, FAR EXCEEDS THE
GOVERNMENT INTEREST THAT WAS
NOTED IN GREGORY, WHICH WAS
MERELY THAT RESIDENTS HAVE MORE
CONTROL OVER THEIR HOUSING.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ASKING
FOR. WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS
BECAUSE WE'RE IN A HOUSING
CRISIS THAT'S FAR EXCEEDS THE
HOUSING CRISIS. 40 YEARS AGO,
WITH SENIORS BEING THE FASTEST
GROWING GROUP OF FOLKS FACING
HOMELESSNESS FOR THE FIRST TIME,
AND ALSO THE MAJORITY OF THE
RESIDENTS IN MOBILE HOME PARKS.
SO SO PROTECTING THAT HOUSING AT
A COST THAT DOESN'T COST THE
STATE, IS A SIGNIFICANT
GOVERNMENT INTEREST. THANK YOU.
I DO APPRECIATE WHEN WE ACTUALLY
ARGUE CASE LAW IN HERE. IT'S
KIND OF FUN. AND, AND IT IS A
FINE BALANCE BECAUSE YOU
DEFINITELY WANT TO MOVE THINGS
QUICKLY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAKE
OF THE OWNER TO BE ABLE TO GET
SOME RESOLUTION. BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF
GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET
OTHER BIDS IN THERE, IT IS A
COMPLEX ISSUE. I'M CONFIDENT THE
AUTHOR WILL BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE
THE COMPLEXITIES, I AM I AM A
COAUTHOR ON THE BILL AND
RECOMMEND. AND I VOTE ON IT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE SUMMARY.
CONNOLLY, REALLY APPRECIATE THE
ONGOING CONVERSATION AND WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. IF YOU TAKE
ROLL CALL ON AB 2539, PLEASE DO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALLER. AYE. DIXON. DIXON NØ
BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN AYE.
BRIAN RYAN. AYE. CONNOLLY A.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE PACHECO.
REYES. SANCHEZ. NO SANCHEZ. NO.
WALDRON WILL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. UP NEXT,
WE HAVE ITEM 12 AB 2655 55.
BERMAN. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND? BEFORE SUMMER, BERMAN
TOOK A SEAT. HE HAS A MOTION AND
A SECOND. A LOT, YEAH. THANK
YOU. COLLEAGUES, I'D LIKE TO
START BY THANKING COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR IDENTIFYING AREAS
NEEDING WORK, INCLUDING GREATER
CLARITY BETWEEN WHEN SOMETHING
IS BLOCKED VERSUS LABELED.
BETTER DEFINING ELECTION PROCESS
AND RAISING THE BAR ON CITIZEN
SUITS. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO
TAKE THE AMENDMENTS ON PAGES
NINE AND TEN, AND I THINK THE
STAFF ON THE PRIVACY AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE
FOR SUGGESTING DEFINITIONAL
AMENDMENTS TO ALIGN THIS BILL
WITH OTHERS IN THE AI SPACE.
FIVE YEARS AGO, I AUTHORED THE
FIRST ELECTION DEEPFAKE BILL IN
IN THE NATION, TO BE HONEST, BY
THE TIME THAT WAS SIGNED INTO
LAW, IT WAS ALREADY TOO WEAK,
AND IT'S ONLY GOTTEN WEAKER
SINCE THEN. JUST A FEW SHORT
YEARS AFTER THAT BILL PASSED THE
TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER, CHEAPER,
AND WIDELY ACCESSIBLE AS A
RESULT. WE'RE SEEING DEEPFAKES
USED TO UNDERMINE ELECTIONS
ACROSS THE GLOBE AND HERE IN
AMERICA AND CALIFORNIA. AS
TECHNOLOGY CHANGES, SO TOO MUST
OUR LAWS AND THERE'S TOO MUCH AT
STAKE TO RELY ON NON ON
NONBINDING AND VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS TO POLICE ELECTION
DEEPFAKES. THEREFORE I'M
AUTHORING AB 2655 TO PROTECT
ELECTION INTEGRITY BY REGULATING
THE ONLINE SPREAD OF
DISINFORMATION AND DEEPFAKES
MEANT TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION.
WITH TODAY'S SOPHISTICATED
DEEPFAKES, VOTERS MAY NOT KNOW
WHAT IMAGES, AUDIO OR VIDEO THEY
CAN TRUST. THIS DECEPTIVE AND
HYPER REALISTIC CONTENT CAN
UNDERMINE FAITH IN ELECTION
INTEGRITY. ACCORDINGLY, AB 2655
WOULD, FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF
TIME BEFORE AND AFTER AN
ELECTION, REQUIRE LARGE ONLINE
PLATFORMS. IF THEY KNOW OR
SHOULD KNOW THAT THE CONTENT
MEETS THE TEST. IN THE BILL. TO
RESTRICT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
MATERIALLY DECEPTIVE AND
DIGITALLY ALTERED OR CREATED
IMAGES, AUDIO OR VIDEO MEANT TO
INFLUENCE AN ELECTION FOR LESS
HARMFUL YET STILL MATERIALLY
DECEPTIVE AND MODIFIED CONTENT.
THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE
PLATFORMS TO LABEL OTHER AI
CREATED OR MODIFIED ELECTION
DISINFORMATION MEANT TO
INFLUENCE IN BOTH INSTANCES, THE
BILL DOES NOT DEMAND PERFECTION.
WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT PLATFORMS
MUST ACT IF THEY KNOW OR SHOULD
KNOW, USING BEST AVAILABLE
TOOLS, THAT THE CONTENT MEETS
THE TEST. IN THE BILL, PLATFORMS
CAN'T BURY THEIR HEAD IN THE
SAND, BUT IF THEY DON'T KNOW,
THEN THERE'S NO OBLIGATION. THE
BILL PROTECTS AGAINST FALSE
SPEECH THAT HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATED TO
DECEIVE AND DONE WITH MALICE.
THIS IS THIS IS DEFAMATION AND
AN EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. ADDITIONALLY IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN ORDER
TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 230 OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT,
THE BILL DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
ANY MONETARY PENALTY AGAINST
ONLINE PLATFORMS, INSTEAD, AND
THE ONLY PENALTY IS THAT A COURT
WILL ORDER THE PLATFORMS TO DO
WHAT THE BILL REQUIRES. I
REALIZE THAT THIS BILL IS
ATTEMPTING TO LEGISLATE IN AN
ARENA WHERE TECHNOLOGY AND THE
LAW ARE FAST EVOLVING, AND THAT
CAN BE CHALLENGING ON MANY
LEVELS. I CAN'T PROMISE THAT THE
BILL WILL SURVIVE A FIRST
AMENDMENT OR SECTION 230 COURT
CHALLENGE. I DO COMMIT TO
CONTINUING TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO
IMPROVE THE BILL TO TRY TO GUARD
AGAINST THAT. BUT THE BUT THE
BILL IS CRAFTED TO GIVE US THE
BEST CHANCE TO SURVIVE A STRICT
SCRUTINY REVIEW. BUT THE REALITY
IS THAT DOING NOTHING ISN'T AN
OPTION. THEREFORE, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE VOTE
. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
I'M LAURA GERSHENSON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE FOR
TECHNOLOGY AND DEMOCRACY, A
PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE. AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, YOU
ARE ALL KEENLY AWARE OF THE
THREATS POSED BY AI GENERATED
ELECTION DEEPFAKES, TODAY'S
WASHINGTON POST. THERE'S A
HEADLINE THAT READS AI DEEPFAKES
THREATEN TO UPEND GLOBAL
ELECTIONS. NO ONE CAN STOP THEM.
WE CAN'T JUST BE IN THAT
POSITION. AB 2655 STRIKES THE
RIGHT BALANCE BY BANNING, FOR A
STRICTLY LIMITED TIME AROUND
ELECTIONS, THE ONLINE SPREAD OF
THE WORST DEEPFAKES INTENDED TO
DECEIVE VOTERS AND INFLUENCE
ELECTIONS. VIDEOS, IMAGES AND
AUDIO SHOWING CANDIDATES,
ELECTION OFFICIALS OR VOTING
APPARATUS DOING OR SAYING
SOMETHING THEY DID NOT DO OR
SAY. THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES
OTHER FAKE CONTENT REGARDING
ELECTIONS TO BE LABELED AS SUCH,
AGAIN, FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF
TIME AROUND THE ELECTIONS. THE
BILL ONLY APPLIES TO THE LARGEST
ONLINE PLATFORMS WITH THE
GREATEST REACH OF POTENTIAL
ELECTION DEEP ELECTION
DISINFORMATION, AND THE DEEPEST
POCKETS TO HELP FIND. TO HELP
DETERMINE WHAT IS AND ISN'T AI
GENERATED. FAKE CONTENT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERMAN HAS WORKED
DILIGENTLY TO ENSURE THAT AB
2655 IS APPROACH, IS NARROWLY
TAILORED AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO
OPINIONS OR CONTROVERSIAL
STATEMENTS. IT ONLY SEEKS AT
PEAK ELECTIONS TIME TO STOP THE
USE OF DEMONSTRABLY FALSE
CONTENT HURLED AT POLITICAL
LEADERS IN AN EFFORT TO DISRUPT
OUR FAIR ELECTIONS. THE BILL IS
RESPECTFUL OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT BY SERVING A
COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST,
PROTECTING OUR FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS, AND BY BEING NARROWLY
TAILORED TO ADDRESS THAT
COMPELLING INTEREST IN TERMS OF
TIME, SUBJECT MATTER AND
REQUIRING MALICE. IT ALSO LIMITS
REMEDIES, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
FINANCIAL PENALTIES BECAUSE OF
SECTION 230. I WOULD LIKE TO END
VERY QUICKLY WITH A QUOTE FROM
THAT ARTICLE IN THE WASHINGTON
POST FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR,
WHICH SAID, LET'S NOT STAND ON
THE SIDELINES WITH OUR
ELECTIONS, WHILE OUR ELECTIONS
GET SCREWED UP. THIS IS LIKE A
HAIR ON FIRE MOMENT. THIS IS NOT
A LET'S WAIT AND SEE. LET'S WAIT
THREE YEARS AND SEE HOW IT GOES
MOMENT. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DAVID HARRIS
AND I'M A SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR
TO CITED. I'M ALSO A
CHANCELLOR'S PUBLIC SCHOLAR AT
UC BERKELEY, WHERE I'VE BEEN
TEACHING SINCE 2015. I TEACH
CLASSES INCLUDING CIVIC
TECHNOLOGY AND AI ETHICS FOR
LEADERS. MY STUDENTS AND I GO
OVER ALL OF THE WAYS THAT
TECHNOLOGY CAN PLAY A ROLE IN
OUR DEMOCRACY. I ALSO PREVIOUSLY
WORKED FOR CLOSE TO FIVE YEARS
ON CIVIC INTEGRITY, SOCIAL
IMPACT, AND RESPONSIBLE AI AT
FACEBOOK AND META. I HAVE
ADVISED THE EUROPEAN UNION. THE
WHITE HOUSE AND NATO ON AI AND
THE ROLE THAT IT PLAYS IN
DEMOCRACY. THIS BILL ONLY
APPLIES TO THE LARGEST ONLINE
PLATFORMS WITH THE GREATEST
REACH FOR POTENTIAL ELECTION
MISINFORMATION, AND IT IS FULLY
IMPLEMENTABLE TODAY BASED ON
TOOLS THAT THESE COMPANIES
ALREADY POSSESS FOR DEALING WITH
ILLEGAL CONTENT, SUCH AS CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL OR
TERRORIST CONTENT, THEY COULD
APPLY THE SAME SYSTEMS,
TECHNIQUES, PROCEDURES AND
PROCESSES THAT THEY USE FOR THAT
TYPE OF CONTENT TO MANAGING
DEEPFAKES IN ELECTIONS. THIS
BILL IS NARROW AND IN A NARROW
WAY, MAKES CERTAIN TYPES OF
CONTENT IMPERMISSIBLE. NOW SOME
OF THESE COMPANIES WILL SUGGEST
THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS CAN'T BE
MET, BUT THEY ARE ALREADY
GENERALLY SUBJECT TO SIMILAR
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE EUROPEAN
UNION'S DIGITAL SERVICES ACT AND
THE RECENTLY RELEASED GUIDELINES
THAT THE EU HAS RELEASED ABOUT
ELECTIONS AND HOW THAT THE
DIGITAL SERVICES ACT APPLIES TO
ELECTIONS. FURTHERMORE, 20 OF
THE BIGGEST TECH COMPANIES
INVOLVED COMMITTED AT THE MUNICH
SECURITY CONFERENCE IN FEBRUARY
TO SOMETHING CALLED THE AI
ELECTIONS ACCORD, WHERE THEY
ALREADY PROMISED TO DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY TO MITIGATE
RISKS RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AI
ELECTION CONTENT. THE PROBLEM IS
THAT NONE OF THEIR COMMITMENTS
MADE IN MUNICH ARE BINDING OR
AND OR HAVE ANY TIMELINES
ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, AND THEY
CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL, AB 2655,
IS WHAT WE NEED TO ASSURE THAT
THE TECH COMPANIES LIVE UP TO
THE PROMISES THAT THEY HAVE
ALREADY MADE. THANK YOU. AND IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2655? CHANEL
FREEMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA,
IN STRONG SUPPORT. BRIAN
MIRAMONTES WITH ASK ME
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. ERIC
HARRIS, DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. DO WE
HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION?
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. MADAM VICE CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY
NAME IS KARA BENDER, TESTIFYING
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB 2655. CSIA IS
AN INTERNATIONAL, NOT FOR PROFIT
TRADE ASSOCIATION WITH ABOUT TWO
DOZEN MEMBERS FROM A RANGE OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
FIRMS. CTIA AND ITS MEMBERS TAKE
SERIOUSLY THE IMPACT OF
DECEPTIVE CONTENT MAY HAVE ON
ELECTIONS, AND MANY OF OUR
MEMBERS ARE WORKING ON TO
WORKING TO IMPLEMENT TOOLS TO
BETTER DETECT AND LABEL AI
GENERATED CONTENT USING A
COMBINATION OF AI AND HUMAN
REVIEW, THEY MODERATE CONTENT IN
VIOLATION OF THEIR TERMS OF
SERVICE, INCLUDING CONTENT THAT
IS ILLEGAL AND POTENTIALLY
HARMFUL. BUT THE TOOLS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ARE NOT
ALWAYS RELIABLE OR ACCURATE.
JUST AS SPAM FILTERS SOMETIMES
MISLABEL LEGITIMATE EMAILS. AND
WHILE SUCH TECHNOLOGY IS
EVOLVING, SO ARE THE MEANS FOR
BAD ACTORS TO EVADE SUCH
DETECTION. BECAUSE COVERED
PLATFORMS ARE NOT PRIVY TO THE
INTENT AND CONTEXT FOR WHICH A
PIECE OF CONTENT IS USED, THEY
COULD INADVERTENTLY OVER BLOCK
OR OVER LABEL CONTENT. THIS
COULD RESULT IN USER FRUSTRATION
AND SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL
SPEECH. POLITICAL SPEECH WAS AT
THE CORE OF WHY OUR FIRST
AMENDMENT WAS ESTABLISHED, AND
IT IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAIN THOSE
PROTECTIONS AS RESPONSIBILITY
FOR LABELING AI GENERATED
ELECTION CONTENT, AND LIABILITY
FOR DECEPTIVE CONTENT SHOULD
REST WITH THE ENTITY THAT PUTS
FORTH SUCH MATERIAL, THE ONE
THAT IS MOST AWARE OF THE INTENT
AND CONTEXT FOR WHICH THE
CONTENT WAS CREATED AND SHARED.
WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BREADTH OF THE BILL. WHILE IT
ESTABLISHES DEFINED TIME
PERIODS, SURROUNDING ELECTIONS,
AND ELECTION PROCESSES FOR NEWLY
ESTABLISHED PROHIBITIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS, IT IS UNCLEAR
WHERE WHEN AN ELECTIONS PROCESS
STARTS FURTHER, THE BILL DOES
NOT SPECIFY WHICH ELECTIONS OR
WHERE AND WHILE THE BILL EXEMPTS
SATIRE AND PARODY, IT IS UNCLEAR
WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT
CONSTITUTES THOSE USES. FACED
WITH INDIVIDUAL USERS SEEKING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MERELY IF THEY
DISAGREE WITH A COVERED
PLATFORMS DECISION REGARDING
REPORTED CONTENT, A SERVICE MAY
CHOOSE TO PROHIBIT ALL DIGITALLY
ALTERED CONTENT CUTTING OFF MANY
VALUABLE AND HELPFUL USES. THESE
TOOLS CAN BE USED BY CAMPAIGNS
TO REACH VOTERS WITH HIGH
QUALITY CONTENT AT LOWER COSTS,
OR TO TRANSLATE SPEECH INTO
MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. I'LL WRAP UP
THERE, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME
TODAY, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF
OUR COMMENTS AND WELCOME. ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SIR. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MR. CHAIR AS HE
WALKS IN, JOSE TORRES WITH
TECHNET. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO AB 2655. I ECHO THE
CONCERNS OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM
CTIA AND WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE
BILL, THE THIS BILL REQUIRES
ONLINE PLATFORMS TO MAKE
DETERMINATIONS ABOUT TRUTH AND
FALSITY IN AN IMPASSABLE WAY,
INSTANCES WHERE CONTENT AND OR
INFORMATION IS CLEARLY TRUE OR
CLEARLY FALSE ARE NOT NORM. FAR
MORE OFTEN, CONTENT FALLS INTO A
MIDDLE GROUND WHERE IT REQUIRES
TIME AND EFFECT. INTENSIVE
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO DETERMINE WHETHER
SOMETHING IS TRUE OR FALSE. IN
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS HAVE
CHALLENGES WITH FACT CHECKING,
EVEN THE MOST HIGH PROFILE RACES
OR CANDIDATES. IT IS DIFFICULT
ENOUGH FOR A PLATFORM TO KNOW
WHETHER SOMETHING IS FALSE AS IT
RELATES TO A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE OR A HIGH PROFILE
FEDERAL RACE, AND THIS IS SIMPLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR RACES LOWER DOWN
ON THE TICKET. A PLATFORM CANNOT
ACCURATELY ADJUDICATE REPORTS ON
THOSE TYPES OF CONTENT, AND WILL
INSTEAD RESORT TO OVER REMOVING
INFORMATION IN ORDER TO AVOID
LIABILITY. AND THE PENALTIES IN
THIS BILL. REMOVE INFORMATION
THAT IS ONLY SUSPECTED OF BEING
FALSE IS CLEARLY NOT A GOOD
OUTCOME. AND THEN FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2655? CYNTHIA
VALENCIA WITH THE ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN OPPOSITION
DUE TO FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS.
