GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, RULES FOR WITNESS
TESTIMONY. OUR. 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 OR
ORGANIZATION. IF ANY, AND THEIR
POSITION, AS WE 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, IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE GOAL OF HEARING
AS MUCH FROM THE PUBLIC WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF OUR TIME. THE
RULES FOR TODAY'S HEARING
INCLUDES NO TALKING OR LOUD
NOISES FROM THE AUDIENCE, PUBLIC
COMMENT MAY BE PROVIDED ONLY AT
A DESIGNATED TIME. MUST BE
LIMITED TO YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT, OR
OPPOSITION OF A BILL. NO
ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS, OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
THIS HEARING. AND PLEASE BE
AWARE THAT VIOLATIONS OF THESE
RULES MAY SUBJECT YOU TO REMOVAL
OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES.
WE ARE AWAITING QUORUM, BUT WE
WILL BEGIN, SINCE WE HAVE OUR
VICE CHAIR WITH US, AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. AND I SEE WE HAVE
SENATOR GLAZER HERE, AND I
APPRECIATE HIS PROMPTNESS, ITEM
TWO, SB 393.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND I KNOW
THAT'S BEEN A HIGH WORKLOAD THIS
LAST FEW WEEKS FOR YOU AND YOUR
STAFF. SO I SO APPRECIATE ALL
THE WORK AND THE ABILITY TO
CONSULT ON ON ALL THESE BILLS.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I WANT
TO, THIS BILL THAT'S BEFORE YOU
TODAY, SB 393 HELPS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS FACING A
SEQUEL LAWSUIT BROUGHT IN BAD
FAITH TO RECOUP SOME OF THE
COSTS OF THE LITIGATION. UNDER
EXISTING LAW, A DEFENDANT IN
THIS CASE THE BUILDER, AND A
SEQUEL LAWSUIT THAT IS A, THAT
IS AGAINST AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT MAY MOTION THE COURT TO
REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF, THE
ENTITY BRINGING THE SEQUEL
LAWSUIT FORWARD TO POST A BOND
UP TO $500,000. IF THE BUILDER
SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING THE
HOUSING PROJECTS AFFORDABLE. THE
COURT AGREES. THE SEQUEL LAWSUIT
WAS BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH. THE
BUILDER PROVES THE ENTITY
BRINGING THE LAWSUIT FORWARD
WILL NOT FACE UNDUE ECONOMIC
HARM. THIS LAST REQUIREMENT HAS
BEEN NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER TO
MEET, BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO
FIND ANY ADMISSIBLE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE ENTITY'S FINANCES.
THIS DIFFICULTY IS IN PART
BECAUSE THOSE BRING IN A SEQUA
ACTION MAY FILE ANONYMOUSLY OR
SET UP AN ORGANIZATION TO HIDE
THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
IDENTITIES. IN MY DISTRICT, A
130 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY
DELAYED BY LITIGATION. AFTER THE
COURT AGREED THE AFTER THE COURT
AGREED THAT THE LAWSUIT WAS
BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WERE
UNSUBSTANTIATED, THE COURT
GRANTED A BOND ONLY AFTER THE
PLAINTIFF ACCIDENTALLY ADMITTED
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR
FINANCES, SHOWING THEY WOULD NOT
BE UNDULY HARMED BY POSTING A
BOND. IN FACT, ONE REPORT FOUND
THAT THIS CASE WAS THE ONLY
KNOWN ONE WHERE THE COURT
GRANTED THE BUILDER A BOND DUE
TO THE DIFFICULTY TO PROVE
ANYTHING ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF'S
TRUE IDENTITY AND FINANCES. THIS
BILL THAT'S BEFORE YOU BALANCES
THE SCALES BY INSTEAD ALLOWING
THE ENTITY BRINGING THE SEQUEL
LAWSUIT FORWARD TO SUBMIT
EVIDENCE TO THE COURT THAT THEY
WOULD BE UNDULY ECONOMICALLY
BURDENED IF IT WERE REQUIRED TO
POST A BOND. THIS BILL THEN
DIRECTS THE COURT TO CONSIDER
THAT EVIDENCE, WHEN MAKING A
DECISION ON WHETHER TO GRANT THE
BOND AND THE FINAL AMOUNT, THIS
BILL WILL HELP MAKE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS WHOLE WHEN
THEY ARE UNFAIRLY TARGETED FOR
ILLEGITIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS. WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS ANDREA OSGOOD, CHIEF
OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF EDEN
HOUSING, AND MARINA ESPINOSA,
POLICY DIRECTOR AT THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM. I
ALSO HAVE HERE AT THE DAIS,
ANDREW SABIA WITH COX, CASTLE
AND NICHOLSON, WHO SPECIALIZES
IN LAND USE POLICY, TO ANSWER
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY MY NAME IS
ANDREA OSGOOD, AND I'M WITH EDEN
HOUSING AND SUPPORT OF SB 393.
EDEN IS ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S
OLDEST NONPROFIT HOUSING
DEVELOPERS, AND HAVING DEVELOPED
MORE THAN 11,000 AFFORDABLE
HOMES ACROSS THE STATE, WE WORK
CLOSELY WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS
TO WIN APPROVAL FOR OUR PROJECTS
AND ENSURE THEY COMPLY WITH
LOCAL ZONING. NONETHELESS, WE
HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF LAWSUITS AGAINST OUR
PROJECTS FROM ANONYMOUS GROUPS
WHOSE MEMBERS ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. AND ONE
RECENT CASE IN LIVERMORE, EDEN,
IS STILL FIGHTING IN COURT MORE
THAN THREE YEARS AFTER RECEIVING
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL. THIS IS A 100% UNION
PROJECT WITH A PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT THAT WILL CREATE HIGH
WAGE JOBS, IN ADDITION TO 130
HOMES FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
YET A GROUP OF ANONYMOUS, WELL
FUNDED OPPONENTS USE THE
SPURIOUS SEQUA CHALLENGE TO
DELAY THIS PROJECT FOR YEARS, IN
SPITE OF JUDGES DISMISSING THEIR
ARGUMENTS AS, QUOTE, ALMOST
ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT. THESE
DELAYS FORCED EDEN TO RETURN $68
MILLION TAX CREDIT AWARD AND ARE
THREATENING OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS
WELL. COURTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY,
UNDER EXISTING LAW, TO REQUIRE
THE OPPONENTS TO PAY THE
$500,000 BOND FOR DAMAGES WHEN
THEY DEEM ANTI-HOUSING LAWSUITS
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH,
OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF DELAY,
BUT EDEN WAS WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN
THIS BOND, IN THIS CASE THE
FIRST EVER AWARDED SINCE THE LAW
WAS CREATED IN 1982, BUT ONLY
AFTER INDIVIDUALS BEHIND THIS
LAWSUIT MADE A SERIES OF
MISTAKES THAT EXPOSED THEIR
WEALTH. IT REMAINS DIFFICULT FOR
PROVIDERS LIKE EDEN TO USE THIS
LAW, SINCE IT REQUIRES US TO
PROVE THESE ANONYMOUS GROUPS
HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY THE
BOND. SB 393 ADDRESSES THIS
ISSUE BY SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF
PROOF TO REQUIRE THOSE FILING
WHAT THE COURTS CONSIDER BAD
FAITH LAWSUITS AGAINST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS TO
SHOW WHY THEY DO NOT HAVE THE
ABILITY TO PAY. INSTEAD, THIS
WOULD OFFER A SMALL AMOUNT OF
REDRESS TO GROUPS LIKE
NONPROFITS LIKE EDEN, WHO
CONTINUE TO HAVE TO DEFEND
OURSELVES AGAINST THESE
EXPENSIVE LEGAL ACTIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MARINA
ESPINOSA WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM. CHC IS AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION FOCUSED ON THE
PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION OF
LOW INCOME HOUSING, EXPANDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN HIGH
RESOURCE AREAS LIKE DOWNTOWN
LIVERMORE IS A CRITICAL STRATEGY
FOR AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING
FAIR HOUSING. WHILE EXPERIENCES
LIKE THOSE DESCRIBED BY EDEN
HOUSING ARE NOT EXPANSIVE, THEY
ARE NOT UNIQUE, AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THEY HAVE A
CHILLING EFFECT ON THE STATE'S
ABILITY TO ADDRESS ITS HOUSING
SHORTAGE. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS LIKE EDEN HOUSING
CANNOT AFFORD YEARS OF COSTLY
LEGAL BATTLES, AND WILL CONTINUE
TO SHY AWAY FROM PROVIDING THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE NEED AND
COMMUNITIES OF OPPORTUNITY
PROMOTING GREATER HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES IN AREAS THAT HAVE
GOOD SCHOOLS, ACCESS TO PARKS
AND OTHER COMMUNITY AMENITIES IS
PROVEN TO HAVE BETTER ECONOMIC,
HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THOSE
COMMUNITIES. LOCATING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND HIGH OPPORTUNITY
AREAS WOULD RESULT IN MORE
RACIAL INTEGRATION OF
NEIGHBORHOODS AND OFFER NEW
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES TO LOW
INCOME PEOPLE. SB 393 MAKES A
MODEST CHANGE THAT WOULD PROVIDE
SOME PROTECTION TO HOUSING
DEVELOPERS FACING BAD FAITH
LAWSUITS THAT CHALLENGE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. BY
SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE
PLAINTIFFS FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
FROM THE DEFENDANT ONTO THE
PLAINTIFF, WE HOPE THIS WILL
DETER FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS WHOSE
SOLE GOAL IS TO STOP AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FROM BEING BUILT FOR
THESE REASONS, I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT ON THIS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 393? GOOD
MORNING. JAMIE HUFF ON BEHALF OF
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEAMUS GERARDI
FROM LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
ON BEHALF OF SPUR HABITAT FOR
CALIFORNIA AND CIVIC WELL AND
EDEN HOUSING. SORRY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CASSIE GILSON WITH
AXIOM ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, SCOTT GAVIN ON BEHALF OF
THE CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 393? WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES,
MADAM VICE CHAIR, I THANK YOU,
CHAIR, AND, SENATOR GLAZER, I'M
DELIGHTED TO SEE THIS BILL, ON
ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SIDE OF
THINGS, JUST TO SHARE YOUR
FRUSTRATIONS, TOO, WE, AS A
MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL FOR EIGHT
YEARS, WE WOULD APPROVE A
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND A COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT A
HOUSING PROJECT, ONLY TO SEE IT
STOP, I AND I ACTUALLY, WHEN
WE'VE HAD SOME CEQA DISCUSSIONS,
PREVIOUS BILLS ON THE FLOOR, IN
FACT, I CITED ONE I DEVELOPMENT
THAT'S IN NORTH LA COUNTY. I'M
NOT I'M FROM ORANGE COUNTY, SO I
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. IT'S
JUST THAT I READ A STORY IN THE
LA TIMES THAT PARTICULAR DAY
THAT I SPOKE ON THIS ON THE
FLOOR, THAT IT HAD BEEN TIED UP
IN CEQA LAWSUITS,
NON-MERITORIOUS LAWSUITS FOR
OVER 20 YEARS IN SANTA CLARITA.
I BELIEVE IT IS. I HAVE NO
CONNECTION WITH IT WHATSOEVER,
BUT IT MEANT 25,000 HOMES HAVE
NOT BEEN BUILT, AND THOSE AND
THOSE SUING YEARS, I DON'T EVEN
THINK THEY'VE REACHED IT. SO I
COMMEND THIS BILL. I COMMEND
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND
JUST CHIP AWAY AT SOME OF THE
ECOSYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THESE
SEQUEL LAWSUITS. I DO WANT TO
COMMENT, THOUGH, FOR THE PUBLIC
RECORD THAT I MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES,
SUDDENLY, REPUBLICAN LEADER
JAMES GALLAGHER HAD ALMOST THE
IDENTICAL BILL IN 2022, AND IT
NEVER MADE IT OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE. SO A GOOD AUTHOR HERE
TOO. SO I, I APPLAUD YOU. I
APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS. AND I'M IN
FULL SUPPORT AND I'LL MAKE A
MOTION I CAN'T YEAH. OKAY SO
ANYWAY SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SENATOR REYES. SENATOR, I AS I
UNDERSTAND THIS IS ONLY WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS. YES. IT'S NOT
FOR ALL PROJECTS. YES. BECAUSE I
AND I KNOW IN THE, IN THE
ANALYSIS IT TALKED ABOUT A
GROWING NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL
OTHER LAWSUITS FROM ANONYMOUS
LOCAL GROUPS OPPOSED TO GOOD
HOUSING PROJECTS. IF IT'S
HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I
CAN ABSOLUTELY BE IN SUPPORT.
AND MOST ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF
THE WITNESS HERE BEFORE US, MY
FORMER ALLEGED DIRECTOR. IF YOU
HAVE HER AS A WITNESS, THEN I'VE
GOT TO BE FOR THE I'VE GOT TO BE
FOR THIS BILL. SO WHEN THE TIME
IS RIGHT, I'LL DO A SECOND.
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I AGREE WITH THE
COMMENTS FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER
REYES. I THINK THAT IT'S
NARROWLY FOCUSED, TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. I HAVE GREAT RESPECT TO
MISS OSGOOD FOR EDEN HOUSING.
WONDERFUL PROJECT, CERTAINLY IN
SOUTH SAN JOSE AND OTHER PARTS.
ALL AROUND THE BAY AREA IN
CALIFORNIA. AND I THINK, YOU
KNOW, THE SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN
AS WELL AS ALLOWING FOR SOME
MORE TRANSPARENCY. I, AGREE WITH
THE POINT THAT THERE ARE THESE
SHADOW GROUPS THAT, YOU KNOW,
NEIGHBORS FOR GOOD QUALITY OF
LIFE OR WHATEVER THEY CALL
THEMSELVES. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU
NEED TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER TO
SEE, WHO'S REALLY OPPOSING SOME
OF THESE PROJECTS. AND I THINK
THAT, YOU KNOW, CREATING SOME
KIND OF EVEN PLAYING FIELD IN
TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY AND THE
SHIFTING THAT BURDEN. I HOPE IT
HELPS. AND, MEETS THE
EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO. SENATOR, AND SO
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
YET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
JUST TO SAY THAT, THIS THIS BILL
IS HELPFUL, BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T UNRING IS
THAT THEY THEY LOST THEIR $68
MILLION, TAX CREDIT IN ALL THIS
LITIGATION. AND THAT'S A VERY
DIFFICULT THING. IF I WAS GOING
TO BE AROUND HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE A LITTLE LONGER, I
THINK IT'S ONE OF THE REFORMS I
WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO
CONSIDER AS TO HOW TO PROTECT
THEM FROM THAT IMPORTANT
FINANCING THAT THAT HAS WAS
JEOPARDIZED BY THIS ACTION.
THANK YOU. AND THEN SO WE'LL, I
GUESS, MOVE ON TO THE NEXT BILL
SO WE CAN'T CAN'T PUT IT UP FOR
A VOTE. AND, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. IN 2022, MAYBE WE
DIDN'T HAVE AS CHARMING OF AN
AUTHOR. SO YEAH. OR CHAIR OR
CHAIR. YOU KNOW. ITEM SIX SB
827. CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF, FOR THE WORK
THAT WE DID ON THIS BILL AND FOR
THE EXCELLENT ANALYSIS DETAILING
THE HISTORY IN THE SPACE. THERE
IS QUITE A HISTORY IN IT. LET ME
SAY I'M ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, THIS BILL BASICALLY
APPLIES EXISTING STATUTORY
AUTHORITY THAT WE GRANT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
DISTRICT. IT PROVIDES THE BART
IG WITH EXPLICIT ACCESS TO
RECORDS, PROPERTY, AND
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS. UNLESS
STATE LAW EXPLICITLY PRECLUDES
ACCESS. IN ADDITION, WHILE
DISCUSSING AUDIT RESULTS THIS
YEAR, THE BART AUDIT COMMITTEE
FOUND THAT THE LACK OF SUBPOENA
POWER IS AN OBSTACLE TO THE IG
BEING ABLE TO HOLD INDIVIDUALS
RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY AGAINST BART. RECENT
AMENDMENTS THEREFORE, GRANT THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL THE AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE A SUBPOENAS IN CASES
THAT THEY DON'T COOPERATE, FOR
THE RECORDS OR THE PROPERTY
NECESSARY FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND
AUDITS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
OF LABOR UNIONS OPPOSED TO
NEITHER NEUTRAL OR OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL. THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS DO THE FOLLOWING.
ONE. IT REQUIRES THE BART
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO NOTIFY AN
EMPLOYEE SHE IS INTERVIEWING OF
THE RIGHTS TO HAVE UNION
REPRESENTATION PRESENT, AND
NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEE OF THEIR
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED RIGHTS,
TWO IT SHOULD AN EMPLOYEE DECIDE
TO WAIVE THOSE RIGHTS, THE IG
MUST HAVE THE EMPLOYEE SIGN A
WAIVER AND MAINTAIN THAT WAIVER
FOR UP TO TWO YEARS. THREE WHEN
INTERACTING WITH ANY UNION, THE
IG SHALL DO SO IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH ALL LABOR LAWS.