THANK YOU, TRACY ROSENBERG, ON
BEHALF OF OAKLAND PRIVACY, WE
STILL HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS.
WE THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE,
AMENDMENTS. WE'LL BE CHECKING
THEM OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
BROUGH. KHN. HI AND, LONG TIME
NO TALK, I KNOW, SO I HAVE TO
START BY SAYING THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THE ELECTIONS
ARENA, AS WE HEARD EARLIER,
ABOUT A DIFFERENT SUBJECT
MATTER, THERE'S NO ONE I TRUST
MORE TO SHEPHERD A BILL OF THIS
MAGNITUDE THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE, BUT I DO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I AGREE. I
THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT STRICT
SCRUTINY WOULD BE APPLIED. I
DON'T THINK I KNOW I DON'T HAVE
ANY QUESTION THAT THERE IS A
STRONG GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST SO
THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DISCUSS.
SO THE QUESTION THEN TO ME IS,
DID IS THIS NARROWLY TAILORED IN
A SUFFICIENT WAY AS TO BOTH PASS
SCRUTINY AND TO PROTECT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT? I AM A BELIEVER
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS
IMMENSE VALUE, AND SO ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I ACTUALLY THINK WAS
VALUABLE IN THE ANALYSIS WAS
CITING TWO YEAR PRIOR LAW. AND
SO WE COULD COMPARE SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY THIS WAS
DRAFTED. AND THERE WERE SOME
CHANGES IN THE WAY THIS WAS
DRAFTED THAT RAISED CONCERNS FOR
ME. AND I'LL SAY THE FIRST ONE
IS THAT, ANY, ANY CALIFORNIA
RESIDENT CAN BRING THIS CASE. I
DO THINK WHEN WE AS CANDIDATES
CHALLENGE SPEECH, THERE IS WE
ARE HELD TO ACCOUNT BY THE
VOTERS, RIGHT? WE ARE
RESPONSIBLE TO THEM AND THEY CAN
TAKE IT OUT ON US AT THE BALLOT
BOX. WHEREAS IF WE HAVE SORT OF
A THIRD PARTY OUT THERE
CHALLENGING THIS, I THINK IT IS
CONCERNING TO ME THAT YOU WOULD
HAVE A LOT MORE SPURIOUS
CHALLENGES AND ONES POTENTIALLY,
THAT ARE NOT, INTENDED TO GO
AFTER WHAT IS TRULY DECEPTIVE
SPEECH. SO I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT
THAT. YOU WANT ME TO DO ALL MY
QUESTIONS? THERE'S QUITE A FEW.
OKAY, THEN THE QUESTION IS ALSO
ON THE STANDARD, RIGHT? YOU, THE
ANALYSIS TALKS ABOUT HAVING A
CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD,
VERSUS JUST THE LIKELIHOOD OF
SUCCESS ON THE MERITS FOR THE
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. I DO THINK
THE HIGHER STANDARD GIVEN,
AGAIN, THAT WE NEED TO NARROWLY
TAILOR THIS TO ENSURE THAT WE
ARE NOT LOOKING AT SOME CASE
THAT MIGHT WIN, BUT INSTEAD
SOMETHING WHERE THERE'S CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT
FALLS UNDER THE STATUTE MAKES
SENSE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
WANT TO ADDRESS THAT. BUT THEN
AS I LOOKED AT THE QUESTION OF
WHAT WAS DECEPTIVE MATERIAL,
WHAT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS, I
FOUND THE DEFINITION OF THAT
INCREDIBLY BROAD, IN THE PRIOR
STATUTE THAT YOU AUTHORED, IT
USED A REASONABLE PERSON
STANDARD TO DECIDE WHETHER
SOMETHING WAS WAS POTENTIALLY
VIEWED AS INAUTHENTIC. SO THE
REASONABLE PERSON THAT WOULD
VIEW IT, I CAN I HAVE IT RIGHT
HERE. IT SAID, THAT IT WOULD
HAVE FALSELY APPEAR TO BE A
REASONABLE PERSON TO BE
INAUTHENTIC, WOULD FALSELY
APPEAR TO BE AUTHENTIC TO A
REASONABLE PERSON, AND HERE WE
HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE AUTHENTICITY
QUESTION EVEN HAS OR THAT
OTHERWISE GENERATES AN
INAUTHENTIC IMAGE THAT IS
ANYTHING THAT IS CREATED USING
CHEN I SO NOW ANYTHING THAT IS
CREATED USING CHEN, I WOULD HAVE
AN INAUTHENTIC IMAGE AND WOULD
FALL UNDER THIS, AND THEN IT
SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT
CONTAINS A FALSE PORTRAYAL OF
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING A
CANDIDATE, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY
SAID OR DID, WHICH IS WHAT YOU
SAID. AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT
THAT, AND I THOUGHT, WELL, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE A COLLEAGUE AND
SOME ALLEGE THAT SHE HAD TRIED
TO ALLOW FOR INFANTICIDE IN
CALIFORNIA. I WOULD ARGUE THAT'S
NOT WHAT SHE DID. SHE WOULD
ARGUE THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE DID,
BUT IT'S A FAIR ARGUMENT. IN THE
PUBLIC SPHERE, THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WOULD PROTECT WHETHER
WHAT SHE DID WAS OR WAS NOT. I
THINK THAT IS PROTECTED FIRST
AMENDMENT SPEECH. BUT ARGUABLY
SOMEBODY COULD GO AND SAY,
THAT'S NOT WHAT I DID, AND WE
WOULD BE Þ NÓ, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOOD, AND WE WOULD BE IN A
SPACE WHERE WE HAVE I'LL KEEP
GOING. I HAVE FAITH. LAST CALL.
I THOUGHT IT WAS THE. I THOUGHT
IT WAS THE I SHUTTING US DOWN.
DAVID CAN TELL US IF THAT'S
POSSIBLE. SO. SO I GUESS MY
CONCERN IS THAT THAT IS SO
BROADLY DRAFTED THAT IT ADDS OR
COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE MEANT TO
ATTACK THINGS THAT WE ARGUABLY
DID, BUT MAYBE WE THINK WE
DIDN'T DO WOULD THEN BE BE UNDER
SUBJECT TO THIS 36 HOURS AND
TAKEN DOWN. AND I JUST THINK
THAT THERE ARE MUCH STRICTER
STANDARDS WE COULD PUT ON THIS
TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT WHAT I THINK YOU'RE
ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET AT,
RIGHT, WHICH IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE
ACTUALLY BEING DECEIVED TO
BELIEVE SOMETHING SOMEONE SAID
SOMETHING, RIGHT? A SPEECH THAT
LOOKS AUTHENTIC AND A REASONABLE
PERSON WOULD THINK THAT, YOU
KNOW, JOE BIDEN GAVE THAT SPEECH
NOT, YOU KNOW, A COMMUNICATION
THAT IS ARGUABLY AN AD SAYING WE
DID SOMETHING USING AN
INAUTHENTIC IMAGE BECAUSE I
GENERATED IT, WHICH I THINK IS
MUCH PAST THE POINT OF WHAT YOU
ARE TRYING TO REGULATE HERE. AND
I THINK THE DEFINITIONS DON'T
JUST CAPTURE THE STUFF WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS
MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION,
BUT GOES BEYOND THAT TO
POLITICAL SPEECH THAT I THINK I
WOULD HOPE ALL OF US WOULD WANT
TO PROTECT. SO I GUESS IF YOU
WANT TO ADDRESS THAT. YEAH. NO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
POINTS. THANK YOU FOR THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD IN
THE PAST 18 HOURS. LET ME FIRST
SAY FOR THE FIRST TWO ISSUES
THAT THAT YOU RAISED, WE ARE
ACTIVELY, KIND OF INVESTIGATING
WHAT MAKES SENSE AND ACTIVELY
DISCUSSING WITH WITH
STAKEHOLDERS, WITH OPPONENTS,
WITH THE SPONSORS, WITH
INTERESTED LEGISLATORS, AND
ACTIVELY LOOKING AT WHETHER OR
NOT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD NARROW
WHO CAN BRING SUIT, OR WHO CAN
BRING A COMPLAINT ACTIVELY
LOOKING AT A LOT OF OTHER
COMPONENTS OF THE BILL. SO YOU
KNOW, NEEDLESS TO SAY,
EVERYTHING IS STILL VERY MUCH UP
FOR DISCUSSION, AND WOULD LOVE
TO CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS
WITH YOU. I'D LOVE TO CONTINUE
THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION, TO TRY TO MAKE SURE
THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF
THIS BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW,
THAT IT IS AS NARROWLY TAILORED
AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE, LIKE YOU
SAID, THAT'S CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TO THE BILL, YOU KNOW,
SURVIVING IN THE COURT. I'M
GOING TO DEFER TO THE EXPERTS ON
ON SOME OF THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
AND WHAT WE STILL HAVE AND WHAT
WE'VE CHANGED, BUT, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS THIS IS VERY MUCH A WORK
IN PROGRESS, YES. WE DID WE
ABSOLUTELY DID NOT TAKE OUT THE
FALSE PORTRAYAL. SO THERE'S
LANGUAGE ON PAGE FIVE THAT SAYS,
THIS IS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF
DIGITALLY MANIPULATED SPEECH.
FALSE PORTRAYAL MEANS THE
CONTENT WOULD CAUSE A REASONABLE
PERSON TO HAVE A FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT IMPRESSION OR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTENT
THAN IF THE PERSON WOULD HAVE
SEEN THE AUTHENTIC IMAGE. SO IT
IT STILL KEEPS THAT SAME
PROVISION OF FALSE PORTRAYAL.
THAT'S IN THAT WAS IN THE
ORIGINAL BERMAN BILL. BUT ISN'T
THAT AN OR ISN'T THAT ONE OF THE
OPTIONS? NO, NO, NO, IT'S A
REQUIREMENT. Ã YOU HAVE TO HAVE
UNDER TWO. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT
. SO FALSE PORTRAYAL IS A KEY
PART OF THIS. SO IN FACT, WE HAD
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TAKING THAT
OUT AND DID NOT BECAUSE THAT'S
IT HAS TO BE DECEPTIVE. SO IT
HAS TO BE FALSE. IT HAS TO BE
DIGITALLY MANIPULATED AND IT HAS
TO BE FALSE TO IT HAS TO DECEIVE
A PERSON, AND IT ISN'T JUST THE
SAME LIKE YOU INFANTICIDE. YOU
CAUSED THIS. BUT BUT IF THERE
WAS A PICTURE OF THE MEMBER
ACTUALLY MURDERING A CHILD, THAT
WOULD BE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER
THIS BILL. NOT JUST SAYING THIS
AUTHOR, THIS AUTHOR DID A BILL
THAT INCORRECT, BUT THE
REASONABLE PERSON ONLY HAS TO
HAVE A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
UNDERSTANDING OR IMPRESSION OF
THE, YOU KNOW, CONTENT, OR IT
DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THE PERSON,
THE REASONABLE PERSON HAS TO
BELIEVE THAT IT IS AUTHENTIC.
THAT IS NOT HOW I READ THIS. IS
THAT HOW YOU READ IT, YES.
BECAUSE IT HAS TO APPEAR. I
THINK WE CAN TIGHTEN UP THE
LANGUAGE. I MEAN, I, AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SAID, IS THIS
PERFECT LANGUAGE? IT ISN'T.
WE'RE THERE'S A LOT MORE PROCESS
TO GO THROUGH. AND THERE ARE
DEFINITELY WAYS WE CAN TIGHTEN
THIS. BUT THERE ARE KEY THERE
ARE KEY THINGS, WHICH IS THAT IT
IS DIGITALLY MANIPULATED AND IT
IS FALSE. IT IS IT IS INTENDED
TO DECEIVE IT. THE PERSON WHO
THE ORIGINAL CONTENT PRODUCER
INTENDED TO DECEIVE, IT DOES
DECEIVE PEOPLE, AND THAT IT'S
INTENDED FALSELY TO INFLUENCE
THE ELECTION. RIGHT. SO I SEE
YOUR REASONABLE PERSON UNDER
FALSE PORTRAYAL. MY PROBLEM IS
YOU DON'T HAVE A REASONABLE
PERSON UNDER THE AUTHENTICITY
QUESTION. THAT'S MY ISSUE. SO I
WANT I THINK THAT THE REASONABLE
PERSON HAS TO BELIEVE THIS IS
AUTHENTIC, NOT JUST THAT IT
BECAUSE THERE YOU HAVE AN OR IT
OTHERWISE GENERATES AN
INAUTHENTIC IMAGE. AND SO I
THINK THAT I WANT SOMEONE TO BE
VIEWING THIS TO BELIEVE THIS IS
AN AUTHENTIC IMAGE. AND I THINK
THAT THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED,
WITH ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS,
THE FALSE PORTRAYAL, AGAIN, I
THINK THAT A LOT OF THE WAY
PEOPLE PORTRAY US, WE WOULD
ARGUE, WAS FALSE. I JUST I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT AND WE
HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT WE ARE
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. WE'RE THAT IS
PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTIONS. AND SO I ALSO THINK
THAT THE IMAGE NEEDS TO BE ONE
SUCH THAT, AGAIN, THE VIEWER
BELIEVES THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC
SPEECH. IT'S AN AUTHENTIC IMAGE,
ETC. TOTALLY APPRECIATE THE
POINT. ABSOLUTELY. SORRY, BRIAN,
I'LL BE QUICK. MR. BERMAN, WHEN
YOU YOU BROUGHT THIS BILL TO ME
AT I REMEMBER YOUR PITCH PRETTY
WELL. I REMEMBER YOUR RESPONSE.
IT'S SUPPORTED BY THE SHERIFF.
IT'S OPPOSED BY THE ACLU, AND IT
MAY VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
BUT. YOU'RE PARAPHRASING. THAT'S
A FAIR BUT SIMILAR TO, MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE BAY AREA. YOU
KNOW, ALL OF YOUR PAST WORK IN
THIS SPACE. I MEAN, WHEN A BILL
ANALYSIS CITES YOUR OWN PAST
WORK, IT SPEAKS TO YOUR
DEDICATION TO THE ISSUE AND YOUR
WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO
NAVIGATE COMPLEX, POLICY
CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS ONE. AND
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
CONVERSATIONS THAT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE. SO HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A
COURTESY. I VOTE TODAY AND
LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHERE
YOU ULTIMATELY TAKE THIS WORK.
APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?
SENATOR CONLEY, A COUPLE QUICK
QUESTIONS. AND YEAH, I
APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT AS
WELL, ONE QUESTION THAT WAS
RAISED IS WHY DOES IT ONLY
TARGET LARGE PLATFORMS? I THINK,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO TARGET
THE BIGGEST RISK, AND THE
BIGGEST RISK, THE BIGGEST RISK
AND THE PLATFORMS THAT HAVE THE
RESOURCES AND THE TECHNOLOGICAL
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE,
YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT, CONTENT
WOULD APPLY. SO I'LL DEFER, AT A
HIGH LEVEL. THAT'S THE
REASONING, BUT DEFER TO THE
EXPERTS TO DIVE INTO THE DETAILS
A LITTLE BIT FAST. OKAY IN THE
IDEAL WORLD, WE WOULD COVER
EVERY SINGLE PLATFORM, BUT
AGAIN, WHAT WHAT WE ARE ASKING
OF THE PLATFORM TO DO DOES
THEY'VE GOT TO USE STATE OF THE
ART TOOLS. THE LARGEST PLATFORMS
HAVE THE CAPACITY, THE LARGEST
PLATFORMS ALSO HAVE THE LARGEST
REACH. SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO
STOP DISINFORMATION, WE'RE NEVER
GOING TO FULLY STOP IT. AND BY
THE WAY, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T
MENTION WE'RE NOT TRYING TO STOP
MISINFORMATION THAT ACTUALLY IS
MUCH MORE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. IT'S THE
DISINFORMATION. IT'S THE
ABSOLUTE FALSE CONTENT. SO WE'RE
TRYING TO GO WHERE THE GREATEST
TOOLS ARE AND NOT RUN INTO. IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THESE SMALLER
STARTUPS. WE ARE PRO-INNOVATION.
WE DON'T WANT TO STOP THE TOOLS
THAT ARE NEEDED TO DO THIS. IF I
COULD ADD, WE CHOSE TO GO FOR
THE LARGER PLATFORMS, ACTUALLY,
AS A, AS A BIT OF A COMPROMISE,
WE LOOKED AT THE WAY THAT THE
EUROPEAN UNION DEFINED VERY
LARGE ONLINE PLATFORMS, AND WE
ACTUALLY WENT LOWER THAN THAT.
THEY WERE LOOKING AT, PLATFORMS
THAT HAVE MORE THAN 45 MILLION
OR 10% OF THE EU POPULATION,
APPROXIMATELY. AS USERS, WE WENT
FOR A 1 MILLION NUMBER. SO
WITHIN CALIFORNIA,
PROPORTIONATELY SMALLER. WE
DIDN'T GO LOWER THAN THAT,
BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS IS WORK, THIS THIS HAS
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT
ARE INCIDENTAL TO COMPANIES THAT
ARE BRINGING IN BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS EACH QUARTER, BUT THAT
ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR SMALL
STARTUPS. AND WE WANTED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. AND WHO
DECIDES WHETHER SOMETHING HAS
BEEN MODIFIED? IS IT ACTUALLY
LIKE AN ALGORITHM THAT DOES THAT
OR IS IT PEOPLE? WHAT'S THAT?
I'M GOING TO DEFER TO DAVID. BUT
BUT ALGORITHMS AND THEN MAYBE
BACKED UP BY PEOPLE. YEAH.
EXACTLY. AS IS THE CASE WITH
ALMOST ALL TYPES OF CONTENT
MODERATION CURRENTLY THERE ARE
TWO WAYS THAT A PIECE OF CONTENT
THAT CAN BE ENQUEUED FOR A
MODERATION DECISION, ONE IS IN
AN AUTOMATED FASHION WHERE AN
ALGORITHM OR AI SYSTEM DETECTS
THAT SOMETHING MIGHT CONTAIN
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL,
DETECTS THAT IT MIGHT CONTAIN A
KNOWN FALSE STATEMENT THAT HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY FACT CHECKED, OR
DETECTS THAT IT IS A REPEAT OF
CONTENT THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN
BEFORE OF ANY TYPE, AND SO THAT
CAN BE DONE ALGORITHMICALLY.
THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE AN
ALGORITHM MIGHT ALSO GENERATE A
UNCLEAR RESPONSE. AND IN C¯ THAT
AUTOMATICALLY FOR A HUMAN
REVIEWER. AND THEN THERE ARE
ALSO WAYS THAT IF A CONTENT
PASSES THROUGH THE ALGORITHMIC
METHODS, IT COULD STILL BE
REPORTED BY ANYONE, YOURSELF
INCLUDED, THROUGH ANY PLATFORM'S
TOOLS FOR REPORTING CONTENT AND
THEN THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT
YOU WOULD HAVE AN ALGORITHMIC
ASSESSMENT OR AN AI ASSESSMENT
AFTER THE HUMAN REPORTS AND THAT
COULD, DEPENDING ON HOW IT
UNFOLDS, GO BACK TO A HUMAN
ACTUAL REVIEWER. AND THERE ARE
IN MANY OF THE PLATFORMS,
MULTIPLE LAYERS OF HUMAN REVIEW
THAT CAN BE APPEALED. SO I WAS
JUST GOING TO ASK IF WE CAN
START TO WRAP UP. WE HAVE A LOT
OF BILLS GO THROUGH, SO QUICKLY
AND QUICK. QUICK RESPONSE
PLEASE. FINAL QUICK QUESTION. SO
AND FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, THE
WAY THE BILL IS CURRENTLY SET UP
IS IF AN INDIVIDUAL DISAGREES,
QUOTE UNQUOTE, WITH A PLATFORM
RESPONSE, A PRIVATE LAWSUIT IS
POSSIBLE. SO I'M TRYING TO GET A
SENSE OF T. SOUNDS LIKE KIND
OF OPENING THE FLOODGATES
POTENTIALLY TO LITIGATION. BUT
HOW HOW IS THAT ENVISIONED? HOW
IS THAT GOING TO PLAY OUT
REALISTICALLY? YEAH, I MEAN, THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HAS ALREADY
DISCUSSED LOOKING AT WAYS TO
LIMIT THAT, INCLUDING WHO MAY
BRING THE LAWSUIT AND RAISING
THE STANDARD FROM PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE TO POTENTIALLY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING. SO LOOKING
AT THAT, AND IT'S ALSO JUST IT'S
THE PENALTY AGAINST THE
PLATFORMS. THERE'S ARE
LITIGATION. THESE ARE LAWSUITS.
SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE SO
EASY, BUT THERE'S NO MONETARY
PENALTY. SO BECAUSE OF SECTION
230 THEY PAY NOTHING. IF THEY
LOSE THE COURT WILL ORDER THEM
TO SIMPLY DO SOMETHING THAT THEY
HADN'T DONE. SO THEY WILL. THEY
ARE SIMPLY ORDERED TO COMPLY
WITH THE LAW. THERE ARE NO
MONETARY PENALTIES. WELL, I'M
GLAD TO HEAR, THOUGH, THAT
THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT
HOW TO REFINE THAT. THERE IS.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THERE IS
A MOTION ALREADY, AND SO WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, SENATOR BRIAN
, FOR THE CONVERSATION? ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL.
I CALL I DIXON. DIXON NO.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN
BRIAN I CONNELLY. CONNELLY I
HANEY. MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN I
MCKENNA. PACHECO REYES. SANCHEZ.
NOT VOTING. WALDRON ALL RIGHT,
THAT WILL BE PLACED ON CALL.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO ANOTHER
CHECK. WE HAVE A VOTE CHANGE.
DIXON NØ TO NOT VOTING. OKAY
OKAY. Þ. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE HAVE
LESS THAN AN HOUR TO DO SIX
BILLS, IF WE CAN. IF WE CAN'T,
WE HAVE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
COME BACK EITHER TONIGHT OR AT
SOME OTHER MOMENT SOMETIME TO
FINISH THESE BILLS THIS WEEK. I
WON'T ASK ANY QUESTIONS THIS
TIME, SO IT'LL GO FASTER, THANK
YOU, MISTER CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
I'M PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2930 Þ
AND I'LL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 2930. I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR VERY
THOROUGH ANALYSIS. IT WAS
INCREDIBLY WELL DONE, I
APPRECIATE IT, AS NOTED, IT WAS
MODELED AFTER PRESIDENT BIDEN'S
AI BILL OF RIGHTS, AND AB 2930
IS INCREDIBLY SIMPLE. ALTHOUGH
THE OPPOSITION WOULD DISAGREE,
AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT SAYS THAT
THESE AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS,
WHICH ARE IN OUR LIFE, THEY'RE
MAKING DECISIONS FOR US IN EVERY
ASPECT OF OUR LIFE, BUT
ESPECIALLY IN THE MOST
CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS HOUSING,
HEALTH CARE, LENDING, NEED TO BE
TESTED BEFORE THEY'RE DEPLOYED
ON CALIFORNIANS. WE'RE ASKING
COMPANIES TO DO A VERY SIMPLE
THING, WHICH, BY THE WAY, A LOT
OF THE GOOD ACTORS IN THIS SPACE
ARE ALREADY DOING DO AN IMPACT
ASSESSMENT, ENSURE THERE'S NO
BIAS IN THESE TOOLS PRIOR TO
HANDING THEM OVER TO SOMEONE TO
BE DEPLOYED OR PRIOR TO
DEPLOYING THEM DIRECTLY TO
CONSUMERS. AND WHAT THAT IS
GOING TO DO IS IT IS GOING TO
ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE
DISCRIMINATION IN THESE TOOLS IN
OUR MOST CONSEQUENTIAL SPACES,
BUT IN THE EXCITING FUTURE THAT
I THINK HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE AS
A WOMAN, I KNOW THIS FIRSTHAND.
WE CAN SEE THE ELIMINATION OF
BIAS IN AREAS WHERE WE KNOW
THERE HAS BEEN BIAS FOR FAR TOO
LONG, BUT IN ORDER FOR THAT TO
BE TRUE, WE CANNOT PUT IN DATA
SETS THAT HAVE HISTORICAL
DISCRIMINATORY DATA IN THEM. AND
WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE
OF THAT SCIENCE IN 2019 HAD A
STUDY THAT SHOWED THAT A
CLINICAL ALGORITHM USED ACROSS
HOSPITALS FOR DETERMINING
PATIENT CARE WAS RACIALLY BIASED
AGAINST BLACK PATIENTS. IN THIS
CASE, THE ALGORITHM USED HEALTH
CARE SPENDING AS A PROXY FOR
HEALTH NEEDS AND FALSELY
CONCLUDED THAT BLACK PATIENTS
WERE HEALTHIER THAN EQUALLY SICK
WHITE PATIENTS, DEPRIVING BLACK
PATIENTS FROM NEEDED HIGH RISK
CARE. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
WE'VE SEEN IT. YOU KNOW, TO
AMAZON'S CREDIT, THEY TESTED A
EMPLOYMENT TOOL. THEY WERE GOING
TO USE, FOUND THAT IT HAD BIAS
AGAINST WOMEN IN THE TECH SPACE
BECAUSE THEIR DATA SHOWED THAT
THERE WEREN'T AS MANY WOMEN TECH
WORKERS, WHICH WE KNOW TO BE THE
CASE. THEY DIDN'T DEPLOY IT. BUT
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. WE WANT IT
TO BE TESTED AND ONLY DEPLOYED
WHEN WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO DO
GOOD AND NOT HARM. WITH ME TODAY
AS A TECHNICAL WITNESS IS DAVID
EVAN HARRIS TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THESE TOOLS AND HOW THEY
WORK. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU
AGAIN SO SOON, I'M HERE NOW IN
MY CAPACITY AS AN INDIVIDUAL,
ACTING AS A TECHNICAL EXPERT TO
SPEAK ABOUT AB 2930. FOR
CONTEXT, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE,
I'VE BEEN TEACHING AT UC
BERKELEY SINCE 2015, WHERE I HAS
BEEN A REGULAR TOPIC IN MY
CURRICULA, IN MY AI ETHICS FOR
LEADERS COURSE, MY STUDENTS AND
I READ ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE'S
BILL OF RIGHTS. BLUEPRINT FOR AN
AI BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH IS A
FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT IN FORMING
THE BILL BEFORE US. I WAS ALSO
AN EMPLOYEE OF FACEBOOK AND META
FROM 2018 TO 2023 ON A NUMBER OF
TEAMS, INCLUDING RESPONSIBLE AI.
DURING THIS PERIOD, THE COMPANY
WAS SUED BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FOR FACILITATING HOUSING
DISCRIMINATION IN ITS ADS,
TARGETING AND DELIVERY TOOLS.
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ARE A BEDROCK
CRITICAL TOOL FOR ENSURING THAT
AI BENEFITS ALL PEOPLE IN FAIR
AND EQUITABLE WAYS. WITHOUT
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, REGULATORS
CANNOT TELL IF A COMPANY IS
BEING CAREFUL IN HOW IT USES AI.
THEY CANNOT TELL HOW MUCH OF A
ROLE AI PLAYS IN THE COMPANY'S
PRODUCTS. THEY CAN'T TELL WHAT
FACTORS ARE INVOLVED OR NOT
INVOLVED IN MAKING DECISIONS,
AND THEY CAN'T UNDERSTAND EVEN
WHAT COMPONENTS OF A DECISION
ARE ALGORITHMICALLY DETERMINED.
MANY COMPANIES SIMPLY DON'T KNOW
HOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR AI
SYSTEMS DO OR HOW THEY WORK.
THIS IS A BROADER PROBLEM WITH
AI. IT'S AN INCREDIBLY POWERFUL
TOOL, AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT
WORKS. A SENIOR EXECUTIVE AT
OPENAI, THE MAKER OF CHATGPT,
RECENTLY LIKENED BUILDING AI TO
ALCHEMY WHEN DECIDING WHO GETS A
MORTGAGE, A JOB OR HEALTH CARE.
I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH
RESORTING TO A TOOL THAT IS AKIN
TO ALCHEMY. WHILE AI COMPANIES
MAY NOT KNOW HOW THEIR SYSTEMS
WORK, THEY DO KNOW AT LEAST ONE
THING FOR CERTAIN ABOUT AI THAT
IT CAN INCREASE THEIR PROFITS
AND BRING IN INVESTMENT WHERE
DISCRIMINATION IS A POSSIBLE
OUTCOME OF AI, THERE'S AN
INCENTIVE TODAY TO AVOID KNOWING
ABOUT IT, TO SIMPLY AVOID
PUTTING THEIR PRODUCTS UNDER
SCRUTINY, TO LOOK AWAY FROM
POTENTIAL HARMS REQUIRING
IMPACTS TO ASSESS IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS CHANGES THE
INCENTIVES AND RIGHTLY FORCES
DEVELOPERS AND DEPLOYERS OF
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS TO
PROACTIVELY LOOK FOR
DISCRIMINATORY OUTCOMES OF THEIR
PRODUCTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2930?
MARIKO YOSHIHARA, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND TECH
EQUITY, WE HAVE A SUPPORTIVE,
AMENDED POSITION. JUST WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND HER STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH US AND
CONTINUING TO HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION? COME ON UP. THERE'S
LOTS OF SEATS FOR YOU. I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS RON DELORME WITH CAL
CHAMBER RESPECTFULLY IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO AB 2930. AS IT'S
IN PRINT, WE THINK THE AUTHOR
FOR ENGAGING WITH US ON THIS
BILL DATING BACK TO AB 331 LAST
YEAR, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE ARE
LARGELY ALIGNED IN GOAL IN HER
GOAL, IN PRINCIPLE, BIAS AND
DISCRIMINATION ARE SERIOUS
PROBLEMS IN OUR MEMBER COMPANIES
WANT TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION
WHEN IT COMES TO HOW TO SOLVE
FOR THE PROBLEM OF BIAS. IN THE
CONTEXT OF ADTS, WE DON'T OBJECT
TO IMPACT ASSESSMENTS. AS YOU
HAVE POINTED OUT, WE USE THEM
QUITE FREQUENTLY. SO WHAT WE DO
URGE IS A MEASURED APPROACH TO
AVOID OVERREGULATION, WHICH CAN
UNDERMINE THE UTILITY AND FUTURE
IMPROVEMENT OF THESE TOOLS THAT
CONTRIBUTE IN MANY VALUABLE WAYS
TO SOCIETY. CRITICALLY, THEY CAN
ACTUALLY HELP REDUCE SOME OF THE
BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION WE HAVE
HISTORICALLY SEEN RESULT FROM
HUMAN DECISION MAKERS
OVERREGULATION. THIS CONTEXT,
THEREFORE, RISKS HAVING THE
OPPOSITE OUTCOME INTENDED. WHILE
OUR CONCERNS ARE RATHER
EXTENSIVE, OUR MEMBERS HAVE
IDENTIFIED FIVE ISSUES THAT
APPLY UNIFORMLY ACROSS ALL
INDUSTRIES. AND REGARDLESS OF
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TOOLS
ARE APPLIED, UNDERSTANDING, OF
COURSE, THAT THEY ARE THERE ARE
OTHER PRIORITIES THAT MAY EXIST
THAT ARE INDUSTRY SPECIFIC,
FIRST, THE SCOPE OF THE BILL IS,
FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD,
ENORMOUS. THE BREADTH AND
VAGUENESS OF TERMS SUCH AS SUCH
AS ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION
AND CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION,
SUBSTANTIAL FACTORS SWEEP IN ALL
KINDS OF ADT BUSINESSES OF ALL
SIZES ACROSS EVERY SINGLE
INDUSTRY, NOT JUST FOR HIGH RISK
AI, ADT, BUT LOW RISK AS WELL.
IT MAKES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
BILL INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING. TO
BE CLEAR, ALGORITHMIC
ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION IS
DISCRIMINATION. EVEN UNDER THE
STATUS QUO. PROTECTIONS DON'T
HINGE ON WHETHER THE WHETHER
TECHNOLOGY IS USED OR WHAT TYPE.
AND WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
OPERATING AS THOUGH THEY DO THE
CREATION OF A NEW CONSTRUCT FOR
A SIMPLE TYPE OF FOR A SINGLE
TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY THAT IS
TOTALLY DIVORCED FROM EXISTING
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS THAT
HAVE LONG PROVIDED CLEAR
GUIDANCE TO BUSINESSES AS TO
WHAT IS UNLAWFUL WILL INEVITABLY
CAUSE CONFUSION, WE ALSO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE NOTICE
PROVISIONS AND THE REQUIREMENT
TO ALLOW CONSUMERS TO
EFFECTIVELY OPT OUT, AS WELL AS
OTHER ISSUES IN OUR LETTER. SO
WE RESPECTFULLY THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO AB 2930, THE BEEPING SO LOUD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CARMEN NICOLE COX, ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION, APPRECIATE THE
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE AUTHOR. WE
ARE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, SARAH
PALERMO WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, TRACY STEVENS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION.
AND WE WILL KEEP OUR REMARKS
UNDER THE CHAMBER. THANK YOU.
STEPHANIE MOREL, ON BEHALF OF
THE CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, APOLOGIES FOR
GETTING OUR LETTER IN LATE, BUT
WE ARE OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
MARGARET GLADSTEIN HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BANKING NETWORK
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, VANESSA
LUGO, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
BANKERS ASSOCIATION. IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, VANESSA
CHÁVEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS HERE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. NAOMI
PEDRONI ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE,
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. CARA BUNDA
WITH THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO MANY SYLLABLES.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON JOSE. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. IS
THERE A MOTION OR ANY COMMENTS?
SENATOR CONNOLLY, QUICK COMMENT
AND APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS,
OR QUESTION RATHER, HOW DOES
THIS INTERACT WITH EXISTING
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS? SO
FEHA UNRUH ACT, MOST NOTABLY,
AND WHAT DISCRIMINATION IS NOT
COVERED BY THOSE TWO THAT THIS
BILL NOW PROTECTS AGAINST
THEORETICALLY. YEAH. SO, AGAIN,
THANK YOU TO COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS, WHICH HELPED
CLARIFY THIS. SOPHIA, AS YOU
KNOW, AND ACTUALLY AS THE BILL,
NOW CLARIFIES AND, YOU KNOW, THE
OPPOSITION ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES,
ALTHOUGH, I'LL BE HONEST, THE
CASE LAW IS ALL OVER THE PLACE
ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE
TOOLS, WHO IS ON THE HOOK? IS IT
THE DEVELOPER? THE DEPLOYER AND
COURTS ARE TRYING TO FIGURE THAT
OUT. AND SO WE ARE IN THIS SORT
OF WEIRD GRAY ZONE WHERE IT
ISN'T CLEAR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE DISCRIMINATION IN THESE
CASES. BUT I DO HOPE COURTS WILL
GET THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR DISCRIMINATION,
BUT IT DOES. WE HAVE CLARIFIED
THAT THE EXISTING CIVIL RIGHTS
LAWS ARE ABSOLUTELY STILL IN
EFFECT, AS NOTED BY THE
OPPOSITION. SO ALL OF YOUR
TRADITIONAL PROTECTIONS WOULD
STILL BE IN PLACE, ALTHOUGH
THERE ARE THINGS SUCH AS
EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, ETC,
INSURANCE FINANCIAL SERVICES
NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS THAT THOSE
STATE STATUTES DON'T COVER. BUT
I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ON THAT
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE A
WOMAN AND IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT
AN EMPLOYER OF SOME SIZE IS NOT
HIRING WOMEN IN EQUAL NUMBERS,
IT TAKES A LOT OF WOMEN NOT
GETTING THE JOB BEFORE THAT
COMES TO LIGHT. AND A LOT OF
WOMEN HAVE BEEN HARMED. AND I
KNOW THE SAME IS TRUE FOR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND OTHER
PROTECTED CLASSES. IS THAT IN
THE CURRENT REGIME, YOU HAVE TO
WAIT FOR A LOT OF HARM TO OCCUR
FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS TO COME
INTO PLAY. AND SO WHAT IS
EXCITING ABOUT THIS IS THAT IN
ADDITION TO THOSE REMEDIES,
WHICH, AS I SAID, WE'RE
CLARIFYING, ARE ABSOLUTELY STILL
IN PLACE, THIS PUTS AN ONUS ON
THESE DEVELOPERS TO SAY, OKAY,
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PREVENT
THAT. NOW, THERE MAY STILL BE A
CASE WHERE WE GET TO THAT POINT
IN A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE COMES TO
PASS. BUT HOPEFULLY BY PUTTING
THESE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS IN AN
OBLIGATORY FASHION AND ENSURING
THAT WE'RE NOT DEPLOYING
DISCRIMINATORY TOOLS, WE WILL
PREVENT SOME OF THAT, WHICH I
KNOW, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE I
HEARD THE OPPOSITION SAY IS
ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING THAT THEY
WANT TO DO, TOO, WHICH IS WHY SO
MANY OF THE GOOD ACTORS ALREADY
DO THESE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS.
COULD I OH. OH, SURE. I GUESS
IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR. OH, VERY,
VERY, VERY QUICKLY. IF YOU COULD
, ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNELLY, IF
YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY
THAT DEPLOYS AI SYSTEMS OR
DEVELOPS THEM TODAY, AND YOU
SUSPECT THAT SOMETHING MIGHT BE
WRONG, THAT THERE MIGHT BE
DISCRIMINATION, YOU MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO GET PERMISSION FROM YOUR
BOSSES OR FROM YOUR EMPLOYER TO
ACTUALLY STUDY WHERE THAT IS THE
CASE, WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE,
UNDER CURRENT LAW, THIS LAW
WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY AS AN EMPLOYEE
TRYING TO DO GOOD TO INVESTIGATE
THAT. THANK YOU, SENATOR BRIAN.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO
RAISE UP SOME OF THE CONCERNS,
FROM THE OPPOSITION, THAT THIS
DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR AND HIRING
DECISIONS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE MANY
PUBLIC USES OF KIND OF THESE
ALGORITHMIC DECISION MAKING
MODELS. I'M DEFINITELY THINKING
OF PREDICTIVE POLICING MODELS.
I'M THINKING OF DIFFERENT TYPES
OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS, THINGS
IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM THAT
ARE EMERGING. SO DEFINITELY WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE REMAIN
PART OF THIS CONVERSATION AND BE
ON THE TABLE, BECAUSE I THINK
YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S
PROFOUND AND IMPORTANT, AND I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LET OUR
CIVIC INSTITUTIONS OFF THE HOOK
FROM THESE KINDS OF AUTOMATED
DECISION MAKING DISCRIMINATION
CASES AS WELL. YEAH, AND IT DOES
, SO THE BILL DOES INCLUDE ALL
OF THOSE APPLICATIONS AS
CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS. TO YOUR
POINT, THEY ARE DEFINITELY
CONSEQUENTIAL. WE'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS. I KNOW THAT'S A
CONCERN OF THE ACLU, BUT PERHAPS
OTHERS AS WELL, AND, YOU KNOW,
ONE OF THEIR CONCERNS, WE
ACTUALLY THOUGHT THE BILL
ALREADY DID, WHICH WAS THEY'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT ALREADY DEPLOYED
MODELS. I HAD BELIEVED THE BILL
COVERED ALREADY DEPLOY MODELED.
SO IF THAT'S UNCLEAR, WE'RE
ABSOLUTELY HAPPY TO CLARIFY
THAT. AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO
TALK TO THEM ABOUT OTHER WAYS OF
DOING THIS, BECAUSE TO YOUR
POINT, ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
DECISIONS IN OUR LIVES, THIS
SHOULD BE THE BARE MINIMUM OF
WHAT HAPPENS. SO THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WILL ABSOLUTELY
CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR COMMENT
TO THE AUTHOR? I KNOW THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THAT, THAT YOU'RE
YOU'RE WORKING ON. AND I JUST
WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR, YOU
KNOW, ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'RE
DOING. I KNOW THERE'S CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING AND, AND
YOU'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS AND I
KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE WORKING
WITH OPPOSITION. SO I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO SEEING THE OUTCOME OF
THIS BILL ONCE IT GETS TO THE
FLOOR. I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT
TODAY. AND JUST LOOK FORWARD TO
THE FINAL RESULTS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. YEAH. THANK YOU. IS THERE
A MOTION AND A SECOND? SO MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND A
SECOND. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
SENATOR BARRETT CAN, FOR YOUR
WORK ON THIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE WHAT OUR COLLEAGUE
SAID, WHICH IS WE ARE LOOKING
FORWARD TO SEEING AMENDMENTS
FROM THE CHAMBER, BUT HAVE
STARTED WORKING WITH THE
ASSOCIATION SPECIFICALLY TO TRY
TO DRIVE INTO THE ISSUES THAT
EACH THAT EACH, IDENTIFIED
INDIVIDUALLY. BECAUSE, AS I
SAID, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT A
LOT OF COMPANIES ARE ALREADY
DOING. SO WE THINK THIS IS
ACTUALLY A GOOD STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION FOR AI THAT WE
CAN ALL COME TO A CONSENSUS ON,
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
MOMENT WITH THAT. I EXPECT WHEN
I VOTE THANK YOU. DO PASS IS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
FOR A CALLER. AYE. DIXON. DIXON.
NØ BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN.
AYE. CONNELLY CONNELLY. AYE.
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN
AYE. MCKENNA. PACHECO. PACHECO.
AYE. REYES SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NØ.
WALDRON WE'LL PLACE IT ON CALL.
SOMMER. WICKS MAYBE 3211. OH,
YEAH, I JUST. YEAH, WE'LL JUST
KEEP MOTORING.
THE PLAN IS TO DO THIS ONE
SUMMER. GIBSON'S BILL AND THEN
MY BILL. AND I THINK THAT WILL.
AND WE'LL KEEP MOVING. SEE HOW
MANY WE CAN DO. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I KNOW YOU ALL ARE UP
AGAINST TIME CONSTRAINTS, SO,
HOPEFULLY THIS WON'T TAKE TOO
LONG, MANY THANKS TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE
LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED AROUND AB
3211, YOU KNOW, I, I DO A LOT OF
TECH WORK, OBVIOUSLY, IN THIS
SPACE. AND THE REASONS FOR THAT
LARGELY ARE BECAUSE OF MY GIRLS
HAVE A THREE YEAR OLD AND A
SEVEN YEAR OLD, AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE CREATING A
REALLY SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR
THEM, I FULLY RECOGNIZE THE
BENEFIT OF AI AND GENERATIVE AI,
AND I THINK IT WILL PROVIDE
UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH IN
CALIFORNIA, IN OUR ECONOMY. ALSO
NEW CAREERS ALSO THINGS THAT WE
HAVEN'T EVEN IMAGINED YET. AND
I'M EXCITED ABOUT THAT GROWTH.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE PUTTING FORTH THE RIGHT,
GUARDRAILS AND SAFETY MEASURES
TO ENSURE, THAT THERE'S REAL
TRUST WITH THESE PRODUCTS AS
SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE READ,
UNDRESSING APPS ARE RAMPANT NOW
IN MANY OF OUR SCHOOLS THAT
ALLOWS USERS TO CREATE DEEPFAKES
OF NON-CONSENSUAL IMAGES FOR
UNDERAGE KIDS AND OTHERS ALSO
ADULTS, CREATING CONVINCING
DEEPFAKES TAKES LESS THAN 20
MINUTES AND COSTS ABOUT A DOLLAR
. FAKES THREATEN TO FLOOD SOCIAL
MEDIA AND OTHER LARGE PLATFORMS
ONLINE, AND WOMEN AND GIRLS ARE
PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE AND HAVE
EXPERIENCED HARMS IN AT LEAST
THREE OF CALIFORNIA'S MIDDLE AND
HIGH SCHOOLS TO DATE, THERE'S
ALSO CONCERNS AROUND DEEPFAKES
WITH REGARD TO ELECTIONS, I KNOW
THAT'S SOMETHING MANY OF US CARE
ABOUT MAKING SURE WE HAVE A LOT
OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND, THE
MESSAGES THAT WE PUT OUT INTO
THE WORLD AND HOW WE ARE
PROTECTED AND HOW WE ARE
PERCEIVED ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS AS POLICY MAKERS, WE
NEED TO ENSURE THAT MEDIA
CONSUMERS ARE BETTER ABLE TO
DISCERN WHAT IS REAL FROM WHAT
IS FAKE. AB 3211 PRESENTS THREE
WAYS TO DO THIS ONE. REQUIRE ALL
CONTENT FROM CHEN CHEN I TO BE
LABELED FAKE. TWO REQUIRE ALL
CONTENT FROM CAMERAS AND OTHER
RECORDING DEVICES TO BE LABELED
REAL, AND THIRD, REQUIRE ALL
ONLINE PLATFORMS TO DISPLAY
THESE LABELS. I WAS HONORED TO
HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE
PRIVACY COMMITTEE AND THINK AND
THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE RARE
OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE
TOGETHER, DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, TO REALLY MEET THIS
MOMENT, AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PROTECT THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF
WHAT WE SEE AND MAINTAIN
CALIFORNIA'S EMBRACE OF
TECHNOLOGY AS IT INNOVATES, BUT
ALSO TO PROVIDE TO PROVIDE
SAFETY AND SECURITY. WITH ME
HERE TO TESTIFY. AND I TOLD THEM
NOT TO LEAVE A SEAT BECAUSE HE
WAS JUST HERE ON BEHALF OF
REBECCA BAUER-KAHAN AS WELL, IS
DAVID EVAN HARRIS, FORMERLY OF
META AND CURRENTLY CURRENTLY
FACULTY AT UC BERKELEY. WE HAVE
RILEY MCCORMICK, PRESIDENT AND
CEO OF DIGIMARC CORPORATION. AND
ALSO AVAILABLE FOR LEGAL
CLARIFICATION IS KEN WANG WITH
CITED AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. IT'S AN HONOR TO
BE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH YOU AGAIN
AND CONVEY TO YOU MY STRONG
SUPPORT OF AB 3211, THE
CALIFORNIA PROVENANCE,
AUTHENTICITY, AND WATERMARKING
STANDARDS. I'M HERE TODAY, RIGHT
NOW, IN MY CAPACITY AS A SENIOR
POLICY ADVISOR TO CITED THE
CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE FOR TECH
AND DEMOCRACY. THIS IS THE
NEWEST PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
COMMON CAUSE, AND IT CAME
TOGETHER TO SEEK STATE LEVEL
SOLUTIONS, SOLUTIONS TO THE
THREATS THAT DISINFORMATION,
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, DEEP
FAKES AND OTHER EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES POSE TO DEMOCRACY
AND OUR ELECTIONS. WE'RE PROUD
TO SPONSOR AB 3211. AI IS A
POWERFUL TOOL THAT CAN BRING
GREAT BENEFITS TO PEOPLE, BUT IT
ALSO, IF NOT GOVERN JUDICIOUSLY.
JUDICIOUSLY HAS THE POWER TO
CAUSE GREAT HARM. THIS IS WHY SO
MANY AI CEOS HAVE CALLED
THEMSELVES FOR REGULATION OF AI.
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THE
HARMS THAT CAN BE CAUSED BY AI
GENERATED NON-CONSENSUAL
INTIMATE IMAGERY AND CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL
MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS CAN BE
SUPERCHARGED BY AI. WE'RE
FAMILIAR WITH THESE CAMPAIGNS
FROM THE 2016 EFFORTS BY RUSSIA
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS
THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
HAS ALREADY WARNED THAT CHINA,
RUSSIA AND IRAN ARE LIKELY TO
USE GENERATIVE AI TO TARGET OUR
ELECTIONS. WATERMARKING IS THE
BEST TOOL AVAILABLE TO ALLOW US
TO IDENTIFY WHAT CONTENT IS
PRODUCED BY AI AND WHAT CONTENT
IS AUTHENTIC. AB 3211 REQUIRES
THAT AI COMPANIES MAKE GOOD ON
PROMISES TO ADD WATERMARKING
FEATURES TO THEIR AI SYSTEMS.
THESE PROMISES WERE FIRST MADE
IN THE WHITE HOUSE VOLUNTARY
COMMITMENTS ON AI LAST JULY, AND
AGAIN AT THE MUNICH SECURITY
CONFERENCE. AI ELECTIONS ACCORD
FROM THIS FEBRUARY. GIVEN THAT
IT'S ALREADY BEEN NINE MONTHS
SINCE THE WHITE HOUSE AI
COMMITMENTS WERE MADE, AND WE'VE
SEEN LITTLE PROGRESS, I BELIEVE
THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION
THAN TO LEGALLY REQUIRE THAT
COMPANIES TAKE ON THIS
RESPONSIBILITY AND PROTECT OUR
INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT. OUR
CHILDREN, AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
, THE TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY TO
ENABLE THE KEY PROVISIONS OF AB
3211 EXIST AND HAVE BEEN WIDELY
DEPLOYED FOR YEARS GLOBALLY AND
ON A MASSIVE SCALE. MOREOVER
THESE TOOLS CAN BE DEPLOYED TO
ANY DEVICE WHERE DIGITAL CONTENT
IS CREATED OR DEPLOYED VIA
FAMILIAR SOFTWARE. DELIVER
DELIVERY METHODS INCLUDING THE
COMMON OVER-THE-AIR UPDATES WITH
WHICH WE ARE ALSO FAMILIAR,
ALLOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF AB 3211 TO BE
MEASURED IN MONTHS, NOT YEARS. I
AM THE CEO OF DIGIMARC, A
PRODUCT DIGITIZATION COMPANY
THAT PIONEERED DIGITAL
WATERMARKING TECHNOLOGY NEARLY
30 YEARS AGO. THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION OF OUR TECHNOLOGY
WAS TO PROTECT THE COPYRIGHTS OF
CREATORS AND INVENTORS. AT THE
ADVENT OF ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY
REVOLUTION, THE INTERNET. SINCE
THEN, OUR TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN
DEPLOYED AT A GLOBAL SCALE MANY
TIMES OVER BY BOTH THE PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO NOT ONLY
HELP ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF
CREATORS AND INVENTORS ARE
PROTECTED, BUT ALSO TO ENSURE
THE AUTHENTICITY AND
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF PHYSICAL AND
DIGITAL ASSETS WORLDWIDE. MOST
NOTABLY, OUR TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN
TRUSTED BY A CONSORTIUM OF THE
WORLD'S CENTRAL BANKS TO PROTECT
GLOBAL CURRENCIES FOR OVER 25
YEARS. GIVEN OUR LONG HISTORY
WITH DIGITAL WATERMARKING ACROSS
INDUSTRIES AND SECTORS, WE HAVE
PROVEN INSIGHT INTO HOW THIS
POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY COULD BE
APPLIED TO ADDRESS THE PRESSING
ISSUES UPON WHICH THIS COMMITTEE
IS FOCUSED. THIS WOULD ALLOW
CALIFORNIA TO YET AGAIN LEAD THE
WAY ON IMPORTANT GLOBAL MATTERS
AND ENSURE THE DELIVERY OF THE
SAFER, FAIRER AND MORE AUTHENTIC
INTERNET WE ALL DESERVE.
DIGIMARC BELIEVES THAT THE
POTENTIAL FOR INNOVATION AND
GROWTH OFFERED BY AI IS
UNRIVALED, BUT THE POWER OF AI
MUST BE THOUGHTFULLY REGULATED
AS FAILURE TO DO SO WILL HAVE
SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME. LEADERS
AROUND THE WORLD HAVE AN
IMPORTANT TASK AHEAD OF THEM IN
WORKING TO FIND THE RIGHT
BALANCE FOR REGULATING THIS
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY AND
SOLUTIONS, SUCH AS DIGITAL
WATERMARKING, THAT CAN BOTH
PROMOTE INNOVATION AND PROTECT
AGAINST MISUSE MUST BE SEIZED.
ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE AT
DIGIMARC, I THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR THE INVITATION TO BE HERE
TODAY. IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT
THIS LEADERS IN SACRAMENTO ARE
AT THE VANGUARD OF THIS
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. I
WELCOME AND LOOK FORWARD TO
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? BRIAN
MIRAMONTEZ WITH ASTHMA
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3211?
YEAH, YEAH THAT'S FINE. OKAY.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN.
CHAIR KALRA, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KARA
BUNDER, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
CTIA IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO
AB 3211. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND
LAWMAKERS INTEREST IN MITIGATING
POTENTIAL HARMS ASSOCIATED WITH
AI GENERATED SYNTHETIC CONTENT,
AS AMENDED, THE BILL STILL
RAISES SEVERAL CONCERNS. MANY OF
OUR MEMBERS ARE WORKING TO
IMPLEMENT TOOLS TO BETTER,
BETTER DETECT AND LABEL AI
GENERATED CONTENT, BUT THE TOOLS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE ARE NOT
ALWAYS RELIABLE OR ACCURATE.
THERE ARE ALSO SIGNIFICANT
SHORTCOMINGS TO WATERMARKS AND
CARRY THE POTENTIAL TO
COUNTERPRODUCTIVELY ALSO ERODE
TRUST A FALSE POSITIVE FOR
REALITY. PROVENANCE IS FAR WORSE
THAN A FALSE NEGATIVE FOR AI.
PROVENANCE. FAKE MATERIAL BEING
TRADED AS REAL IS GENERALLY
WORSE THAN REAL MATERIAL BEING
TREATED AS FAKED. FOR EXAMPLE,
THE NON-CONSENSUAL SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT IMAGES THAT WERE
REFERENCED EARLIER. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUTHOR IS
OPEN TO DISCUSSING THE BILL'S
ENFORCEMENT REGIME, PARTICULARLY
THE HIGH PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS. CTIA BELIEVES THIS
IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT GIVEN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE
SHORTCOMINGS OF PROVENANCE
TECHNOLOGIES, CURRENT ABILITIES
AND IMPERFECTIONS. WE AGREE WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS THAT AT
PRESENT, THESE ARE UNREASONABLE
PENALTIES. FURTHER, THE BILL
RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO
EFFECTIVELY WATERMARK AI
GENERATED TEXT OR VOICE
RESPONSES. FOR EXAMPLE, COMMONLY
USED VOICE ASSISTANTS PRODUCE AI
GENERATED VOICE RESPONSES, BUT
CANNOT WATERMARK THOSE VOICE
RESPONSES. WE ALSO SUGGEST THAT
THE BILL BE TARGETED TO HIGH
RISK CASES. RESPONSIBLE DIGITAL
SERVICES ARE PROACTIVELY
IMPLEMENTING SAFEGUARDS TO
SWIFTLY REMOVE ILLEGAL OR
DANGEROUS CONTENT, LIKE AI
GENERATED IMAGES DEPICTING CSAM.
HOWEVER THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN
THE BROADER CONTEXT, AS HASHING
VALUES ARE USED TO HELP IDENTIFY
AND REMOVE SUCH MATERIALS BY
PERSISTENTLY ADDRESSING WELL
DEFINED AND AGREED UPON RISKS,
PLATFORMS FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENT
CONDUCIVE TO HARM MITIGATION
WITHOUT IMPEDING THE INNOVATION
ECOSYSTEM, BUT THIS ALSO HELPS
GUARD AGAINST COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THERE
ARE THE RISKS OF NOTIFICATION,
NOTIFICATION FATIGUE OR BANNER
BLINDNESS, AND THIS HAS BEEN
PREVALENT WITH WEBSITE OPERATORS
ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY WITH THE EU'S
WEBSITE COOKIE DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH SHOW THAT
OVERLY BROAD DISCLOSURE
OBLIGATIONS CAN BE HIGHLY
DISRUPTIVE WHILE PROVIDING
LIMITED CONSUMER SAFETY
BENEFITS. ON BEHALF OF CCI, I
APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
ONCE AGAIN, JOSE TORRES WITH
TECHNET, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO AB 3211. WE AGREE
WITH THE INTENT OF THE BILL TO
CREATE GREATER TRUST IN USER
GENERATED CONTENT ONLINE BY
FOSTERING THE ADOPTION OF
CONTENT PROVENANCE VERIFICATIONS
AND WATERMARKS. WE ARE STILL
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS AND
APPRECIATE THAT SOME OF THE MORE
PROBLEMATIC REQUIREMENTS FOR
ONLINE PLATFORMS DO INTRUDE ON
USERS PRIVACY HAVE BEEN STRUCK.
WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF ISSUES TO RESOLVE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO PROVIDING
MORE SUBSTANTIVE, SUBSTANTIVE
FEEDBACK AND WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR TO OFFER AMENDMENTS.
HOWEVER, AS IN PRINT, THIS BILL
PRESENTS A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES
AND REQUIRES PLATFORMS TO COMPLY
WITH TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE AND
IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS. FIRST,
WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE
TO REGULATE AND EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY, THIS IS AN AREA THAT
WOULD BENEFIT FROM FEDERAL
STANDARDS AND REGULATION RATHER
THAN A STATE BY STATE APPROACH,
MANY OF OUR COMPANIES AND
PLATFORMS ARE AT THE FOREFRONT
OF DEVELOPING, DEVELOPING
CONTENT, PROVENANCE AND
WATERMARKING TECHNOLOGY, WHICH
IS STILL IN ITS EARLY STAGES. AS
A GENERAL NOTE, CONTENT
PROVENANCE AND WATERMARKING IS
STILL INCREDIBLY UNRELIABLE AND
IN MANY CASES, EASY TO BREAK.
RESEARCHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND WERE ABLE TO BREAK ALL
OF THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
WATERMARKING METHODS. SOME CAN
BE AVOIDED BY SIMPLY CROPPING,
RESIZING, OR SCREENSHOTTING AN
IMAGE MORE CONCERNING MORE
RESEARCHERS THESE RESEARCHERS
WERE ABLE TO INSERT FAKE
WATERMARKS AND CREDENTIALS INTO
IMAGES, CREATING FALSE
POSITIVES. ANY BILL ON THIS
TOPIC SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR THIS
UNRELIABLE UNRELIABILITY,
ESPECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERING THE
OVERLY PUNITIVE FINE STRUCTURE,
IF LAWS EXCEED THE INDUSTRY'S
TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES,
CONSUMERS MIGHT PLACE TOO MUCH
TRUST AND CREDENCE IN WATERMARKS
, MAKING THEM MORE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO BAD ACTORS ATTEMPTS TO
DECEIVE. AS IT RELATES TO THIS
BILL, AB 30 3211 ENACTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR A TECHNOLOGY
THAT IS STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT
AND RAPIDLY EVOLVING. FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE ISN'T A SYSTEM
THAT CAN WATERMARK TEXT, MAKING
THE BILL'S REQUIREMENTS TO DO SO
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH. FOR
THE AND FOR THESE REASONS, WE
ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED AT THIS
TIME, BUT LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 3211? WE'RE ON.
ALLOW ME WITH CAL CHAMBERLINE
OUR COMMENTS WITH OTHER
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR ANY MOTIONS
OR. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS
THERE IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.
AND SENATOR BARBARA CAN I'LL BE
BRIEF, SO I WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WIX FOR HER WORK
ON THIS BILL. I THINK THIS IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. WE HEARD
IT IN PRIVACY, AND WE REALLY
TALKED ABOUT THE VALUE OF MAKING
SURE THAT WE IDENTIFY THESE,
THESE IMAGES, ETC. AND I THINK
THAT I HAD A MEETING RECENTLY
WITH THE EU WHERE WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS REALLY
GOING TO SHIFT THE MARKET, THAT
THE MORE THAT YOU AND CALIFORNIA
MOVE TOWARDS REQUIRING THIS,
THAT THE TECHNOLOGY WILL COME TO
PASS. WE CAN CREATE THE
INTERNET, WE CAN DEFINITELY
CREATE WATERMARKS. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, I'VE DISCUSSED WITH
YOU THAT I THINK WE NEED TO WORK
ON WHICH AGENCIES IN CHARGE TO
MAKE SURE IT'S THE RIGHT ONE.
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T
DO THIS RIGHT NOW, SO I HAVE A
CONCERN ABOUT THAT. BUT I KNOW
YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT.
AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU, MADAM
VICE CHAIR. I'LL MAKE A QUICK
COMMENT AS WE DISCUSSED THIS. I
GUESS IT WAS A WEEK AGO AND A
LONG MEETING AND PRIVACY AND I
VOTED YES. I WILL VOTE YES
TODAY, BUT I, AS I TOLD THE
AUTHOR, WE'RE STILL NOT THERE
YET. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A LOT
OF WORK TO DO. WE HAVEN'T EVEN
DEFINED MANY OF THESE TERMS IN
REAL LIFE. WE'VE DEFINED THEM,
BUT WE'VE NOT SEEN THEM WORK. SO
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE
CALIFORNIA COULD LEAD THE WAY ON
THIS. AND CHANGE THE
MARKETPLACE. BUT I WANT TO
SUPPORT I DO SUPPORT THE
INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE
OPPOSED. BUT WE DO NEED TO FIND
A SOLUTION HERE THAT WORKS FOR
ALL, FOR ALL. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, YEAH. I JUST WANT TO
APPRECIATE SHOW APPRECIATION FOR
THE AUTHOR. THIS IS INCREDIBLY
COMPLICATED. LIKE MANY OF THE AI
BILLS ARE, I. I ALSO WANT TO
SHOW APPRECIATION TO OUR PRIVACY
CHAIR AND HER STAFF WORKING WITH
JEWISH STAFF. A LOT OF THESE
BILLS ARE BOUNCING BACK AND
FORTH. AND SO AS MUCH AS WE CAN
CREATE SOME SYMMETRY AND THERE
THE BETTER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? SURE. THANK YOU. AND, TO
MISS BARKAN'S, COMMENTS AND
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK IN
PRIVACY COMMITTEE, WE ARE
WORKING TO IDENTIFY THE
APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AGENCY
AND ALSO WITH THAT, COMMITTED TO
DISCUSSING PENALTIES AND MAKING
SURE THEY ACTUALLY REALLY ALIGN.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF OPENNESS
THERE ON THAT. AND WELCOME
FEEDBACK, GENUINELY WELCOME
FEEDBACK FROM ANY OF THE TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS OR COMPANIES
THEMSELVES. WE'VE YET TO RECEIVE
ANY RED LINES AND THE DOOR IS
WIDE OPEN. SO I WOULD LOVE TO
CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION. I
ACTUALLY THINK THERE'S A LOT
THAT ALIGNS US HERE, BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, BUT
ALSO ADVOCATES AND INDUSTRY. AND
I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY LAND
THIS PLANE IN A WAY THAT WILL
BENEFIT OUR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH
IS WHO WE CARE MOST ABOUT. SO
WITH THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALL. AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE.
BARRETT KHN. BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BRIAN. CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE.
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO. PACHECO.
AYE. REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ.
AYE. WALDRON ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILL IS OUT. UP NEXT SUMMER.
GIBSON AND AFTER THAT, I'LL TAKE
MY BILL. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO
KEEP ON MOVING AND. YEAH. THEN
RAISE THE MAIN SHEET. OKAY.
WE'LL GET IT DONE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. YOU YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD.
SENATOR GIBSON. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS.
IT'S BEEN A TRYING DAY TODAY. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO ME VERY BRIEFLY, VERY
BRIEFLY TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
2862, WHICH SEEKS TO REQUIRE
LICENSING BOARDS TO PRIORITIZE
AFRICAN AMERICAN APPLICATIONS OR
APPLICANTS SEEKING OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO
ARE DESCENDANTS, FROM A PERSON
ENSLAVED IN THE UNITED STATES
ASSEMBLY, BILL 2862 WAS SERVED
AS A FOUR YEAR PILOT PROGRAM TO
TEST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
EXPEDITING PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
FOR THESE POPULATIONS, WITH ME
TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING TESTIMONY.
THIS IS, THIS IS IN FACT A
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS
PRIORITY AS PART OF A REPARATION
PACKAGE. I HAVE MISTER DARRYL
LUCIAN, HERE REPRESENTING THE,
THE REPRESENTING THE 40 ACRES
CONSERVATION. WHO WILL SELF
INTRODUCE BUT ALSO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS, I'M
HONORED TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS MEASURE, WE WRITE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE, I THINK
PRIMARILY BECAUSE BECAUSE OF A
LOT OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING
THIS VERY DAY, 40 ACRE
CONSERVATION LEAGUE IS THE
STATE'S FIRST BLACK LED LAND
CONSERVANCY, AND WITH THE HELP
OF THE LEGISLATURE, THROUGH THE
STATE BUDGET AND THROUGH
ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING THAT
HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM OTHER
AGENCIES, WE ARE EMBARKING ON A
COMBINATION OF, ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION OF AN AREA OF FORMER
TIMBERLAND SITE OWNED BY A
TIMBER COMPANY AND ALSO TRYING
TO DO A LOT OF PLACEMAKING TO
ENSURE THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR FIND
, THESE SPACES THAT, HAVE, LONG
BEEN CONSIDERED UNCOMFORTABLE
SPACES MORE ACCOMMODATING, WHEN
WE HAVE GONE ABOUT PUTTING
TOGETHER THE TEAM THAT WE'RE
USING, WE RELY ON A NUMBER OF
LICENSED PROFESSIONALS, REGISTER
PROFESSIONAL FORAGERS,
FORESTERS. EXCUSE ME? GEOLOGISTS
HYDROGEOLOGISTS, THE MANY
PROFESSIONALS I DIDN'T KNOW
EXISTED, FRANKLY, WE'RE WE'RE ON
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF HIRING
THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND WE WOULD
BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T AS AN
ORGANIZATION LED BY PEOPLE OF
COLOR, LOOK TO CREATE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR, LICENSED
PROFESSIONALS, WHO WHO LOOK LIKE
US, WHO HAVE A COMMON SENSE OF
BELONGING OR BEGINNINGS. AND,
IT'S BECOME VERY APPARENT THAT,
WE CAN SEARCH HIGH AND LOW FOR,
SOMETIMES WE'RE JUST NOT IN
THESE SPACES. AND WE BELIEVE
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO FIND WAYS TO,
PRIORITIZE US GETTING INTO THESE
SPACES THAT, WE'RE JUST NOT
COMMONLY FOUND IN. AND SO WE
APPRECIATE MR. GIBSON AND NOT
JUST HIM, BUT THE ENTIRE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS EFFORT ON THIS ENDEAVOR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2862? IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2862?
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING
CHAIRMAN. CHOLERA HONORABLE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME
IS ANDREW KINO, AND I'M AN
ATTORNEY WITH THE PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION, THE NATION'S LEADING
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM THAT'S
DEDICATED TO UPHOLDING EQUALITY
AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL THE U.S.
AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS.
PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM
TREATING INDIVIDUALS DIFFERENTLY
BASED ON RACE. THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT AB 262 DOES. WHEN
GOVERNMENTS TREAT DIFFERENT
PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY BASED ON
RACE, IT IS MEANT TO BE A VERY
RARE EXCEPTION. THÀNH SUBJECT TO
VERY NARROW RESTRICTIONS, THERE
ARE OVER 2 MILLION HARDWORKING
CALIFORNIANS WHO MUST APPLY FOR
PERMISSION TO WORK FOR OVER 200
OCCUPATIONS FROM ONE OF THE
STATE'S BUREAUS AND BOARDS HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. BY PASSING AB
262, YOU'LL BE TELLING THESE
HARDWORKING CALIFORNIANS THAT
THEIR SPOT IN LINE IN ORDER TO
GET A LICENSE WILL BE DEPENDENT
ON THEIR RACE. THAT IS PLAINLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LAST SUMMER'S
SUPREME COURT DECISION IN
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS
VERSUS HARVARD LAID OUT VERY
CLEAR GROUND RULES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT MAY USE RACE TO TREAT
PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY. THE
GOVERNMENT MAY ONLY USE RACE TO
TREAT PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY IN
ORDER TO REMEDY SPECIFIC
INSTANCES OF PAST DISCRIMINATION
. THEREFORE, THIS LEGISLATURE
MUST IDENTIFY AMONG THE 38
BOARDS AND BUREAUS UNDER THE DCA
WHAT SPECIFIC POLICIES,
PRACTICES, PROCEDURES ARE
SPECIFICALLY DISCRIMINATING TO
DISALLOW INDIVIDUALS OF CERTAIN
RACES FROM GETTING LICENSES? IF
THERE ARE SUCH POLICIES, THEY
SHOULD BE ROOTED OUT. THE
SUPREME COURT ALSO LAID OUT THE
FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE MUST
GIVE GOOD FAITH CONSIDERATION TO
RACE NEUTRAL, WORKABLE
ALTERNATIVES. NOW, THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE DID SET
FORTH A RACE NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVE
TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY
INDIVIDUAL WITH A CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CANNOT OBTAIN A
LICENSE. BECAUSE OF THAT
BACKGROUND, THE TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDED THAT THAT THE AMOUNT
OF TIME BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED
, THAT A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND BE
HELD AGAINST A PERSON SEEKING A
LICENSE. ULTIMATELY, CALIFORNIA
WORKERS DESERVE MUCH BETTER A
MORE CONSTITUTIONAL,
CONSTITUTIONAL, AND LAWFUL
LICENSING PROCESS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2862? OKAY,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. THERE IS A MOTION ON
THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, SENATOR
GIBSON, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR THE
COMMITTEE'S. I VOTE IN THIS
REGARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATE CALL. I CALL I
DIXON. DIXON. NØ BAUER-KAHAN.
BRIAN. BRIAN I CONNOLLY, HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN I MAIENSCHEIN I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I PACHECO. I
CHECO I REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ.
NÓ WALDRON. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU
.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AB 2288 WOULD ALLOW
COURTS TO ORDER INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF IN A PAGA CLAIM BY ADDING
INJUNCTIONS TO THE COURT'S
TOOLBOX. THIS BILL WOULD ENSURE
EMPLOYERS COMPLY WITH STATE LAW
AND ARE TAKING PROACTIVE STEPS
TO REMEDY THEIR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
MOVING FORWARD. SINCE 2004, PAGA
HAS SERVED AS A CRITICAL
ENFORCEMENT TOOL OF CALIFORNIA'S
LABOR LAWS, RECOGNIZING THE
REALITY THAT THE STATE'S LABOR
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OFTEN LACK
THE RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE AND
TAKE ACTION AGAINST EVERY
VIOLATION UNDER EXISTING LAW,
PAGA ENABLES AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES
TO ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
CODE BY PURSUING LAWSUITS
AGAINST EMPLOYERS TO RECOVER
CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
OF STATE LAW. PAGA CASES ARE
MOST OFTEN FILED TO ADDRESS
SERIOUS LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS
AND ENFORCE FUNDAMENTAL LABOR
RIGHTS, SUCH AS OVERTIME,
MINIMUM WAGE, AND SICK LEAVE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN FEBRUARY 2024,
REPORT BY THE UCLA LABOR CENTER
HIGHLIGHTED NEARLY 600,000
WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA,
EXPERIENCED A WAGE VIOLATION
TOTALING ALMOST $2 BILLION IN
LOSSES ANNUALLY. HOWEVER, ONLY
2% OF THOSE LOST WAGES ARE
ACTUALLY RECOVERED BY THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S WAGE CLAIM
PROCESS. IN ADDITION TO LIMITED
PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES,
THE INCREASED USE OF FORCED
ARBITRATION CLAUSES HAS
PREVENTED AGGRIEVED WORKERS FROM
FILING INDIVIDUAL OR CLASS
ACTION LAWSUITS AGAINST THEIR
EMPLOYER, OR EVEN PURSUING
INDIVIDUAL WAGE ADJUDICATION
CLAIMS THROUGH THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER. RESEARCHERS
ESTIMATE THAT AS HIGH AS 80% OF
PRIVATE SECTOR NONUNION WORKERS
ARE SUBJECT TO THESE CLAUSES,
FREQUENTLY LEAVING PARK AS THEIR
ONLY OPTION FOR RECOURSE UNDER
THE CURRENT PAGA STATUTE. WHILE
AN AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE MAY WIN
THEIR CASE AND THE EMPLOYER IS
FINE, THE EXISTING LAW DOES NOT
ENSURE THAT THE WORK WILL NOT
HAVE TO FACE THE SAME VIOLATION.