WEINGARTEN RIGHTS AND
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED RIGHTS,
AND FINALLY FOUR PRIOR TO
ISSUING A SUBPOENA TO AN
EMPLOYEE, THE IG SHOULD SEEK
PRIOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT LABOR
LAWS AND COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED
RIGHTS IN 2018, BAY AREA VOTERS
CREATED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS
PART OF A BALLOT MEASURE THAT
ALSO GAVE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES THE
POWER TO RAISE BRIDGE TOLLS TO
FINANCE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS. THIS CRUCIAL
OFFICE GIVES THE PUBLIC AND THE
SYSTEM RIDERS AN INDEPENDENT SET
OF EYES AND EARS TO MONITOR THE
AGENCY'S SPENDING AND
OPERATIONS. HOWEVER, CURRENT LAW
DOES NOT GRANT THE BART
INSPECTOR GENERAL SUFFICIENT
INDEPENDENCE NECESSARY TO DO HER
JOB. THIS BILL PROVIDES THAT
INDEPENDENCE. WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY WITH ME TO TESTIFY
IS ALEX, ON BEHALF OF THE BAY
AREA COUNCIL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AGAIN. ALEX TORRES, ON
BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL,
WE REPRESENT OVER 320 OF THE
LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN THE NINE
COUNTY BAY AREA, WE'RE EXTREMELY
INVESTED IN THE SUCCESS OF BART
BECAUSE THE SUCCESS OF BART IS
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO THE
ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF OUR REGION
AND MOVING OUR WORKFORCE, MAKING
SURE FOLKS HAVE AN AFFORDABLE
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, THE
COUNCIL WAS ALSO THE SPONSOR OF
THE ENABLING LEGISLATION TO
CREATE BART AND ESTABLISH BART.
SO WE'RE EXTREMELY INVESTED IN
THE SUCCESS OF BART, MAKING SURE
THAT BART IS ABLE TO GROW AND
THRIVE. BUT WHILE WE'RE HAVING
THESE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE
FISCAL CLIFF AND ASKING BAY AREA
TAXPAYERS TO, DOUBLE DOWN ON
THAT INVESTMENT IN BART, AND AS
BART DEALS WITH CHALLENGES LIKE
TOLL OR FARE EVASION AND OTHER
ISSUES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S SUFFICIENT OVERSIGHT.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO,
NOT ONLY THE LONG TERM SUCCESS
OF BART, BUT THE SUCCESS OF THE
BAY AREA. SO I THINK THAT TO THE
SENATOR'S POINT, THE CHALLENGES
WITH THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL HAVE BEEN WELL
DOCUMENTED. WHAT THE MEASURE
DOES IS THE SENATOR ARTICULATED
IS ALIGN THOSE ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES WITH OTHER
EXISTING SIMILAR OFFICES. AND
SO, AGAIN, FOR THAT REASON, FOR
THE FOCUS OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE
THAT SUFFICIENT BASE OF
OVERSIGHT BEFORE WE GO BACK TO
ASK THE BAY AREA TAXPAYERS FOR
MORE RESOURCES, WE THINK THIS IS
A REALLY CRITICAL MEASURE. SO
HERE IN SUPPORT TODAY OR DRIVE
UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 827? GOOD MORNING,
CHARLES WATSON. ON BEHALF OF
BART, BART HAS THE SUPPORT OF
AMENDED POSITION. WE GREATLY
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
THE SENATORS MADE TO THE BILL
AND LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING
THE MOST RECENT SET. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 827? MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MATT BROUGHT
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION TO
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS.
TERRY BRENNAN, ON BEHALF OF SEIU
CALIFORNIA, WE'D LIKE TO THANK
YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE HARD
WORK AND THE AMENDMENTS. WE
APPRECIATE IT. WE'RE ALSO
REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION AT THIS
TIME. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SIMILARLY ASKED ME. CALIFORNIA,
WE WILL BE REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION WITH COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AND WE APPRECIATE
THE GREAT WORK OF YOUR
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
YEAH. I WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR. I KNOW THIS WAS THERE
WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ON
THIS. I APPRECIATE YOU FOR BEING
FLEXIBLE AND UNDERSTANDING THE
CONCERNS OF SOME OF SOME OF THE
UNIONS, OF COURSE, THAT EMPLOY
ARE WONDERFUL EMPLOYEES UP AT
BART. AND I THINK THIS STRIKES A
BALANCE WHERE IT'S PROTECTIVE OF
THOSE, LABOR RIGHTS AND, AND
STILL WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO HAVE ENOUGH
AUTHORITY TO, TO REALLY HAVE
THAT OVERSIGHT THAT I KNOW THAT
YOU'VE BEEN, SUCH A CHAMPION OF
FOR SO MANY YEARS. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
MADAM VICE CHAIR? I'LL JUST ECHO
YOUR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR. I
THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT BILL.
I KNOW YOU'VE WORKED HARD ON
THIS AND BY EVIDENCE OF HOW IT
MOVES THROUGH THE SENATE AND NOW
THE ASSEMBLY, I HOPE THE SUCCESS
CONTINUES. SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THE RIGHT THING, FOR
TRANSPARENCY AND TO, MAKE SURE
WE MAINTAIN BEST PRACTICES IN
ALL WE DO IN PUBLIC AGENCIES,
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES.
TRANSPARENCY IS GOOD. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? WELL, I THINK THIS IS A
SIX YEAR SAGA. SO I THIS IS MY
LAST YEAR IN THE SENATE. PERHAPS
THIS IS THE RIGHT MOMENT TO
HOPEFULLY HAVE SUCCESS IN IN
THIS OVERSIGHT. THANKS AGAIN TO
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE WORK. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON.
ITEM 15 SB 1287. THESE BILLS
JUST GET EASIER AND EASIER. YEAH
MEMBERS. FIRST OFF, I WANT TO
NOTE THAT THE CHAIR AND I HAVE
REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON TWO OF
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE IN YOUR ANALYSIS, ONE IS TO
ADD THE PHRASE AND CONTENT
NEUTRAL, QUOTE UNQUOTE, AFTER
REASONABLE AND BEFORE TIME. AND
I'LL DETAIL THAT IN A MOMENT.
AND TO ALSO DELETE THE WORDS,
QUOTE, THEIR OBLIGATION TO
COMPLY WITH, UNQUOTE, IN THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE STUDENT
CODE OF CONDUCT. I THANK YOU AND
YOUR STAFF FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS
BILL THROUGHOUT THE WEEKEND. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU GET OVERTIME,
ALLISON. MAYBE NOT. WE SHOULD
TALK TO THE UNION ABOUT THAT.
OKAY. THIS BILL I MISS MCKENNA'S
REALLY LAUGHED AT THAT. OKAY, I
GOT YOU LAUGHING. THAT'S A GOOD
SIGN. THIS BILL DOES FOUR
THINGS. FIRST, IT REQUIRES
PUBLIC POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS TO ADOPT AND
ENFORCE POLICIES AND STUDENTS
CODE OF CONDUCT THAT PROHIBIT
VIOLENCE, HARASSMENT,
INTIMIDATION AND DISCRIMINATION,
INTERFERING THROUGH FORCE OR
INTIMIDATION WITH FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS. SECOND, WITH
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, IT
REQUIRES THEM TO DEVELOP OR
ENFORCE REASONABLE AND CONTENT
NEUTRAL TIME, PLACE AND MANNER
RESTRICTIONS. THIRD, IT REQUIRES
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANDATORY
TRAINING PROGRAMS ON HOW TO
ENGAGE RESPECTFULLY AND ANNUAL
REPORTING TO THE LEGISLATURE ON
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE
PROGRAMS. AND LASTLY, WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDS AMENDS THE BILL
ASKS EACH STUDENT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE, ACKNOWLEDGE THE
CODE OF CONDUCT BY IMPLEMENTING
THESE PROVISIONS. THE BILL
AFFIRMS THE ROLE THAT
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES MUST TAKE TO ENSURE
THAT ALL STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO
EXERCISE THEIR FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS AND EXCHANGE VIEWS
RESPECTFULLY. IN RECENT MONTHS
AND WEEKS, WE'VE WITNESSED AN
ALARMING TREND OF ESCALATING
HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION AND
VIOLENCE TARGETED AT
MARGINALIZED GROUPS ON OUR
CAMPUSES. THIS OBVIOUSLY
THREATENS THE SAFETY AND
WELL-BEING OF OUR STUDENTS,
FACULTY, AND STAFF. OUR COLLEGES
HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE
FREE SPEECH WHILE PREVENTING
DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT.
BUT WHERE DOES FREE SPEECH CROSS
THE LINE INTO SPEECH THAT IS NOT
PROTECTED? THE SUPREME COURT HAS
AFFIRMED THAT COLLEGES NEED NOT
TOLERATE SPEECH THAT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR BASIC
EDUCATIONAL MISSION. THIS BILL
ALIGNS WITH THIS RESPONSIBILITY
BY REQUIRING CAMPUSES TO
INSTITUTE POLICIES THAT
EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT ACTIONS THAT
LEAD TO HOSTILE ENVIRONMENTS ON
CAMPUS, ENVIRONMENTS WHICH
DIVIDE A MARGINALIZED STUDENTS,
PREVENTING THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS
THAT IS SO VALUED ON CAMPUSES.
EVEN WITH DEALING, EVEN WHEN
DEALING WITH DIVISIVE ISSUES,
ALL STUDENT VOICES HAVE THE
RIGHT TO BE HEARD, AND NONE
SHOULD BE SILENCED. I BELIEVE
THIS LEGISLATION WILL RESTORE AN
ENVIRONMENT OF CIVIL DISCOURSE
ON OUR CAMPUSES. PROVIDING
TESTIMONY TODAY AS CLIFF BURKE,
WHO I'LL LET HIM INTRODUCE
HIMSELF AND HIS AND WHO HE'S
REPRESENTS, THANK YOU, CLIFF
BURKE HERE ON BEHALF OF JPAC,
THE JEWISH PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE, I WANT TO FIRST THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD
THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT MEASURE
AND ALSO WANT TO ECHO HIS
COMMENTS THANKING THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING CLOSELY WITH
HIM, ON AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL,
JPAC IS PLEASED TO BE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1287, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION TO UPDATE AND ENFORCE
PROVISIONS IN THEIR STUDENT
CODES TO PREVENT INSTANCES OF
INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT AND
VIOLENCE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
THIS BILL WOULD ALSO REQUIRE
EACH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION
TO DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS TO
EDUCATE STUDENTS ON CIVIL
DISCOURSE. JPAC IS A COALITION
OF OVER 30 LEADING JEWISH
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS
THE STATE AS THE VOICE OF
CALIFORNIA'S JEWISH COMMUNITY TO
THE STATE CAPITOL, WE ADVOCATE
IN SACRAMENTO ON BEHALF OF THE
JEWISH COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS AND
BROADLY SHARED VALUES. OUR
MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDE
JEWISH FEDERATIONS, JEWISH
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCILS,
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES AGENCIES,
AND OTHERS COLLECTIVELY SERVING
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
CALIFORNIANS OF ALL BACKGROUNDS
AND REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS
OF CALIFORNIA'S 1.2 MILLION
JEWS. THE PROTECTIONS IN SB 1287
ARE PARTICULARLY URGENT FOR OUR
COMMUNITY, WHICH HAS EXPERIENCED
A 2,000% INCREASE IN
ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENTS ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN THE FIVE
MONTHS SINCE THE HAMAS ATTACK ON
OCTOBER 7TH, 2023. COMPARED TO
THE SAME PERIOD THE YEAR PRIOR.
BUT THE GROWING TREND OF
INTOLERANCE FOR DIFFERING
VIEWPOINTS IS A THREAT TO
EVERYONE IN A DIVERSE AND
PLURALISTIC SOCIETY. FREE SPEECH
IS A CORNERSTONE OF OUR
DEMOCRACY AND HARASSMENT,
INTIMIDATION AND VIOLENCE
AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DIFFERING
VIEWPOINTS THREATEN OUR SHARED
VALUES. INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE
FOR PRESERVING STUDENTS RIGHTS
TO SAFELY ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES
PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES
AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS.
THERE IS A BROAD CONSENSUS THAT
STRONGER MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN
IN THIS REGARD. AS PART OF ITS
ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF
UNCHECKED ANTI-SEMITISM AT UC
BERKELEY, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS
REGARDING THE INADEQUACY OF UC
BERKELEY'S RESPONSE TO
ANTISEMITISM ON CAMPUS. THERE
WAS A WIDESPREAD FEELING AMONG
JEWISH STUDENTS, AS WELL AS
THEIR FAMILIES, AND WITHIN THE
BROADER JEWISH COMMUNITY THAT
MANY CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS DO
NOT UNDERSTAND THE SEVERITY OF
THE CRISIS AND HAVE BEEN
UNWILLING TO TAKE APPROPRIATE
ACTION TO MEET THIS MOMENT.
ADMINISTRATORS ARE SIMPLY NOT
DEALING WITH THESE INCIDENTS ON
THEIR CAMPUSES. AS A RESULT,
STUDENTS ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF
THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE FULLY
AND EQUALLY IN EDUCATION PROCESS
. SB 1287 OFFERS A TANGIBLE
SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM
BY REQUIRING COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES TO UPDATE THEIR
STUDENT CODES OF CONDUCT TO
EXPLICITLY ADDRESS VIOLENCE,
HARASSMENT, AND INTIMIDATION.
FURTHERMORE THE PROVISIONS
MANDATING EACH SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION TO DEVELOP TRAINING
PROGRAMS TO EDUCATE STUDENTS HOW
TO CONSTRUCTIVELY ENGAGE WITH
EACH OTHER WILL BEGIN TO ADDRESS
THE CULTURE OF INTOLERANCE AND
HOSTILITY ON CAMPUSES BY
PROMOTING CIVIL DISCOURSE, THE
ABILITY TO PEACEFULLY AND
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH
OTHERS IS FOUNDATIONAL TO
SUCCEEDING IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY.
FOR THESE REASONS, JPAC URGES
YOUR SUPPORT OF SB 1287. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR SB 1287?
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS SCOTT.
GOVERNOR. PRIVATE CITIZEN IN
SUPPORT AND. MARGARET GLADSTEIN,
PRIVATE CITIZEN IN SUPPORT. JEFF
WIENER, JEWISH FAMILY AND
CHILDREN'S SERVICES IN THE BAY
AREA IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE
PROCEED, IF WE CAN HAVE QUORUM
ESTABLISHED. THANK YOU. CHOLERA
HERE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN HERE.
BRIAN CONNOLLY. HANEY HERE.
MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA. HERE.
PACHECO. PATTERSON. REYES
SANCHEZ. ESTABLISH QUORUM, IS
THERE ANYONE HERE OR. WE HAVE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1287.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR KALRA AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
CYNTHIA VALENCIA. I AM A
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE WITH THE
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE STAFF
AND THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING ON
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE SERIOUS CONCERNS
THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND WE
HAVE RAISED. WE WANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE SENATOR HAS
ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT REGARDING
THE SOFTENING OF LANGUAGE,
REGARDING THE STUDENT CODE OF
CONDUCT THAT WE HAVE FLAGGED AND
MANY OTHERS HAVE FLAGGED IN OUR
OPPOSITION. SO THANK YOU,
SENATOR AND COMMITTEE STAFF, FOR
TAKING THE CONCERNS OF ADVOCATES
AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS. HOWEVER,
WE DO REMAIN IN OPPOSITION OF SB
1287 UNLESS IT IS AMENDED TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED REGARDING
THE OVERBROAD LANGUAGE AND
DEFINITIONS OF HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT IT COULD STILL LEAD TO THE
CHILLING OF SPEECH, AND IT HAS
SOME PUNITIVE MEASURES REGARDING
STUDENT PROTEST ACTIVITY IN THE
NAME OF CIVILITY ON COLLEGE
CAMPUSES, WE STRONGLY BELIEVE
THAT STUDENTS MUST BE ABLE TO
RECEIVE A HIGHER EDUCATION IN
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT BEING
PUNISHED FOR THEIR RIGHTS OF
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
PEACEFUL PROTEST. WE WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT STILL, NEITHER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT NOR CALIFORNIA
LAW PROTECTS THE BEHAVIORS ON
CAMPUS THAT CROSSES THE LINE
INTO TARGETED HARASSMENT, OR
THAT CREATES A PERVASIVELY
HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR
VULNERABLE STUDENTS. EXISTING
LAW ALREADY AUTHORIZES
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO
PROHIBIT OR PUNISH VIOLENCE,
VANDALISM, OR ACTS THAT DISRUPT
FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF STUDENTS.
EXISTING LAW ALREADY AUTHORIZES
INSTITUTIONS TO ADOPT CODES OF
CONDUCT THAT PROHIBIT UNLAWFUL
HARASSMENT, THREATS THAT IMPAIR
A STUDENT'S ABILITY TO
PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE
EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. THESE
EXISTING LAWS AND POLICIES ARE
INTENDED TO ENSURE SAFE,
INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS WITHOUT ENCROACHING
ON OUR VITAL CONSTITUTIONAL
FREEDOMS. THESE EXISTING LAWS
AND POLICIES ARE APPLICABLE TO
EVERY ONE OF THE SPECIFIC
INCIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED IN THE AUTHORS AND
SPEAKERS COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION. WE
JUST I JUST WANT TO REITERATE
THAT REAL SOCIAL CHANGE COMES
FROM WORKING TO ADDRESS THE
UNDERLYING CAUSES OF INEQUALITY
AND BIGOTRY, NOT FROM CENSORSHIP
OF DISCOURSE. WE ASK THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE NO ON SB 1287.
THANK YOU. HELLO CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS MAYA
STEINHARDT AND I AM A JEWISH
SACRAMENTO STATE STUDENT WHO
SPENT FOUR NIGHTS AT THE SAC
STATE STUDENT ENCAMPMENT FOR
PALESTINE. WHILE THERE, I WORE
MY STAR OF DAVID PUBLICLY AND
HELPED LEAD A SHABBAT SERVICE. I
NEVER FELT THREATENED. I WAS
EMBRACED AS A JEWISH STUDENT.