THEY SUED OVER MOVING FORWARD,
GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY
FORCED ARBITRATION, THE LACK OF
ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES, REMEDIES
LIKE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NEED TO
BE AVAILABLE TO STRENGTHEN
PIMCO'S EFFECTIVENESS. AN
INJUNCTION IS AN ORDER REQUIRING
AN INDIVIDUAL TO REFRAIN FROM A
PARTICULAR ACT, WHICH MAY BE
GRANTED AND ENFORCED BY THE
COURTS IN THE CONTEXT OF PAGA.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF WOULD ENABLE COURTS TO
ORDER EMPLOYERS TO MAKE
MEANINGFUL CHANGES IN THE
WORKPLACE. FOR EXAMPLE, AN
EMPLOYER FAILS TO PROVIDE WORK
WORKERS WITH PAID SICK DAYS. THE
COURT COULD ORDER AN INJUNCTION,
REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO
ESTABLISH A LAWFUL PAID SICK DAY
POLICY. AB 2288 BUILDS UPON
POGOR'S ROLE AS A VITAL TOOL TO
ENFORCE WORKERS RIGHTS BY
ALLOWING COURTS TO ORDER
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN A PAGA
CLAIM. I'VE MET WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND HOPE TO CONTINUE
WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND A PATH
MOVING FORWARD. PAGA REMAINS ONE
OF THE ONLY TOOLS WORKERS HAVE
TO REMEDY VIOLATIONS OF THEIR
RIGHTS, AND THIS BILL WOULD HELP
ENSURE THEY SEE COMPREHENSIVE,
MEANINGFUL RELIEF TO UNLAWFUL
WORKPLACE PRACTICES. WITH ME
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT, VERONICA
MELENDEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION AND TIA KUNTZ, LEGAL
POLICY RESEARCH MANAGER WITH THE
UCLA LABOR CENTER. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS VERONICA
MELENDEZ, AND I AM THE
LITIGATION DIRECTOR FOR
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION. SIERRA
FOUNDATION WAS ONE OF THE
ORIGINAL SPONSORS OF PAGA IN
2003. THEN AS NOW, WE
OVERWHELMED, OVERWHELMED ONLY
SERVE UNDOCUMENTED FARMWORKERS
AND OTHER LOW WAGE WORKERS. FARM
WORKERS EMPLOYED BY UNLICENSED
CONTRACTORS SOMETIMES ARE NOT
PAID THEIR WAGES, AND THEY
DISAPPEAR, AND THE WORKERS
CANNOT GET THEIR WAGES BACK. WE
ALSO HAVE WORKERS WITH OTHER
EMPLOYERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE
OVERTIME, COMPLIANT REST, MEAL
PERIODS AND WAGE PAYMENTS. AND
RETALIATION IS A VERY REAL
SITUATION FOR WORKERS. FOR THEM,
IT MEANS LOSING THEIR JOB. IT
MEANS THAT THEY CANNOT PUT FOOD
ON THE TABLE AND THEY CANNOT
KEEP A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS,
AND MAKING A COMPLAINT CAN LEAD
TO TERMINATION. UNDOCUMENTED
WORKERS ARE UNIQUELY VULNERABLE
BECAUSE THEY ARE AWARE THAT
THEIR ABUSIVE EMPLOYERS CAN
REPORT THEM TO ICE, AND THEY CAN
LOSE THEIR JOB. AND THEY CAN
ALSO, BASICALLY NO LONGER BE
WITH THEIR FAMILIES. PARGAS
REPRESENTATIVE COURSE OF ACTION
PROVIDES A UNIQUE MECHANISM. THE
ONLY MECHANISM THAT DETERS AND
ALSO PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR THESE
UNDOCUMENTED FARM WORKERS WHEN
THEY ARE UNABLE TO BRING THOSE,
WHEN THEY THEMSELVES BIXEL
RETALIATION. THEY'RE NOT WILLING
TO COME FORWARD. PAGA PROVIDES
FOR WORKFORCE ENFORCEMENT AND
PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FOR
EMPLOYERS TO COMPLY WITH ALL
LABOR LAWS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
PAGA ALLOWS ONE SINGLE EMPLOYER
TO STAND IN THE SHOES OF THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER AND HOLD
VIOLATORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
VIOLATIONS COMMITTED AGAINST ALL
EMPLOYEES, AND NOT JUST THE
WORKER THAT STEPPED UP.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS NECESSARY
BECAUSE EMPLOYERS EMPLOYERS THAT
ARE FAILING TO COMPLY WITH BASIC
LABOR RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO SIMPLY CONTINUE BUSINESS AS
USUAL AFTER THEY'VE PAID A
PENALTY. INSTEAD, WHEN ONE
WORKER STEPS INTO THE SHOES OF
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER, THAT
SHOULD RESULT IN ACTUAL CHANGES
FOR THE WORKER AND THEIR WORKING
CONDITIONS, AND THAT SHOULD BE A
TOOL THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE
FOR THE COURTS TO USE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT TO
WANT TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. WE
HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT OF IT. MY
NAME IS TIA KUNTZ. I'M THE
RESEARCHER WHO WROTE THIS
REPORT. I'VE WRITTEN THE LAST
COUPLE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME
OUT FROM UCLA ABOUT PAGA. I'M
HERE TO BE YOUR DATA GEEK. YOU
CAN ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
HOW MANY CLAIMS GET FILED AND
WHAT THEY'RE FOR, BUT WHAT WE
FOUND ESSENTIALLY, IS THAT PAGA
IS ONE OF THE PILLARS OF
ENFORCEMENT IN OUR STATE. SO IF
YOU EXPERIENCE A VIOLATION, YOU
CAN DO ONE OF THREE THINGS. YOU
CAN GO TO THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER, YOU CAN FIND A
LAWYER TO SUE IN COURT. GOOD
LUCK. IF YOU'RE A LOW WAGE
WORKER, BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM IS
NOT GOING TO BE HIGH ENOUGH FOR
ANYBODY TO BE INCENTIVIZED TO
TAKE IT. AND 80% OF YOU WILL
HAVE, IN FACT, SIGNED A FORCED
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT PREVENTING
YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO BRING
THAT CASE. SO THE THIRD PILLAR
IS PAGA ESSENTIAL TO
ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER CANNOT AND WILL
NEVER HAVE CAPACITY TO POSE A
CREDIBLE THREAT OF A COMPLIANCE
CHECK IN EVERY SINGLE WORKPLACE
THAT THE LABOR AGENCY RESOLVES
ABOUT 30,000 CLAIMS EVERY YEAR.
GOD BLESS THEM. THEY COLLECT $40
MILLION IN UNPAID WAGES EVERY
YEAR. GOD BLESS THEM. THAT IS,
AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER SAID, 2,
ONLY 2% OF WHAT WE ESTIMATE
WORKERS ACTUALLY LOSE DUE TO
WAGE THEFT. THEY CONDUCT 570
INVESTIGATIONS EVERY YEAR ON THE
GROUND, WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS
EVERY YEAR. THAT'S LESS THAN A
GOD KNOWS THAT'S DIFFICULT TO
DO, RIGHT? THAT'S LESS THAN HALF
A PERCENT OF CALIFORNIA
WORKPLACES. SO WE NEED PAGA IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET MONEY
BACK IN WORKERS POCKETS. AND WE
NEED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES THAT
ARE PERMANENT IN THAT WORKPLACE
GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ANY,
SPEAKER, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE. IN SUPPORT OR SUPPORT?
EXCUSE ME. OKAY IT'S BEEN A LONG
DAY, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
CAITLIN VEGA FOR THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION. ORIGINAL
CO-SPONSORS OF PAGA AND
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL IN
SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, LEANNE TRENTON. TRENTON
PRICE, REPRESENTING CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA,
CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU. MARIKO YOSHIDA, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND SUPPORT.
DANNY KENDALL KAISER, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME
CONSUMER COALITION IN SUPPORT.
SHANE GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS IN SUPPORT. CHRIS
MYERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. OKAY.
NOW, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
LET'S DO IT. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR. MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND
COMMITTEE. THANKS FOR HANGING IN
THERE, MY NAME IS MARK LORANGER.
I'M THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF
CHRYSALIS. WE'RE A NONPROFIT
EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR
S, THAT SERVES VULNERABLE
WORKERS BY OFFERING A JOB
READINESS PROGRAM,
INDIVIDUALIZED SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES, AND PAID AND
TRANSITIONAL EMPLOYMENT THROUGH
FOR EMPLOYMENT. SOCIAL
ENTERPRISES CHAIR CARA, I KNOW
HOW MUCH YOU CARE ABOUT WORKERS,
AND YOU'VE SEEN THE IMPACT THAT
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS ON THE
VERY PEOPLE THAT WE ARE HERE TO
SERVE AT CHRYSALIS, WE ARE PRO
WORKER MISSION BASED
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS THAT
ARE TRYING TO GET BACK INTO THE
GAME OF EMPLOYMENT. WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL WORKERS THAT
RECEIVE THAT NEED TO RECEIVE THE
WAGES THEY'VE EARNED. BUT WE
FEAR THAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WILL
HARM EMPLOYMENT. SOCIAL
ENTERPRISES AND OTHER SMALL
BUSINESSES FOR TECHNICAL
VIOLATIONS THAT JUST END UP
INCREASING THE SETTLEMENT COSTS.
BECAUSE VIRTUALLY NONE OF THESE
CASES END UP GOING TO COURT. NOW
AT CHRYSALIS, WE SERVE OVER 750
CLIENTS THAT EARN PAYCHECKS
EVERY SINGLE WEEK. WE PAY ABOVE
MINIMUM WAGE. AND IN 2021,
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAD TO SETTLE
A PAGA SUIT FOR ABOUT $700,000.
HOWEVER, RECENTLY WE'VE BEEN HIT
BY ANOTHER PAGA SUIT. THIS TIME
AGAIN, TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS.
TIMECARD VIOLATIONS AND THE
PLAINTIFFS ARE SEEKING MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THAT I DON'T HAVE. AND FRANKLY,
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WILL PAY.
PAGA IS BEING ABUSED BY A SMALL
NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS
THAT ARE NOT SERVING PAGA THE
WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE
SERVED, WHICH IS TO HELP THE
VERY WORKERS THAT MY AGENCY IS
HERE TO SERVE. I'M NOT SAYING
THAT PAGA IS BAD. PAGA HAS A LOT
OF GOOD FEATURES. IT IS HELPING
PEOPLE THAT NEED IT. BUT MY FEAR
IS IT IS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED
AND IT IS BEING ABUSED TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE VERY FOLKS THAT
WE'RE HERE TO SERVE. AND
FRANKLY, ADDING THIS INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF IS JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN
THE PLAINTIFF'S TOOLBOX TO FORCE
SETTLEMENTS. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT YOU VOTE NO ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT. GOOD MORNING. ASHLEY
HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND OPPOSITION. UNFORTUNATELY,
STORIES LIKE MARK'S ARE NOT
UNIQUE. WHAT WAS ONCE A
WELL-INTENTIONED LAW IS NOW
BEING MANIPULATED, ENRICHING
ATTORNEYS AT THE EXPENSE OF
WORKERS, BUSINESSES AND
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. THESE
PSEUDO CLASS ACTIONS HAVE NO
PROCEDURAL GUARDRAILS, AND THEY
COME WITH STEEP PENALTIES. SO
LAWYERS ARE INCENTIVIZED TO
PLEAD AS MANY CLAIMS AS
POSSIBLE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
VALIDITY, WHICH IS SOMETHING
THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN RECOGNIZED
IN PRIOR LEGISLATION PASSED BY
THIS LEGISLATURE, IN ORDER TO
FORCE THESE LARGE SETTLEMENTS.
AND THEY KNOW THAT THESE MERE
THREATS OF THESE LAWSUITS IS
SUFFICIENT TO COMPEL AN EMPLOYER
TO SETTLE, RATHER THAN ENGAGE IN
THE COSTLY LITIGATION. AND IT'S
NOT JUST BAD FOR EMPLOYERS OR
FOR NONPROFITS. IT'S ALSO NOT
WORKING FOR WORKERS. THE CDA
ITSELF, IN 2019 PUBLICLY STATED
IN ITS BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL
THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES
WERE NOT SERVING THE INTERESTS
OF WORKERS OR THE STATE THAT
WERE BEING BROUGHT BY THESE
PRIVATE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS.
WE ALSO HAVE STATE DOCUMENTS
THAT SHOW THAT WORKERS ARE OFTEN
RECEIVING PENNIES. AND WHEN YOU
COMPARE THAT TO THE CASES THAT
ARE ADJUDICATED BY CDA, THEY
ACTUALLY RECEIVE THREE TIMES
LESS. WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM,
HONESTLY, DOZENS, MAYBE EVEN
HUNDREDS OF YOUR CONSTITUENT
CGRTS IN OUR EFFORTS ON PARGAS
ABOUT HOW THIS LAW IS BROKEN AND
THAT THEY FEAR THAT AB 228
ACTUALLY MAKES A BAD SITUATION
MUCH WORSE. WE FEEL THAT WE NEED
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO CREATE A
BETTER, FAIRER SYSTEM, AND WE
ARE CONCERNED THAT AB 228
INVITES MORE LITIGATION BY A
AUTHORIZING A COURT TO AWARD
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. WE FEEL THE
BILL IS MOVING IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION AND NOW IS THE TIME TO
FIX PAGA, NOT EXTEND IT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY
COMMENTS? IN OPPOSITION.
WOWSERS. MADAM CHAIR, DARBY
KERNAN, REPRESENTING ROBERTS
ENTERPRISE DEFENSE FUND AND
LEADINGAGE CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
AFTERNOON. SARAH PALERMO WITH
THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. I'M
ALSO HERE FOR THE CALIFORNIA
FARM BUREAU AND WESTERN GROWERS
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. NAOMI PADRONE
, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDIT UNION LEAGUE, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, MADAM
CHAIR CHRIS MICHELI, ON BEHALF
OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF
MY COLLEAGUE YOLANDA BENSON, HER
CLIENT, THE CALIFORNIA HISPANIC
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR LOUIS BROWN, HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL
OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES AND THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION,
SKYLER WONACOTT, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
JENNIFER ROWE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH
FACILITIES AND CALIFORNIA
GOODWILLS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. AMELIA ZAMANI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION, HAYDEN TALLMAN WITH
THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION. THANKS. ANTHONY
SAMPSON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEW CAR DEALERS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION,
NATALIE BOUST, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE,
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD. EXCUSE ME.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
TRACY STEVENS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL SERVICES
ASSOCIATION, ALSO IMPOSED. GOOD
AFTERNOON, TIM TAYLOR WITH THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, LIZZIE
QUINTANA HERE ON BEHALF OF PRISM
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, RYAN
PERRINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AUTOMOTIVE
WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SELINA
KOBE HORNBACK WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSISTED LIVING
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. ANNALEE AUGUSTINE,
ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. SABRINA LOCKHART, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF PARKS AND
ATTRACTIONS. THANK YOU. IN
OPPOSITION, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CLIFF COSTA, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW
COUNSEL AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MATT SUTTON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. DEAN
TALLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED Þ COME BACK OVER, OVER
UP HERE FOR ANY COMMITTEE
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. YES, I
HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. SO THE
BILL ALLOWS THAT WHENEVER LABOR
AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CAN SEEK AN INJUNCTION OR
DECLARATORY RELIEF, THEN PRIVATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DO THE
SAME. I HAVE TO START BY SAYING
I LOVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. I
THINK IT JUST MAKES PEOPLE DO
WHAT THEY WERE ALREADY SUPPOSED
TO DO. SO THAT PART, LET'S PUT
THAT ASIDE. BUT DECLARATORY
RELIEF, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT
I'M STRUGGLING WITH. AND I KNOW
WE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT
THIS, BUT THEN I WENT AND READ
MORE ABOUT DECLARATORY RELIEF.
AND IT DIDN'T WHOLESALE ALIGN
WITH WHAT YOU GUYS HAD SAID. SO
MY UNDERSTANDING OF DECLARATORY
RELIEF IS WHEN THERE'S A
CONTROVERSY ABOUT WHAT ONE'S
RIGHTS ARE, YOU CAN GO IN AND
YOU CAN SEEK DECLARATORY RELIEF
TO CLARIFY YOUR RIGHTS. AND
THERE HAS TO BE A CONTROVERSY
AROUND THE RIGHTS. SO IN MY
MIND, THAT COULD HAPPEN WHEN
NOBODY HAS BEEN WRONGED. BUT YOU
DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT THE WORKER'S
RIGHTS ARE. SAU, IT IF I'M
UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY,
DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE OF THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER'S RIGHT TO
SEEK DECLARATORY RELIEF, THAT
COULD LEAD TO ANY MORE LAWSUITS.
AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IS THE
SCOPE OF THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S RIGHT TO SEEK
DECLARATORY RELIEF BECAUSE THAT
WOULD, I THINK, ALIGN WITH WHAT
WE'RE ALLOWING THE PRIVATE
ATTORNEY GENERALS TO DO. THANK
YOU. OKAY, I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME
CONVERSATION. YOU HAD SOME
CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMITTEE
STAFF, AND I'M COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH YOU ON THE ISSUE OF
DECLARATORY RELIEF. I THINK THAT
THE CRUX OF THIS BILL IS REALLY
THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. AND SO
I'M I'M CONFIDENT WE'LL ABLE TO
GET SOME RESOLUTION IN
ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERNS ON
DECLARATORY RELIEF, BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK IT'S, AGAIN, THE
MAIN DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE
BILL. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR
WITNESSES WANT TO ADD ANYTHING
OR. NO, NO MORE TO ADD. OKAY
YEAH. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN IS I
DON'T THINK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WILL LEAD TO MANY MORE LAWSUITS.
I THINK IT'LL LEAD TO BETTER
RELIEF. AND OFTEN IT'S DAMAGES
ARE IMPORTANT. BUT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF ACTUALLY HELPS PEOPLE. SO
I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I REALLY
DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE DON'T
HAVE A SLEW OF NEW LAWSUITS THAT
ARE JUST ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS ARE WITH NOBODY BEING
HARMED. I THINK THAT WOULD
OVERBURDEN THE COURTS. I THINK
IT'S UNNECESSARY, AND I THINK IT
REALLY WOULD PUT TOO BIG A
BURDEN ON BUSINESS. SO HOPEFULLY
WE CAN CLARIFY THAT MOVING
FORWARD. THE ONLY THING I WOULD
SAY IN RESPONSE IS THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT PAGA
CASES ARE LESS THAN 1% OF ALL
THE CASES BROUGHT BEFORE
SUPERIOR COURT. SO I JUST WANT
YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. OH, I'M SO SORRY.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT PAGA
CASES ARE ACTUALLY LESS THAN 1%
OF ALL CASES BROUGHT IN THE
WHOLE STATE IN SUPERIOR COURT.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
AVALANCHE THAT I THINK THE
OPPOSITION MAY HAVE INDICATED. I
WOULD SAY FOR A SMALL BUSINESS,
ONE MIGHT BE TOO MANY. SO THANK
YOU. I WANT IT TO BE FOLKS WHO
HAVE DONE WRONG BY THEIR
EMPLOYEES AND FOLLOW THE LAW, I
JUST I THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD, AND
I'D LOVE TO BE A COAUTHOR ON
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMITTEE COMMENTS? DO
WE HAVE A MOTION? DID YOU DID
YOU MAKE A MOTION? NO. OH, ANY
MOTION. OH, MAN. ANY SECOND.
SECOND. BY MISS MCKENNA I WOULD,
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. GOLLY ALL RIGHT.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA CALL. AYE.
DIXON. DIXON. NO. BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN. A BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY. HANEY AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. AYE MCKENNA. AYE.
PACHECO REYES. SANCHEZ NO.
SANCHEZ. NO. WALDRON. THAT BILL
WILL BE PLACED ON CALL, AND
WE'LL GO TO ITEM 13 AB 2754
RENDON. WHICH WHICH WILL BE
PRESENTED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
MAIENSCHEIN. WE HAVE A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A
SECOND? SECOND. WAKE UP. WAKE UP
THERE A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THIS
IS THE RENDON BILL, AB 2754 TO.