LIKE MANY OTHER JEWISH STUDENTS
ACROSS THE NATION, I FELT MORE
WELCOMED THAN I DID AS AN
UNDERGRAD IN THE JEWISH STUDENT
HILLEL, A SUPPORTER OF THIS BILL
AS A JEWISH AMERICAN AND AN
EDUCATOR, I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO.
STUDENT MOVEMENTS SHAPE HISTORY
AS THEY DID WITH CIVIL RIGHTS,
FREE SPEECH, VIETNAM AND THE
DIVESTMENT TO END SOUTH AFRICAN
APARTHEID. THESE MOVEMENTS HAVE
A RECORD OF BEING ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF HISTORY. SOMETIMES OUR
CLOSELY HELD BELIEFS ARE
CHALLENGED. WHILE IT MAY BE
UNCOMFORTABLE, IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY A BAD THING. SOME
WHITE STUDENTS AND SCHOOL
PERSONNEL MAY HAVE FELT
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH INTEGRATION.
IT DID NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR THAT IT
CAUSED THEM HARM. NOT ALL JEWS
SUPPORT ZIONISM, A NATIONALIST
MOVEMENT, TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN
A JEWISH ETHNO RELIGIOUS STATE.
JUST LIKE NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE
CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS.
JEWISHNESS AND OUR RELATIONSHIP
TO ISRAEL AND ZIONISM IS NOT
MONOLITHIC. THE IDEA THAT ALL
JEWS HAVE A SINGLE ORGANIZED
VIEW OF ISRAEL AND ZIONISM PLAYS
INTO ORDER. CAN WE STICK TO THE
CONTENTS OF THE BILL, PLEASE?
YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON
SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE BILL,
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO ALL OF
THEIR, WITNESSES AND THE
ARGUMENTS THAT THEIR WITNESSES
HAVE MADE, AS WELL AS THEIR
ARGUMENT FOR WHY THIS BILL IS
NECESSARY. OKAY. WELL, GOOD. GO
AHEAD AND PROCEED. THANK YOU.
THE IDEA THAT ALL JEWS HAVE A
SINGLE ORGANIZED VIEW OF ISRAEL
AND ZIONISM PLAYS INTO ANTI
SEMITIC TROPES, JEWISH VOICE FOR
PEACE, AND IS IT IS AN EXAMPLE
OF AN ANTI-ZIONIST JEWISH LED
ORGANIZATION. CRITICISM OF
ZIONISM AND ISRAEL'S TREATMENT
OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE IS NOT
ANTI-SEMITIC. CONFLATING THEM
MAKES IT HARDER TO IDENTIFY THE
VERY REAL INSTANCES OF
ANTI-SEMITISM THAT DO OCCUR. I
FULLY CONDEMN ACTS OF
ANTI-SEMITISM, BUT QUESTION IF
THIS BILL IS REALLY DESIGNED TO
PROTECT STUDENTS, OR RATHER, TO
SILENCE US, COLLEGE CAMPUSES
SHOULD BE A PLACE WHERE THE FREE
EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, EVEN
UNCOMFORTABLE ONES, SHOULD BE
PROTECTED, NOT STIFLED AND
SANCTIONED. THANK YOU. THIS BILL
SETS US ON A DANGEROUS COURSE,
AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO, IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1287? THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS AND
STAFF. MITCH STEIGER WITH CFT, A
UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS, VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AND STAFF. WE'RE STILL
EVALUATING THE AMENDS, BUT WE
REMAIN OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN, AND FELLOW
SENATORS ORLANDO FUENTES WITH
THE CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I'M A REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ONE OF
22 VOLUNTEERS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE REPRESENTING SACRAMENTO
COUNTY AND TWO OTHERS TO THE
EAST OF US. SACRAMENTO COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC PARTY VOTED TO OPPOSE
SB 1287. AND I'VE BEEN ASKED BY
MANY OF MY GRASSROOTS,
CONSTITUENTS, TO COME AND SPEAK
TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO 1287.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS DAVID
MANDEL. I'M AN ACTIVE MEMBER
WITH THE SACRAMENTO CHAPTER OF
JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE. I'M
REPRESENTING MORE THAN 100,000
SUPPORTERS AND MEMBERS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. WE OPPOSE
THIS BILL FOR THE REASONS THAT
THAT MAYA OUTLINED. THANK YOU.
EVEN WITH THE AMENDMENTS, THE
CHILLING EFFECT OF THIS BILL IS
LIKELY TO STAY FOR. GOOD MORNING
. MY NAME IS WENDY GREENFIELD.
I'M THE CHAPTER LEADER OF JEWISH
VOICE FOR PEACE IN THE SOUTH BAY
, AND WE'RE JUST VERY STRONGLY
AGAINST THIS AND HOPE THAT YOU
VOTE NO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. DAVID RAMIREZ, UCLA
STUDENT IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. SELENA DEAN,
PRESIDENT OF THE UC STUDENT
ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS THE
230,000 PLUS UNDERGRADUATES AT
THE UC. WE ALSO STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO VOTE NO
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CAROLINE NGUYEN I'M POLICY
DIRECTOR OF THE èC STUDENT
ASSOCIATION AND WE ARE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS VALERIA MENDEZ. I'M A RECENT
GRADUATE OF UC DAVIS, AND I URGE
YOU TO VOTE NO. THANK YOU. I'M
SHERRY DROBNER. I'M A JEWISH
AMERICAN, AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE
NO. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS SUSAN
PELIKAN. I COME FROM WOODLAND. I
REPRESENT INDIVISIBLE STATE
STRONG. WE ALL ENCOURAGE YOU TO
VOTE NO. THANK YOU. SYLVIA SOLIS
SHAW, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. HI,
PROFESSOR, UC BERKELEY ALUMNI.
AND I'M OPPOSED TO THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY PREISLER ALSO A
GRADUATE OF UC BERKELEY,
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. FRED BIALY,
A èC ALUMNI, AND I AM OPPOSED
TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING, MARSHALL
NAKATANI ON BEHALF OF UAW 4811,
WHICH REPRESENTS 48,000 ACADEMIC
WORKERS ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA SYSTEM, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. AS A MEMBER.
BAUER-KAHAN THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, SO I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL,
AND I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
IMPORTANCE OF IT RIGHT NOW AND
WHAT IT DOES, I WANT TO START BY
SAYING MY FIRST JOB IN LAW
SCHOOL WAS AT THE ACLU. I WAS
TASKED WITH PROTECTING FREE
SPEECH FOR THOSE WHO VERY FEW
WOULD WANT TO PROTECT. IT IS
WHAT THE ACLU HAS DONE
HISTORICALLY AND CONTINUES TO
DO. AND I THINK IT'S A VALUE
THEY HAVE. BUT AS WAS EVIDENCED
BY THE TESTIMONY FROM THE ACLU,
THAT FREE SPEECH IS NOT WITHOUT
LIMITS, AND THAT IS WHAT THE
COURTS HAVE SAID. AND THAT IS
WHAT THE LAW SAYS. AND I THINK
WHAT WAS UNMENTIONED BY THOSE
ALLEGEDLY HERE PROTECTING
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TODAY WAS
THAT WE HAVE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS THAT ARE NOW BUTTING
HEADS ON OUR CAMPUSES, AND FOR
SOME REASON, NOBODY IS HERE
ARGUING ON THE OPPOSITION SIDE
THAT WE SHOULD PROTECT EQUAL
PROTECTION, TO ACCESS TO
EDUCATION FOR EVERY SINGLE
CALIFORNIAN WHO HAS A RIGHT TO
THE EDUCATION THAT WE WORK SO
HARD IN THIS BODY TO PROTECT, TO
FUND AND TO ENABLE EVERY SINGLE
DAY WE HAVE THE BEST HIGHER
EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE
WORLD. IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD
ALL BE PROUD OF. AND THERE
SHOULD BE NO CALIFORNIAN WHO
DOESN'T FEEL SAFE SHOWING UP
EVERY SINGLE DAY TO RECEIVE THAT
EDUCATION. AND IN OCTOBER, I
SHOWED UP AT UC BERKELEY AND I
SAT AT A ROUND TABLE WITH
STUDENTS TO HEAR FIRSTHAND FROM
JEWISH STUDENTS WHAT THEY WERE
EXPERIENCING. AND IT WAS THE
MOST APPALLING THING I'D HEARD
IN MY TIME IN THE LEGISLATURE.
AND PART OF WHAT I THINK MADE IT
SO HARD FOR ME AND GOD. I HAVE
WAY TOO MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO DO
HOLOCAUST EDUCATION AROUND HERE
WAS MY OWN HISTORY. WE TALK A
LOT ABOUT THE HORRORS OF THE
HOLOCAUST AS IT RELATES TO THE
GAS CHAMBERS, TO THE TRAINS OF
HUMANS SENT OFF TO THEIR DEATH,
THE BURNING JEWISH BODIES. BUT
WE DON'T TALK ENOUGH ABOUT THE
YEARS THAT LED UP TO IT. MY
GRANDPARENTS WERE KICKED OUT OF
SCHOOL. MY GRANDMOTHER WOULD
TALK ABOUT SITTING IN HER
APARTMENT IN VIENNA AND WATCHING
AS THE OTHER KIDS GOT TO GO TO
SCHOOL, AND SHE WAS NO LONGER
ALLOWED TO ACCESS EDUCATION
BECAUSE SHE WAS JEWISH. AND IN
THOSE SCHOOLS, KIDS WERE BEING
TAUGHT TO HATE YOU SO THAT THEY
WOULD SIT SILENTLY BY AS THEY
WERE KILLED IN MASS. AND WHEN I
SAT AND LISTENED TO THE JEWISH
STUDENTS TALK ABOUT BEING TOLD
IN CLASS THEY WERE JEWISH, SO
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK
ANYMORE. SO ONE STUDENT TOLD ME
HAPPENED, ANOTHER WHO WAS
WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND HIS
KIPPAH AND SOMEONE YELLED AT
HIM, SLURS. I WON'T REPEAT INTO
THIS MICROPHONE AT UC BERKELEY.
I WAS APPALLED THAT THAT WAS
WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON OUR
CAMPUSES. AND THEN IT ONLY GOT
WORSE WHEN I HAD TO WATCH AT
UCLA, STUDENTS BLOCK THE MAIN
CAMPUSES, DEMANDING THEIR
STUDENTS PUT ON BRACELETS IN
ORDER TO ACCESS THEIR EDUCATION,
AND LITERALLY THOUGHT, WELL,
THEY COULD JUST PUT A STAR ON
THEM LIKE MY FAMILY HAD TO WEAR
IN ORDER TO GET THEIR EDUCATION
AND YET, GOD, THE SILENCE IS
DEAFENING HOW FEW PEOPLE SHOWED
UP TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. AND I
WANT TO THANK THOSE CITIZENS WHO
DID STAND UP, AND SO THE BILL IS
INCREDIBLY NARROW. IT HAS BEEN
ALL ALONG, BUT IT IS EVEN MORE
SO AT THIS POINT. IT DOES
EXACTLY WHAT THE OPPOSITION
SAID, APPARENTLY IS ALREADY LAW,
BUT THEY STILL OPPOSE IT, WHICH
IS TO PROHIBIT VIOLENT,
HARASSING, INTIMIDATING OR
DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT THAT
CREATES A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON
CAMPUS, PROHIBITED CONDUCT THAT
LIMITS OR DENIES A PERSON'S
ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE AND
BENEFIT FROM THE FREE EXCHANGE
OF IDEAS OR THE EDUCATIONAL
MISSION. SOMETHING I THINK IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED AND
ESTABLISHED. REASONABLE TIME,
PLACE AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS
WHICH COURTS HAVE ALSO CLEARLY
SAID. OUR UNIVERSITIES HAVE A
RIGHT TO DO ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR
IS FOR THE UNIVERSITIES TO DO
THEIR JOB TO PROTECT OUR
STUDENTS, TO PROTECT EVERY
STUDENT. AND I REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE AMENDMENT THAT SAYS
IT'S CONTENT NEUTRAL, BECAUSE
WHAT OUR COMMUNITY KNOWS SO WELL
IS THAT WE MAY BE FIRST, BUT WE
WON'T BE THE LAST. AND SO THIS
PROTECTION IS FOR US TODAY. BUT
TRULY, IT IS FOR EVERYONE WHO
WILL BE DENIED ACCESS TO
EDUCATION, WHO WILL BE HARASSED
IN THE WAY STUDENTS ARE BEING
HARASSED ACROSS THE CSU AND UC
SYSTEMS RIGHT NOW, AND ALLOW FOR
PEOPLE TO LEARN AND GROW AND
DISAGREE. WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE,
THE ISSUE THAT PEOPLE WERE
TAKING OVER COLLEGE HALL FOR,
WHICH HAPPENED IN MY UNIVERSITY,
WAS THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR, AND
THERE WAS A FREE EXCHANGE OF
THOSE IDEAS. AND THAT IS RIGHT.
BUT NOBODY WAS STOPPED FROM
GOING TO CLASS. NOBODY WAS
HARASSED. THE THINGS PROTECTED
IN THIS BILL REMAINED INTACT.
AND THAT IS THE FAILURE ON OUR
CAMPUSES RIGHT NOW. AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING OUR
STUDENTS, BECAUSE I'M MARRIED TO
A UC BERKELEY GRAD, MY BROTHER
IS A UC BERKELEY GRAD. I
COULDN'T BE MORE PROUD TO LIVE
IN BEAR TERRITORY, BUT I ALSO
KNOW THAT I WANT EVERY ONE OF MY
CONSTITUENTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO
THAT EDUCATION. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
REYES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
AS I READ THROUGH THIS AND READ
THROUGH THE ANALYSIS, IT'S CLEAR
THAT IT'S CONTENT NEUTRAL, AT
LEAST THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD
BE. BUT I HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND
I THINK THEY'VE COME UP ALSO AND
ALSO IN THE ANALYSIS, FOR
INSTANCE, IN THE ANALYSIS AT
PAGE FOUR, AND I QUOTE THE
COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF CSU CODES
OF CONDUCT SUGGESTS THAT THEY
ALREADY CONFORM TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BILL. ALL
OF THEM MENTIONED THAT
REASONABLE TIME, PLACE AND
MANNER RESTRICTIONS APPLIED TO
STUDENT SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON
CAMPUS. THE SECOND THING
ADDRESSED IN THE BILL ALSO IS
ADDRESSED AT PAGE FIVE OF THE
ANALYSIS. AND I QUOTE, THE
COLLEGES MUST PROVIDE TRAINING
ON HOW STUDENTS MIGHT ENGAGE
EACH OTHER IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF
MUTUAL RESPECT, AND THEN IN
PARENTHESES. YET MANY COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES ALREADY PROVIDE
STUDENT ORIENTATIONS THAT STRESS
THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY AND
INCLUSION, VALUES THAT
PRESUMABLY INCLUDE TRAINING EACH
OTHER WITH MUTUAL OF FOR MUTUAL
RESPECT. THOSE TWO POLICIES THAT
ARE INCLUDED IN THE BILL ARE
ALREADY LAW THE LAST, THE LAST
TWO. ONE IS TO REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE, THE OTHER HAD TO DO
WITH THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND, THAT
AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED BY THE
COMMITTEE AND ACCEPTED BY BY
YOU, SENATOR, BUT THE QUESTION
THEN AND I, I RECOGNIZE THAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT
HAS HAPPENED ON OUR CAMPUSES
THAT ALLOWED FOR STUDENTS TO NOT
FEEL SAFE, AND THAT SHOULD NEVER
HAPPEN. OUR STUDENTS ALL SHOULD
HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO BE ON
CAMPUS. OUR STUDENTS ALSO SHOULD
ALL BE ALLOWED TO BE ABLE TO
VOICE THEIR OPINION, EVEN IF
IT'S AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY,
AGAINST THE WORLD, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT FREE SPEECH IS
ABOUT. BUT THE SAFETY OF OUR
STUDENTS ALSO HAS TO HAVE THE
HAS TO BE VALUED THE EQUALLY I
AS AS I WROTE THROUGH THE
ANALYSIS. BUT MY QUESTION WAS
STILL WHAT IS. WHAT IS THE BILL
AIMING TO SOLVE FOR WHAT WHAT
REMAINS THAT NEEDS TO BE SOLVED
THAT WE DON'T ALREADY INCLUDE IN
IN OUR LAWS? THROUGH THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR
YOUR THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS. I
DON'T THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY
FEEL THAT WHETHER YOU FEEL THAT
THESE THESE THESE THESE RULES
AND STANDARDS ARE IN PLACE ON
CAMPUSES, THAT THEY, THEY HAVE
BEEN EFFECTIVELY, CARRIED OUT
AND THAT THE SAFETY OF STUDENTS
HAS NOT BEEN PROTECTED. AS WE'VE
LOOKED AT THE SCENE OVER THE
LAST EIGHT MONTHS OR SO IN
CALIFORNIA. SO ON ONE HAND, IF
YOU'RE SAYING IT'S REPETITIVE,
GOOD, BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD SEE
VERY LITTLE OBJECTION TO THIS
BILL THAT'S BEFORE YOU. AND
THAT'S OF COURSE, THE IRONY OF
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION IS THAT
TO MAKE THAT SIMILAR CLAIM. BUT
WE THINK IT IT HIGHLIGHTS AND
EMPHASIZES THE STANDARDS THAT WE
AS CALIFORNIANS WANT TO SEE
FULLY COMPLYING WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND ENGAGING STUDENTS
IN A MORE ACTIVE WAY THAN HAS
HAPPENED IN THE HOPES THAT WE
CAN PROMOTE CIVILITY AT A HIGHER
STANDARD THAN WE HAVE SEEN, AND
OF COURSE, REQUIRES THEM TO
ENGAGE WITH THE LEGISLATURE ON
HOW THEY'RE DOING THAT WORK. SO
THOSE ARE, I THINK, MODEST,
IMPROVEMENTS THAT COME OUT OF
THIS LEGISLATION. AND I KNOW