OKAY. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
YEAH. AND THANK YOU. AND I ALSO,
IN LIGHT OF TRYING TO GET THIS
MEETING CONCLUDED, I WILL BE
VERY BRIEF. AB 27 AB 2754 WILL
PROVIDE GREATER EMPLOYMENT
PROTECTION TO TRUCK DRIVERS
ACROSS THE STATE BY ENSURING
COMPANIES THAT CONTRACT WITH
MOTOR CARRIER CARRIERS TO SHIP
CONTAINERIZED FREIGHT ARE HELD
LIABLE FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF
LABOR LAW. THE BILL WOULD ALSO
HOLD THESE COMPANIES LIABLE FOR
KNOWINGLY ENTERING INTO
CONTRACTS THAT DO NOT PAY ENOUGH
FOR CERTAIN MOTOR CARRIERS TO
COMPLY WITH STATE LABOR LAWS. IT
WILL PUSH THESE COMPANIES TO
ENSURE THAT THEIR CONTRACTS CAN
SATISFY ALL OTHER LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS TO THEIR WORKERS
HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS SHANE GUZMAN, ON BEHALF
OF THE TEAMSTERS. THANK YOU. AND
CAITLIN VEGA WITH THE LABOR
FEDERATION. I THOUGHT SO, BUT I.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF
GIVEN WE'RE IN A RUSH HERE, I'LL
JUST SAY THAT THIS THIS
PARTICULAR PRACTICE IN THIS
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY. AND JUST TO
BE CLEAR, WE HAVE AGREED WITH
THE TRUCKING ASSOCIATION TO
LIMIT THE BILL IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE TO PORT DRAYAGE
TRUCKING AND TO ALSO ELIMINATE
THE SECTION TWO OF THE BILL. SO
WE HAVE, COME TO AN AGREEMENT
THAT I THINK WILL GET EVERYBODY
THERE, THIS THIS BILL ADDRESSES
THE MISCLASSIFICATION, WHICH IN
OUR PORTS, IT'S A PROBLEM THAT
HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES. OUR
HOPE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH
THIS PARTICULAR BILL, WE GET TO
A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS, CAITLIN VEGA FOR
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION.
WE KNOW WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION
IS WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT THE
TRUCKING INDUSTRY, PARTICULARLY
IN IN PORT TRUCKING, AND THAT
HOLDING THOSE RESPONSIBLE THAT
USE COMPANIES, THAT MISCLASSIFY
IS THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY CHANGE
WORKING CONDITIONS. SO HERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2754. ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2754? THOMAS.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR, CALLER
AND MEMBERS CHRIS SHIMODA WITH
THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION. IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME, JUST WILL RELAY, THE SAME
AS MR. GUZMAN THAT WE HAVE AN
AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE ON
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION, THESE AMENDMENTS
WILL ENSURE THAT THE SPONSORS
GOALS ARE MET, WHILE PROTECTING
BONA FIDE INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS
WHO HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS TO
COMPLY WITH AB5. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2074, ASHLEY
HOFFMAN AT THE COW CHAMBER AT
JUST ALIGNING OUR COMMENTS WITH
CTA, WE'RE REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS AND REALLY APPRECIATE
THE SPONSORS WORKING WITH US.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TAYLOR.
MOTION ON BEHALF OF CARMAX WILL
REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DEAN
TAYLOR WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION POSTER. THANK YOU.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. WE DO HAVE A MOTION
ON THE TABLE. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THANK YOU
SENATOR FOR STEPPING IN HERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN I
VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL FOR A
CALL. AYE. DIXON. DIXON NØ BAUER
KHN BARRETT. KHN. AYE. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY CONNOLLY.
AYE. HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. PACHECO. AYE PACHECO.
AYE. REYES. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NØ.
WALDRON. PASSES THAT PASSED.
YEAH. I GUESS THAT BILLS OUT.
THAT. BILLS OUT. MOTION TO
ADJOURN. YEAH ALL RIGHT, LET'S
GO. WE NEED WE NEED TO GO
THROUGH EVERYTHING, CONSENT.
LIFT THE LIFT. THE CALL ON
CONSENT. CALENDAR. CONSENT.
CONNOLLY Ã CONNOLLY. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN AYE.
MCKENNA. REYES. SANCHEZ YES.
SANCHEZ. AYE. WALDRON OKAY, SO
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT.
MOVING TO ITEM THREE, AB 2187.
BRIAN MOVE THE CALL. DIXON. NO,
IT'S ITEM THREE 2187. DIXON NØ.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE. REYES SANCHEZ. NO. SANCHEZ.
NO. WALDRON THE BILL IS OUT.
ITEM SIX. FREEDMAN'S ON CALL.
WILL MOVE THE CALL. CONNOLLY
WHICH ONE? FREEDMAN. BILL AB TWO
2297. IT'S ITEM B 2297.
CONNOLLY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN Ã.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. REYES. WALDRON
AYE. BILL IS OUT. ITEM 11 OR
SORRY. THAT WAS ITEM SIX. ITEM
SEVEN. LEE 2404. MOVE THE CALL.
MAIN CHAIN. I'M SORRY, THIS IS
ITEM IS, ASSEMBLY AB 2404, ITEM
SEVEN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. REYES
WALDRON, BILL IS OUT. ITEM
EIGHT, WARD AB 2489 IS ON CALL.
MOVE THE CALL. THIS IS ITEM
EIGHT. MAIN CHAIN A MAIN CHAIN.
AYE. MCKENNA REYES WALSH. PLACE
THE CALL. ITEM NINE. CONNOLLY,
MOVE THE CALL. HANEY. HANEY AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. REYES WALDRON.
OKAY, WE'LL PLACE THE CALL. ITEM
TEN. FRIEDMAN. MOVE THE CALL.
CONNOLLY 2552. CONNOLLY. AYE.
MAIN CHAIN. MAIN CHAIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. REYES. WALDRON THE BILL
IS OUT. ITEM 11. ORTEGA MOVE TO
MOVE THE CALL. MAIN CHAIN. MAIN
CHAIN. AYE. REYES. WALDRON, THE
BILL IS OUT. AYE. ITEM 12 AB
2655. BERMAN. MOVE THE CALL.
HANEY. HANEY. AYE. MCKENNA
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
REYES WALDRON. AYE. BILL IS OUT.
ITEM 13. TÍNH. WE JUST DID. ITEM
15, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S HERE.
EVAN. LET ME SEE. ITEM 15. WE'LL
MOVE THE CALL AS GIBSON. BAUER.
KHN. AYE. BAUER. KHN AYE.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY
HANEY. AYE. REYES. WALDRON. THAT
BILL IS OUT. ITEM 16 AB 2930
B¢O. KHN HANEY. HANEY. AYE.
MCKENNA REYES. AYE. BILL IS OUT.
ITEM 17 IS ON CALL. WE'LL MOVE
THE CALL. THREE OF US AB 3043.
BAUER KHN BAUER KHN. AYE. MAIN
CHAIN MAIN CHAIN. AYE. REYES
WALDRON. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM.
ELVIS, IF YOU CAN GO RIGHT TO
THE DESK. OKAY. SORRY. I'M
TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GET YOUR
BILL DONE, AB 19 OR AB 3192.
ITEM 19. MURATSUCHI. MOVE THE
CALL. OH, YEAH. MOVE THE CALL ON
18. THAT'S AB 3129. BAUER KHN
AB 3129. WOOD BAUER. AYE. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNOLLY CONNOLLY.
AYE. MCKENNA. WALDRON. OKAY.
THAT BILL IS OUT. AB 19 AB 3192
MURATSUCHI. BRIAN BRIAN. AYE.
MAIN CHAIN. MAIN CHAIN. AYE
OKAY. THAT BILL IS OUT AND WE'LL
GO AHEAD TO ITEM TWO AB 2066.
THANK YOU FOR RUSHING OVER. I
KNOW IT'S A CRAZY, CRAZY DAY,
BUT A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND
SECOND. YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK
YOU MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS I'M
PRESENTING AB 2066, THE CLEAN
COFFEE ACT, TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIANS ARE PROVIDED WITH
INFORMATION REGARDING THE USE OF
METHYLENE CHLORIDE, A KNOWN
CARCINOGEN, IN DECAFFEINATED
COFFEE. SPECIFICALLY THIS BILL
REQUIRES CLEAR LABELING FOR ANY
COFFEE PRODUCT THAT HAS
UNDERGONE DECAFFEINATION DURING
USING METHYLENE CHLORIDE, AND
PUTS IN PLACE A CIVIL PENALTY OF
$5,000 FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION
AND 10,000 FOR SUBSEQUENT
VIOLATIONS. AS METHYLENE
CHLORIDE HAS BEEN USED IN MANY
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS SUCH AS
PAINT STRIPPERS, COATING AND
DEGREASING AGENTS. IN ADDITION
TO BEING USED NOW AS A METHOD
FOR EXTRACTING CAFFEINE FROM
COFFEE BEANS, THE OPPOSITION
REFERS TO A 1985 REGULATION PUT
IN PLACE BY THE US FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH PERMITS
THE USE OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE,
BUT DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO EXCEED
TEN PARTS PER MILLION IN
DECAFFEINATED ROASTED COFFEE.
HOWEVER, ALMOST 40 YEARS LATER,
WE HAVE MORE TOOLS TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS
CHEMICAL IN 2011 AND 2020, THE
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY HAS PROVIDED MORE RECENT
TOXICITY INFORMATION REGARDING
SAFE LEVELS OF EXPOSURE. THEIR
STUDIES FOUND LOWER ESTIMATES OF
SAFE LEVELS OF METHYLENE
CHLORIDE THAN WHAT HAD BEEN USED
IN THE FDA STANDARD,
APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES LOWER
THAN WHAT WAS USED IN THE 1980S,
ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND. IN ADDITION, THE
FDA, THE FDA CONSIDERED A CUP OF
COFFEE TO BE FIVE OUNCES. IN
1985. AND AS WE KNOW, A CUP OF
COFFEE IS USUALLY MUCH LARGER
TODAY, RANGING FROM EIGHT OUNCES
TO AS LARGE AS 32OZ. BETTER DATA
ON THE IMPACT OF METHYLENE
CHLORIDE IS WHY, IN 2023, THE
EPA BANNED AND THE USE OF IT IN
ALMOST EVERY INDUSTRIAL USE. AND
THIS YEAR A PETITION WAS FILED
WITH THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION TO BAN METHYLENE
CHLORIDE FROM BEING USED IN FOOD
PRODUCTS. WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT
WE CANNOT RELY ON INFORMATION
FROM THE 1980S TO EVALUATE WHAT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SAFE WHEN
WE HAVE MORE RECENT SCIENTIFIC
DATA, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO
DECAFFEINATE COFFEE THE DIRECT
SOLVENT METHOD, THE SWISS WATER
PROCESS OR WATER PROCESS USED BY
LARGE COFFEE PRODUCERS SUCH AS
PEET'S COFFEE. AND FINALLY THE
METHOD USED USING METHYLENE
CHLORIDE. THIS MEANS THAT
CONSUMERS HAVE OPTIONS ON HOW
THEIR COFFEE IS DECAFFEINATED,
AND THEY DESERVE TO BE INFORMED.
BEFORE I INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES,
I WANT TO SHARE THAT ONE OF MY
PRIMARY MOTIVATIONS FOR CARRYING
THIS BILL IS TO INFORM PREGNANT
WOMEN WHEN THE WHEN A THIS
PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE, METHYLENE
CHLORIDE, IS USED TO
DECAFFEINATE THEIR CUP OF COFFEE
. AS WE ALL KNOW, WOMEN WHO ARE
WHO ARE PREGNANT ARE OFTEN
RECOMMENDED TO MOVE FROM FROM
CAFFEINATED COFFEE TO DECAF
BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS OF
CAFFEINE ON THEIR PREGNANCY.
UNFORTUNATELY, METHYLENE
CHLORIDE IS NOT ONLY CANCEROUS,
BUT ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HAZARD ASSESSMENT, THIS IS A
SUBSTANCE THAT CAN BE PASSED
FROM MOTHER TO CHILD DURING
PREGNANCY. MEMBERS ALL
CONSUMERS, BUT ESPECIALLY
PREGNANT WOMEN, DESERVE TO HAVE
THIS CRITICAL INFORMATION IN
ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION IN
THEIR BEST INTEREST. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ARE JENNIFER TANNEHILL, ON
BEHALF OF THE CLEAN LABEL
PROJECT AND SUSAN LIDDLE, SENIOR
ADVOCATE AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
JENNIFER TANNEHILL, ON BEHALF OF
CLEAN LABEL PROJECT, I'LL KEEP
MY COMMENTS SHORT TODAY, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE'S A LACK
OF REGULATORY CLARITY AROUND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE, GIVEN THAT
IT IS LARGELY USED TO
DECAFFEINATE BEANS OUTSIDE OF
THE COUNTRY, AND THAT EVEN
INDUSTRY CANNOT TELL YOU
CONSISTENTLY HOW MUCH IS LEFT
OVER AFTER ROASTING, IT'S NOT
SURPRISING THAT THE CLEAN LABEL
PROJECT FOUND VARYING LEVELS OF
METHYLENE CHLORIDE EVEN WITHIN
THE SAME PRODUCT. THE BILL
INCLUDES ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE
THAT ALLOWS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CITY ATTORNEY, COUNTY
COUNSEL AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO
BRING ACTION AGAINST PERSONS OR
ENTITIES THAT VIOLATE THE BILL,
WITH CIVIL PENALTIES UP FROM
$5,000 UP TO $10,000. AND THIS
IS FOR ENFORCEMENT. LANGUAGE
MIRRORS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS
PASSED IN AB 418, THE GABRIEL
BILL, WHICH PROHIBITS FOOD
PRODUCTS WITH SPECIFIC DYES AND
OILS, NOTABLY ALTERNATIVE
PROCESSES THAT DO NOT USE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ARE IN USE TO
DECAFFEINATE COFFEE TODAY AND
CLEAN LABEL PROJECT RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTS YOUR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
SUSAN LITTLE AND I REPRESENT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP HERE
IN SACRAMENTO. THE EWG RISES IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2066 BECAUSE WE
AND MANY OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH
ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT CONFIDENT
THAT THE US FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION WILL TAKE
MEANINGFUL ACTION TO PREVENT
CONSUMERS FROM CONSUMING OR WARN
THEM ABOUT FOOD CONTAINING
METHYLENE CHLORIDE. THE FDA IS
ROUTINELY, ROUTINELY FAILED TO
ADEQUATELY OVERSEE CHEMICALS IN
THE FOOD SUPPLY. THE AGENCY IS
NOT REQUIRED TO REVIEW ADDITIVES
THAT IT'S APPROVED, OR TO ACT ON
ANY NEW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF
HARM CAUSED BY THOSE ADDITIVES.
THE OLDER STUDIES THE FDA RELIES
ON FAIL TO REFLECT THE BOTH
MODERN TOXICOLOGY AND MODERN
MODERN LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION. AS
A RESULT, MANY HARMFUL CHEMICALS
SUCH AS METHYLENE CHLORIDE
REMAIN IN OUR FOOD. THE FDA DID
EVALUATE METHYLENE CHLORIDE
SAFETY IN THE 1980S, AND BASED
ON THAT REVIEW, DETERMINED THAT
METHYLENE CHLORIDE IS A
CARCINOGEN. THE FDA THEN
PROHIBITED ITS USE IN COSMETICS,
BUT ODDLY CONTINUED TO ALLOW IT
TO BE USED IN FOOD. WHILE THE
FDA WAS ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO
CONSUME METHYLENE CHLORIDE, THE
EPA, ON THE OTHER HAND, SET A
STRICT PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL OF
ZERO FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE IN
DRINKING WATER AND NOW THE EPA
HAS DETERMINED THAT METHYLENE
CHLORIDE IS NOT SAFE FOR ANY
CONSUMER USE. IN ADDITION TO THE
EPA, NUMEROUS AUTHORITATIVE
BODIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
AND INTERNATIONALLY SAY THAT
METHYLENE CHLORIDE IS A
CARCINOGEN. THE CHEMICALS, ALSO
NEUROTOXIC, CAN CAUSE LIVER AND
KIDNEY DAMAGE AND IN LARGE
QUANTITIES, DEATH, SO CONSUMING
EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF METHYLENE
CHLORIDE IS A RISK. AB 2066
WOULD REQUIRE PLACEMENT OF A
WARNING LABEL ON COFFEE THAT'S
BEEN PROCESSED WITH METHYLENE
CHLORIDE. THE LABEL WON'T WARN
WARN CONSUMERS ABOUT COFFEE. IT
WILL WARN THEM ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY ABOUT THE POSSIBLE
PRESENCE OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE
IN COFFEE. AND WE'D ASK THAT YOU
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2066? GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
KAREN STOUT HERE ON BEHALF OF
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL,
WE'RE ON STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, NICHOLAS
MAZZOTTI, ON BEHALF OF BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2066? GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS. ANTHONY SAMPSON HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COFFEE
ASSOCIATION, NCA STRONGLY
OPPOSES AB 2066 WHEN THIS
LEGISLATURE VOTES TO REQUIRE
WARNING LABELS ON PRODUCTS. I
THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT
IT SHOULD DO SO ONLY IF THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, BUT HERE
NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS. TO BE
CLEAR, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
EVIDENCE, NO DATA, NO SCIENCE
LINKING EUROPEAN METHOD DECAF TO
NEGATIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES. THERE
IS, HOWEVER, VOLUMES OF
EVIDENCE, DATA AND SCIENCE
SHOWING JUST THE OPPOSITE THAT
DRINKING COFFEE, INCLUDING
DECAF, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH IS
EUROPEAN METHOD DECAF, HAS
SIGNIFICANT HEALTH BENEFITS. THE
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR CANCER
RESEARCH, THE WORLD CANCER
RESEARCH FUND, AND CALIFORNIA'S
OWN OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT HAVE
ALL DETERMINED THAT DRINKING
COFFEE, BOTH REGULAR AND DECAF,
DECREASES THE RISK OF
ENDOMETRIAL, LIVER, AND SEVERAL
OTHER CANCERS AND CHRONIC
DISEASES. THE SPONSORS OF THIS
MEASURE ALSO PUSH A FALSE
NARRATIVE THAT EUROPEAN METHOD
DECAF PRESENTS A RISK FOR
PREGNANT WOMEN. THE ASSEMBLY
HEALTH COMMITTEE CHAIR
RIGHTFULLY DEBUNKED THAT CLAIM,
STATING AS FOLLOWS DURING LAST
WEEK'S ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE
HEARING ON THE BILL AND I QUOTE,
I STILL HAVE MAJOR, MAJOR
CONCERNS WITH THE DEPICTION OF
WHAT SO FAR HAS NOT BEEN
RESEARCH BASED. THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT. THERE
IS PASSAGE OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE
THROUGH THE DRINKING OF
DECAFFEINATED COFFEE FROM
PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL TO THE
FETUS. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE
SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THAT. AND
FINALLY, THE SPONSORS CONTINUE
TO RELY ON EPA'S BAN OF
METHYLENE CHLORIDE AND CONSUMER
PAIN STRIPPERS AS A BASIS FOR
PLACING A WARNING ON EUROPEAN
METHOD DECAF. THE ASSEMBLY
HEALTH COMMITTEE ALSO REJECTED
THAT ARGUMENT, RIGHTFULLY NOTING
THAT COMPARING EUROPEAN METHOD
DECAF TO CONSUMER PAINT
STRIPPERS IS ENTIRELY MISLEADING
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS THAT
ARE GROUNDED IN SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE. IN CLOSING, THE
WARNING PROPOSAL, THE WARNING
PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU, BY ITS VERY
NATURE, SUGGESTS THAT A HEALTH
PROTECTIVE PRODUCT, ONE THAT IS
ASSOCIATED WITH DECREASED RISK
OF CANCER, IS UNSAFE. THE
WARNING WOULD THEREFORE MISLEAD
CONSUMERS INTO BEING CONCERNED
ABOUT CONSUMING A PRODUCT. THIS
PRODUCT, DESPITE THE
OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE
SUGGESTING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT.