THAT OUR CHAIR HAS WORKED AND
THE COMMITTEE HAS WORKED WITH,
WITH THE PROPONENTS AND WITH YOU
, SENATOR, TO COME UP WITH THE
AMENDMENTS AND RECOMMENDING AN
EYE. AND I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE
CHAIR'S RECOMMENDATION, I JUST
IT STILL REMAINS A QUESTION THAT
IF THAT IF WE ARE AND I
RECOGNIZE YOU'RE SAYING IF IT'S
REPETITIVE, THEN WHY ARE WE
OBJECTING? RIGHT BUT I DO WANT
TO, TO SAY HOW IMPORTANT IT IS
TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE FREE
SPEECH, BUT EQUALLY IMPORTANT,
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO PROTECT
THE SAFETY OF OUR OF OUR
STUDENTS. THAT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MEMBER HANEY, THANK YOU. AND
SOME SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT
I HAD WERE, JUST BROUGHT FORWARD
BY MY COLLEAGUE THERE. I DO WANT
TO SAY THAT, AND I ALSO
APPRECIATE MY OTHER COLLEAGUE
SPEAKING. SO, WITH SO MUCH
PASSION AND FROM HER OWN
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, AND I THINK
ALL OF US HAVE BEEN DEEPLY
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING
ON OUR CAMPUSES, WE HAVE
STUDENTS WHO DO NOT FEEL SAFE TO
BE ON CAMPUS, DO NOT FEEL THAT
THEY CAN BE THEMSELVES, HAVE TO
HIDE THEIR IDENTITY, IN ORDER TO
BE THERE. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE
ACCEPTABLE. AND, AND THEN WE
ALSO HAVE STUDENTS WHO FEEL THAT
THEY CANNOT EXERCISE THEIR FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS AND FEEL THAT THAT
IS BEING IMPEDED ON. AND SO I
THINK THAT MUCH OF WHAT IS IN
THIS BILL, TO THE EXTENT IT'S
STATING AND RESTATING IN A
STRONG WAY, WHAT SHOULD BE THE
POLICIES ON OUR CAMPUSES? I
THINK THAT THAT MAKES SENSE AND
IS AND TO AND TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT CAN HELP TO PROVIDE A
FRAMEWORK FOR AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND
EXPECTATIONS, AND ALSO FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS THAT WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN ON OUR
CAMPUSES. I THINK THAT'S
CRITICAL. I DO WANT TO SAY,
BECAUSE AND I WANT TO ASK YOU
THE QUESTION OF THE AUTHOR, YOU
AND I HAVE HAD A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN
PARTICULAR. AND WE HAD A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR, US TO
EXTEND CERTAIN LABOR PROTECTIONS
AND LABOR LAWS AS IT RELATED TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
AND PART OF THE REASON WHY I
THINK YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT
THAT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS A
SENSE THAT THAT WAS BETTER LEFT
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE CSU TO MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS THEMSELVES AND TO SORT
OF HAVE THEIR OWN GOVERNANCE AND
AUTONOMY AROUND THAT. I THINK
FOR THIS, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS
WOULD BE WHAT? WHY IS THE
LEGISLATURE THE BEST, AUTHORITY
TO BE EXTENDING THESE SORT OF
POLICIES AND DEFINING THESE KIND
OF POLICIES? AND WHY ISN'T THIS
SOMETHING THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS
BEST POSITIONED TO DO
THEMSELVES? THEY'RE CERTAINLY,
YOU KNOW, DEALING WITH THESE
ISSUES ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO
DEFINE FOR THEIR STUDENTS AND
THEIR FACULTY AND OTHERS WHAT
THE BEST WAY FORWARD IS, WHY IS
THIS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE
WRITING FOR THEM AND REQUIRING
OF THEM? AND WHY ISN'T SOMETHING
THAT THE GOVERNING BODIES OF
THESE INSTITUTIONS SIMILAR TO
WITH, WITH SOME OF THE LABOR
PROTECTIONS, SHOULD BE ABLE TO
DEFINE FOR THEMSELVES? WELL,
THROUGH THE CHAIR, I THINK THAT
THE BILL, ADVISES THEM TO DO
THESE THINGS, DOESN'T TELL THEM
EXACTLY HOW TO DO IT. SO I THINK
IT DOES PROVIDE A LEVEL OF BROAD
STATE DIRECTION WITH THE
AUTONOMY OF THE INSTITUTIONS TO
DO WHAT THEY, THEY, THEY SEE AS
BEST IN TERMS OF COMPLYING IN
REGARD TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, AS YOU KNOW, WE
CAN'T MANDATE THAT THEY DO THESE
THINGS. IT'S A SUGGESTION. SO IT
DOESN'T CERTAINLY DOESN'T
INTERFERE WITH THEIR
INDEPENDENCE, IN REGARD TO,
YOUR, YOUR, YOUR MEASURE FROM
THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THERE WERE A
LOT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
THAT CAME FROM WHAT YOU WERE
SUGGESTING, INCLUDING THE IMPACT
ON TUITION. AND COSTS TO THE
CAMPUSES AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT
, STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
SO IT'S A MUCH BROADER
DISCUSSION THAN THAN JUST THE
AUTONOMY ISSUE. BUT, LOOK, I
THINK THAT, AS YOU KNOW, EVEN IN
LABOR STANDARDS, WE SET BROAD
STANDARDS FOR THE STATE, AND WE
ASK PEOPLE TO COMPLY. IN SOME
CASES, WE FORCE THEM TO COMPLY.
IN OTHER CASES, WE ADVISE THEM
TO COMPLY. I THINK THIS IS NO NO
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEFORE YOU
TODAY, MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE
THAT. AND I DO AGAIN WANT TO SAY
I, I AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU'RE
TAKING THIS ISSUE ON BECAUSE IT
IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ONE,
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU. AND THE
CHAIR FOR THE WAYS THAT YOU HAVE
ADDRESSED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS,
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, OUR GOAL
HERE IS, IS NOT TO PUNISH OR
ISOLATE OR CHILL FREE SPEECH.
IT'S TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF
INCLUSION AND SAFETY FOR ALL
STUDENTS. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
REALLY HIGHLIGHTED THAT. I DO
WANT TO JUST ASK THROUGH THE
CHAIR A QUESTION OF THE
OPPOSITION, BECAUSE I WAS
LOOKING AT IN PARTICULAR THE
ACLU LETTER, IT SEEMS THAT, THE
NUMBER ONE CONCERN THEY'RE
REQUIRING AS A CONDITION,
CONDITION OF ENROLLMENT WAS
ADDRESSED BY THE AMENDMENTS. AND
IT SEEMS LIKE THE REMAINING
ISSUES ARE MORE AROUND THE
SPECIFICITY OF SOME OF THE
PIECES OF THE BILL. AND THAT
THAT DOES SEEM TO ME IN LINE
WITH WHAT THE AUTHOR SAID, THAT
SOME OF THIS IS NOT GOING INTO
SUCH SPECIFICITY BECAUSE THERE'S
SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CAMPUSES TO DEFINE SOME OF THESE
THINGS AND LOOK AT IT ON A CASE
TO CASE BASIS AS TO HOW THEY
WOULD, ANALYZE THESE. SO I'M NOT
SURE I WOULD AGREE THAT WE WANT
TO DEFINE IT WITH SUCH
SPECIFICITY. AND AND THAT THERE
IS ACTUALLY, IN TERMS OF THE
GUIDANCE, SOME ROLE FOR THE
UNIVERSITY TO, TO DETERMINE
THESE. SO FOR, FOR THE THROUGH
THE CHAIR, FOR THE OPPOSITION,
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS TAKEN, AND THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR THAT. AND THEN IN
TERMS OF THE REMAINING ISSUES,
WHAT ARE THE REMAINING CONCERNS
THAT AROUND THE LANGUAGE AND IF
YOU COULD SPEAK TO MAYBE THIS
QUESTION THAT I HAVE AS TO
WHETHER WHY IT ISN'T BETTER TO,
YOU KNOW, GIVE SOME ABILITY FOR
UNIVERSITIES TO DEFINE SOME OF
THESE TERMS THEMSELVES AS
OPPOSED TO US, WITH SUCH
SPECIFICITY DEFINING IT FOR THEM
? YEAH, FOR US FUNDAMENTALLY AS
AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS, THAT
WANTS TO PRESERVE THE PROTEST
ACTIVITIES AND FREE SPEECH
ACTIVITIES OF STUDENTS, WE
REMAIN IN OPPOSITION UNLESS
AMENDED BECAUSE ESPECIALLY FOR
THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT,
DEFINITION, AS WE SAID IN OUR
OPPOSITION AND SOME OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS IN THEIR
OPPOSITION, THERE'S STILL SOME
OVERLY BROAD, LANGUAGE THAT WE
BELIEVE COULD BE INTERPRETED IN
A WAY THAT COULD, BE USED IN A
WAY TO PUNITIVELY CHILL AND,
USED AGAINST STUDENTS IN THEIR
SPEECH. AND, AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST
ABOUT CURRENTLY ON WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON CAMPUSES RIGHT NOW.