AND FOR THESE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 2066, THE
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ADAM WRIGLEY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD AFTERNOON, LOUIS BROWN,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
GROCERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MATT
SUTTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MARGIE.
THE CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS AND OPPOSITION, THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, JENNIFER
ROWE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AUTOMATIC VENDORS
COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. DEAN TAYLOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU,
MARGARET GLADSTEIN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A MOTION ON
THE TABLE ANY FURTHER? YEAH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRYANT, I'LL JUST
BE VERY QUICK. DEFINITELY HAPPY
TO GIVE A COURTESY VOTE TODAY,
BUT I'VE BEEN READING MORE ABOUT
COFFEE THAN I EVER THOUGHT I
WOULD. AND A LITTLE BIT
CONCERNED ABOUT A WARNING LABEL
FOR SOMETHING THAT IS PROVING TO
HAVE POSITIVE HEALTH BENEFITS. I
NOW UNDERSTAND THE FDA'S PROCESS
IS DATED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT NECESSARILY MEANS IT'S
OUTDATED WHEN IT'S TEN PARTS PER
MILLION, EVEN, THE WITNESSES DID
A SAMPLE STUDY THAT HAD 17
DIFFERENT COFFEES TESTED, FOUND
ZERO TRACE OF IT IN TEN OF THOSE
17. AND IN THE SEVEN THAT THEY
DID, IT WAS EVEN WELL UNDER THE
FDA'S TEN PER MILLIONTH, MOST
BEING UNDER FIVE PER MILLIONTH.
AND SO I THINK THERE'S STILL
SOME WORK TO DO HERE TO
UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT
BETTER. I KNOW PERSONALLY I'M
GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT
WORK, BUT HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A
VOTE TODAY, BUT DEFINITELY JUST
WANTED TO RAISE THAT. I'M
CONFUSED. I ASK A QUICK
QUESTION, MADAM VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU CHAIR. YOU WERE
DESCRIBING THE PROCESS. SO WHEN
IN THE PROCESS OF THE OF THE
COFFEE BEANS AND THEY'RE HEATED,
IS THE CHEMICAL THEN DISSIPATED
THROUGH THAT PROCESS OR REDUCED
TO A LEVEL THAT'S INSIGNIFICANT.
SO THE BEANS ARE INITIALLY
STEAMED SO THAT THE CAFFEINE
SORT OF THE, THE PORES OF THE
CAFFEINE ARE OPEN. AND THEN IT'S
MIXED WITH THE MIXTURE OF WATER
AND METHYLENE CHLORIDE. THE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE ATTACHES ONTO
THE CAFFEINE, REMOVES IT,
REMOVES IT FROM THE BEAN, AND
ONLY THEN ARE THE BEANS. THEN
ROASTED AT APPROXIMATELY
DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF ROAST.
400°F, WHICH, DEPENDING ON THE
TYPE OF ROAST, IS 2 TO 4 TIMES
THE EVAPORATION POINT OF
METHYLENE CHLORIDE, WHICH IS
WHY, AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
NOTED, MOST OF THE SAMPLES ARE
NON-DETECT. AND TO THE EXTENT
WHERE YOU DO SEE, YOU KNOW,
LEVELS, THEY ARE VERY MUCH TRACE
LEVELS. AND THEN ONE FURTHER
QUESTION, I'LL ASK THE AUTHOR,
MADAM ASSEMBLYWOMAN, HAS THE FDA
RECEIVED DATA ON THE HEALTH,
FACTORS RELATED TO THIS? IS THAT
CURRENTLY PENDING? ARE THEY
GOING TO BE STUDYING IT? AND
SINCE THE LAST THEY LAST RULED
ON THIS ABOUT 40 YEARS AGO. SO
CERTAINLY I CAN RESPOND TO THAT,
SUSAN LITTLEWORTH ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP, EWG WAS ONE OF
THE COSIGNERS ON THE PETITION
THAT WAS SENT TO THE TO THE FDA,
ASKING FOR THE FDA TO DELIST
METHYLENE CHLORIDE AND SEVERAL
OTHER, FOOD ADDITIVES AS BEING
ABLE TO BE PLACED PUT IN FOOD,
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE SENT
THOSE TYPES OF PETITIONS
NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS TIMES FOR
OTHER CHEMICALS AS WELL. DOZENS
OF PETITIONS. AND TO DATE ONLY I
BELIEVE ONE HAS BEEN ACTED ON.
SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THE FDA
FROM TAKING TO TAKE ANY ACTION
ANY TIME SOON. AND SOME OF THE
PETITIONS HAVE LANGUISHED FOR
SEVERAL DECADES. OKAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SENATOR
HANEY, THANK YOU. AND THANK THE
AUTHORS WORK ON THIS. AND THIS
IS I SAW IT IN HEALTH, AND I
KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES
TO IT SINCE THEN, TO TWO
QUESTIONS. ONE IS, WHAT WHAT
WOULD THE LABEL SAY? AND HOW DO
YOU SORT OF ENVISION THIS AND
HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE DECIDED?
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A
CERTAINLY A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ON, ON THE ACTUAL,
DANGERS INVOLVED. AND WOULD THE
LABEL SPEAK TO THAT OR WOULD IT
JUST SAY IT CONTAINS IT AND, AND
SORT OF WHAT WHAT CONSEQUENCE
WOULD THAT HAVE FOR PEOPLE. AND
THEN AND THEN, SORT OF SIMILAR
TO THE, THE VICE CHAIRS POINT,
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON AND
EVEN POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT,
ASSERTIONS OF WHAT THE RESEARCH
SAYS AROUND, WHAT THE RISK IS
HERE AND SORT OF HOW DO WE TIE
OURSELVES TO AN OBJECTIVE
DETERMINATION ON THIS, WITHIN
SCIENCE, IT SEEMS LIKE NORMALLY
THAT WOULD BE THE FDA. AND IN
THIS CASE, IF THE FDA IS NOT
GOING TO MAKE THIS
DETERMINATION, I UNDERSTAND THE
HESITATION FROM SOME SOME FOLKS,
FROM MAKING IT OURSELVES.
SHOULDN'T THERE BE SOME SORT OF
AUTHORITY THAT WE ARE SORT OF
CONNECTING THIS DETERMINATION
AROUND WHEN WE WHEN WE DO A
LABEL OR A WARNING? SURE. I CAN
RESPOND TO THAT ACTUALLY. SO THE
FDA IS THE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT
GOVERNS FOOD ADDITIVES. AND THE
EPA, HOWEVER, GOVERNS ALL OTHER
USES OF ESSENTIALLY CONSUMER
INDUSTRIAL USES OF CHEMICALS.
AND THE EPA HAS BEEN DOING
UPDATES TO ITS RISK ASSESSMENTS
FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE AND MOST
RECENTLY DID A COMPLETE UPDATE
OF THAT ASSESSMENT AND
DETERMINED, AS I HAD SAID, THAT
NÓ USE ESSENTIALLY NO CONSUMER
USES SHOULD USE METHYLENE
CHLORIDE AND VERY FEW INDUSTRIAL
USES. AND BASED ON THAT
ASSESSMENT, THEY CALLED OUT, I
CAN GET INTO IT HERE, BUT ALL
KINDS OF HEALTH EFFECTS
ASSOCIATED WITH METHYLENE
CHLORIDE, INCLUDING IN BASED ON
INGESTION STUDIES, INCLUDING
TUMORS IN RATS AND TUMORS AND,
YOU KNOW, ONGOING ALL THESE
HEALTH EFFECTS, INCLUDING TUMORS
AND WHATNOT. AND THEY CONCLUDED
THAT THAT THE EPA THIS IS A
DIRECT QUOTE SAID BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE, EPA BELIEVES THAT
CANCER RESULTS IN ANIMAL STUDIES
ARE RELEVANT TO HUMANS BASED ON
THEIR ASSESSMENT OF METHYLENE
CHLORIDE. AND, YOU KNOW, AND
AGAIN, THE EPA HAD A WHILE BACK
ALREADY SAID THAT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH GOAL FOR METHYLENE
CHLORIDE IN DRINKING WATER IS
ZERO. AND THAT'S VERY SIMILAR.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL FOR LEAD.
RIGHT. SO IT'S A VERY THE ACTION
THEY'RE PROPOSING WITHIN THEIR
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY IS, PRETTY,
PRETTY EXTREME. I WOULDN'T SAY I
DON'T WANT TO SAY USE THE WORD
EXTREME, BUT IT'S VERY, THEY'RE
ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THERE
SHOULDN'T METHYLENE CHLORIDE
SHOULD NOT BE USED AT ALL. AND
SO WE THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING
THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO
DRINK IT EITHER. IT THE WARNING
LABEL THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT WOULD
THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER
IT'S JUST ON THE COFFEE ITSELF
OR IT'S PUT THERE AT THE COFFEE
SHOP, AND THAT IT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE WILL HAVE TO WORK
THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THE
CONSUMER IS THE ONE THAT IS
ADVISED OF THE POTENTIAL,
BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO
DECAFFEINATE COFFEE, I THINK
THAT IS THAT IS WHERE THE
BIGGEST ISSUE IS WHEN WE DON'T
KNOW BETTER, WE DON'T DO BETTER,
BUT WE KNOW BETTER. WE KNOW THAT
ONE OF THE WAYS THAT IS BEING
USED TO DECAFFEINATE THE COFFEE
IS USING A KNOWN CARCINOGEN IS
OUR TRACE ELEMENTS SUFFICIENT?
IS THAT OKAY TO DRINK IT?
BECAUSE IT'S JUST A SMALL
AMOUNT. IT'S LESS THAN THE TEN
PARTS PER PER MILLION IN THE
STUDY, THE BLIND STUDY THAT WAS
DONE, THERE WERE SOME CUPS OF
COFFEE THAT WERE OVER 8000. SO
IS 8000. THEN IT'S JUST BELOW
THE 10,000. SO IS THAT OKAY? I
THINK THAT THE PERSON, THE
CONSUMER HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
THAT THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO
DECAFFEINATE COFFEE. THIS IS ONE
OF THE WAYS I MY QUESTION WAS
WHICH WHICH OF THE COFFEE
COMPANIES DON'T USE THIS. WHICH
OF THEM HAVE USED THE WATER
METHOD? FOR INSTANCE, PETER A
COFFEE DUTCH BROTHERS,
MCDONALD'S, FOLGERS TEMPLE. NONE
OF THEM USE THE METHYLENE
CHLORIDE WAY OF DECAFFEINATED
COFFEE. THE OTHER QUESTION IS
WHERE IN CALIFORNIA ARE WE?
DECAFFEINATED COFFEE USING
METHYLENE CHLORIDE? NÓI WHERE IN
CALIFORNIA IT'S DONE OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA AND THEN IMPORTED TO
CALIFORNIA. SO THE WHOLE
INITIALLY WE HAD TALKED ABOUT
BANNING METHYLENE CHLORIDE. THAT
ISN'T WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT.
THE AMENDMENTS WERE TAKING TAKEN
IN HEALTH. SO THAT IS JUST A
WARNING. SO THAT THAT CONSUMER
CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
DO I WANT TO DRINK COFFEE THAT
IS, THAT USES THE METHYLENE
CHLORIDE WAY OF DECAFFEINATED OR
WOULD I PREFER TO CHOOSE A
DECAFFEINATED COFFEE THAT USES
ONE OF THE OTHER METHODS,
INCLUDING JUST WATER? AND THAT
IS REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. WE
NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN
INFORMED DECISION ON BECAUSE
THERE ARE GREAT QUALITIES TO
COFFEE. WE ALL DRINK OUR COFFEE
AND NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY
COFFEE FROM THOSE OF US WHO
CONSUME IT. EVEN DECAFFEINATED
COFFEE. BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
MAKE THAT DECISION AS TO WHICH
DECAFFEINATED CUP OF COFFEE WE
WANT TO DRINK. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU FOR THE COMMENT. OKAY WE
HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE THIS
COMMITTEE ROOM FOR SIX MORE
MINUTES. OKAY. I WILL MAKE THIS
REALLY FAST AND I WASN'T GOING
TO ASK A QUESTION, BUT I BACK TO
THE LABEL COMPONENT, WILL IT SAY
THIS MAY CAUSE CANCER? IT JUST
SAYS IT HAS BEEN MADE WITH THAT
PROCESS. EXCUSE ME THAT THE
LABEL AS STATED IN THE BILL
RIGHT NOW JUST SAYS, JUST WARNS
THE CONSUMER THAT THIS PRODUCT
HAS BEEN MADE WITH, WITH THE USE
OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE. AND I'M
ASSUMING MOST CONSUMERS PROBABLY
WOULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT
THAT EVEN MEANS. SO I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONFUSION IT
WOULD CAUSE TO THE CONSUMER. SO
ACTUALLY THAT'S A VERY GOOD
POINT, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. AND I
THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE NEED TO LOOK INTO. AND I
WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO TALK TO
THE OPPOSITION ABOUT WHAT THE
LABEL SHOULD ACTUALLY SAY AND
WHO THE LABEL, WHERE THE LABEL
IS GOING TO BE PLACED. AND IN
ORDER TO NOT HAVE ANY CONFUSION
AS TO WHY WE'RE WE'RE TALKING
JUST ABOUT METHYLENE CHLORIDE,
IF MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID, IF
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING
THE CONSUMER, THEN WE NEED TO BE
INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT'S PUT ON
THERE. THANK YOU. BECAUSE THAT'S
THAT'S ONE OF MY BIGGEST
CONCERNS. VERY GOOD. IT'S
SOMETHING WE WILL ABSOLUTELY
ADDRESS. THEN THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE
BILL FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES. I DO WANT TO THANK
YOU, MISTER CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE AND I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE OPPOSITION FOR THEIR
TESTIMONY AND AS I MENTIONED, I
DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS
NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S
A HEALTH BENEFIT TO COFFEE.
COFFEE CAN HAVE HEALTH BENEFITS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
USE OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE. AND
IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE INFORM
CONSUMERS. SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE
AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT THEIR
OWN HEALTH AND KNOW WHAT THEY
WHAT THEY ARE DRINKING. WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALLER I
CALL TO AYE. DIXON NÓ DIXON NÓ
BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE.
CONNOLLY CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
AYE. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE PACHECO. REYES.
AYE. REYES AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. NØ. WALDRON OKAY. THAT
BILL IS OUT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GOING TO RUN THROUGH TO MAKE FOR
THE TO MAKE IT EASIER, WE'RE
GOING TO START WITH CONSENT AND
GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE ORDER
ON CONSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR.
CONSENT CALENDAR. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. REYES. AYE REYES.
AYE. WALDRON. AYE. ADD ON ITEM
ONE. MURATSUCHI 1825.
BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN BRIAN. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE ITEM THREE
A.B. 2187. BRIAN'S ON CALL. MOVE
THE CALL. REYES. AYE. REYES AYE.
WALDRON. THAT BILL IS OUT. ADD
ON AB 2239. BONTA. MAINCHAIN
MAINCHAIN. AYE. WALDRON. ALL
RIGHT, MOVE THE CALL ON ITEM
FIVE. AB 2288. CHOLERA REYES.
REYES. AYE. WALDRON. THAT BILL
IS OUT, ADD ON AB 2297 FRIEDMAN.
REYES REYES. AYE. WALDRON ADD ON
AB 2404. LEE REYES REYES. AYE.
WALDRON MOVE THE CALL ON ITEM
EIGHT AB 2049. WARDE MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. REYES. AYE. REYES
AYE. WALDRON. THAT BILL IS OUT.
MOVE THE CALL ON AB 2539. CALL
CONNOLLY. REYES AYE. REYES. AYE.
WALDRON THAT BILL IS OUT, AB
2552 FRIEDMAN. ADD ON MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. REYES. REYES. AYE.
WALDRON ADD ON ITEM 11 AB 2557.
ORTEGA REYES. REYES. AYE.
WALDRON ADD ON AB 20. OH, NO.
MOVE THE CALL ON AB 2655. BERMAN
MCKENNA Ã MCKENNA. AYE. REYES
20 2655 BERMAN REYES AYE.
WALDRON THAT BILL IS OUT. MOVE
THE CALL ON AB. 2754. RENDON
REYES MCKENNA. AYE. REYES. AYE
WALDRON. THAT BILL IS OUT, ADD
ON AB 2794. BRIAN MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. REYES REYES.
AYE. WALDRON AND CHANGE FOR
SANCHEZ, YES. Tð. NO. SANCHEZ.
YES TO NO. THAT BILL IS STILL
OUT, AB 2862 GIBSON. ADD ON
REYES REYES. AYE. WALDRON, ADD
ON AB 2930 BAUER-KAHAN MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. REYES AYE. REYES.
AYE. WALDRON ADD ON AB 3043
THREE OF US. REYES. REYES AYE.
WALDRON AND THEN ADD ON AB 3129.
WOULD MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE.
WALDRON AND ADD ON AB 3211 WIX.
BRIAN HANEY. AYE. HANEY AYE.
REYES. REYES. AYE. WALDRON OKAY.
AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD DO
IT RIGHT. YES. YOU DID VOTE ON
CONSENT. I THINK THAT'S IT. IS
IT? THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK
YOU TO ASSEMBLY TO CHAIR ALEX
LEE FOR ALLOWING US TO STAY HERE
A FEW MINUTES LATER. YES. SO I
APPRECIATE CHAIR LEE AND THE
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE STAFF.
THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF AND
MEMBERS AND EVERYONE FOR BEING
HERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK
TONIGHT. THANK YOU. WE ARE
ADJOURNED. WAS AWFUL. SORRY