IT'S FOR THE FUTURE FOR ANY
INSTANCES. IF THERE IS, SOME
SORT OF, SITUATION WITH
ADMINISTRATION ON CAMPUSES THAT
STUDENTS WANT TO PROTEST OR TAKE
ACTION ON, IT'S GOING TO BE THE
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO
IMPLEMENT POLICIES INTO LIMIT ON
HOW STUDENTS CAN, CAN PROTEST ON
CAMPUSES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO LIMIT, OR PLACE
RESTRICTIONS ON HOW STUDENTS CAN
CAN, ENGAGE IN PROTEST
ACTIVITIES. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
OUR CONCERN IS. IT'S FOR THE
FUTURE. IT'S NOT JUST FOR RIGHT
NOW OR THESE SITUATIONS. THAT'S
WHY WE'RE WE WILL MAINTAIN
OPPOSITION OR HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT INSTITUTIONS PLACING
LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES
OR BE ABLE TO, PUNISH OR CREATE
PENALTIES ON STUDENTS FOR
PROTEST ACTIVITIES. THANK YOU.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY, I SHARE
SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS, IN TERMS
OF I MEAN, THE REALITY IS THAT
THERE'S ALREADY LIMITATIONS,
GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON ON FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND WHAT HAVE
YOU. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE UNDER THE HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT, IT REQUIRES THAT IT
BE SUBJECTIVELY AND OBJECTIVELY
OFFENSIVE AND THAT IT'S SO
SEVERE OR PERVASIVE THAT IT
LIMITS OR DÍAS PERSON. SO I
THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME KIND
OF BUILT IN PROTECTIONS THAT
IT'S NOT JUST SOMEONE'S WALKING
BY AND SAYS, I FEEL OFFENDED,
BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE A LITTLE
BIT MORE TO IT THAN THAT IN THE
ANALYSIS, THAT BEING SAID, YOU
KNOW, I ALSO LOOK AT I LOOK AT
ALL LEGISLATION AS TO NOT JUST
WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE MOMENT,
BUT THIS IS WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN
NEXT YEAR, FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS
FROM NOW. AND THAT COULD BE HARD
TO DO, ESPECIALLY IN THE
ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN. IF WE
REMOVE, WHO THE SPONSOR IS, WHO
THE OPPOSITION IS, LET'S JUST
LOOK AT THE ACTUAL BILL ITSELF.
FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S JUST
KIND OF CODIFYING EXISTING
POLICIES AND LAW WITHOUT,
LIMITING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
AND, YOU KNOW, COLLEGES MUST
PROVIDE TRAINING ON HOW STUDENTS
MIGHT ENGAGE EACH OTHER IN AN
ATMOSPHERE OF MUTUAL RESPECT, IT
REQUIRES COLLEGES TO ADOPT RULES
AND PROCEDURES, AND THE STUDENTS
GO TO CONDUCT PROHIBITING
VIOLENT, HARASSING, INTIMIDATING
AND DISCRIMINATING CONDUCT THAT
CREATES A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON
CAMPUS. AS INDICATED IN THE
ANALYSIS, THOSE CAMPUSES ALREADY
DO THAT. AND I THINK THAT
SOMETIMES WE RESTATE WHAT
EXISTING POLICIES ARE FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE STANDPOINT, BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, TO REITERATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF IT OR AS WE'VE
SEEN THESE LAST FEW MONTHS,
THERE MAY BE A LACK OF
CONSISTENCY, AND IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO ACTUALLY GET SOME
CONSISTENCY IN TERMS OF HOW
THESE RULES ARE APPLIED. AND I
THINK THAT'S WHERE THE FINAL
ITEM OF THE REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE. AND IF THERE ARE
ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE, WILL
ALLOW US TO MONITOR IT, TO SEE
IF IT'S REALLY, TRULY BEING
APPLIED IN A CONTENT NEUTRAL WAY
AND THAT CERTAIN COMMUNITIES
AREN'T BEING TARGETED MORE BY
COLLEGE CAMPUSES POLICIES THAN
OTHERS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THIS IS AS EVEN HANDED AS
POSSIBLE. SO THE BILL ACTUALLY,
I THINK IT DOESN'T DO AS MUCH AS
THE OPPOSITION MAY BE CONCERNED
WITH, BUT I DO THINK IT
REITERATES THE IMPORTANCE OF
ESTABLISHING SOME KIND OF
POLICIES THAT CREATE FOR A SAFE
ENVIRONMENT, WHILE NOT LIMITING
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. LOOK,
YOU KNOW, I MIGHT BE AGING
MYSELF, BUT I REMEMBER WHEN I
WAS AN UNDERGRAD, MARCHING
AGAINST AFTER THE RODNEY KING
BEATINGS, AND I'VE BEEN PEPPER
SPRAYED, YOU KNOW, PROTESTING
THE IRAQ WAR. I'VE BEEN ARRESTED
WITH UNION BROTHERS AND SISTERS,
ON A ON A ON PICKET LINES, AND,
YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS A HALLMARK
OF, OF OUR NATION. QUITE
FRANKLY, THAT'S HOW OUR NATION
STARTED WAS AN ACT OF CIVIL
DISOBEDIENCE, AND SO THAT IS WHY
IT WAS IMPORTANT. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR. ON TAKING
THE AMENDMENT, TO, TO LIMIT, THE
REQUIREMENT OF STUDENTS TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE CODE OF CONDUCT
AND REMOVING THE OBLIGATION TO
COMPLY WITH BECAUSE I REALLY
FEEL THAT WOULD HAVE HAD A
CHILLING EFFECT ON STUDENTS, ON
THE SENSE OF A STUDENT'S ABILITY
TO SPEAK OUT. AND, YOU KNOW,
POTENTIALLY YOU KNOW, PROTEST IN
WAYS THAT THAT THAT ARE, AGAIN,
WITHOUT HARASSING OR VIOLENT OR
AFFECTING OTHERS. BUT IN WAYS
THAT HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY A
PART OF KIND OF OUR AMERICAN
HISTORY, ESPECIALLY ON COLLEGE
CAMPUSES. IT'S A DIFFICULT
MOMENT TO BE HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS. BUT I THINK THIS
BILL, PROTECTS THAT ABILITY TO
BE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF,
PROTECTS THE ABILITY TO, FOR
ESPECIALLY ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES,
TO HAVE THAT FREE EXCHANGE OF
IDEAS AND THE ABILITY TO PROTEST
WHILE ENSURING THAT CODES OF
CONDUCT EXIST, THAT WE CAN THEN
TAKE A LOOK AT AS A LEGISLATURE
AND SEE HOW THEY'RE BEING
APPLIED AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO,
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE ALL THAT.
I'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK ON THIS
FROM ALL SIDES, OVER THE LAST
FEW WEEKS, AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT, ESPECIALLY FROM
THOSE THAT ARE MY CONSTITUENTS,
AND I'M GRATEFUL TO THE AUTHOR
FOR BEING OPEN TO HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS, IN A MANNER THAT
I THINK HAS GOT US TO A PLACE,
WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE'RE
PROTECTING THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, BUT ALSO HAVING SOME
TEMPLATE IN PLACE, IN PLACE FOR
A SAFER, CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU. CHAIR. CARL, I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR SUMMARY THAT YOU
JUST PROVIDED WITH A REALLY
BROAD PERSPECTIVE AND
UNDERSTANDING AND SENSITIVITY, I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO MY
COLLEAGUE, FROM ORINDA FOR HER
STORYTELLING, IMPORTANT
STORYTELLING ABOUT HISTORY. I
PARTICULARLY APPRECIATED,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN. THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT IT WASN'T JUST THE
HOLOCAUST, BUT THE YEARS BEFORE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK A LOT
ABOUT, TOO. AND IT'S A BIG
MOTIVATOR FOR ME TO BE INVOLVED
IN THE BILL THAT'S BEFORE YOU,
YOU KNOW, THE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS ARE PRECIOUS FOR
EVERYBODY, AND THERE'S NOTHING
THAT EVER COULD OCCUR IN THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD EVER
INTERFERE WITH THAT. BECAUSE I
KNOW THERE'D BE FOLKS THAT
WOULD, TAKE, IMMEDIATE
LITIGATION. SO WE HAVE OUR
INTERESTS ARE ALIGNED IN THAT
REGARD IN TERMS OF PROTECTING
THOSE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
BUT THE EMPHASIS IS ON FOR
EVERYBODY, FOR EVERYBODY ON A
COLLEGE CAMPUS THAT THAT HAVE
THIS PRIVILEGE TO ADVANCE THEIR
EDUCATION, HOPEFULLY IN A SAFE
AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, WHICH
THIS BILL TRIES TO PROMOTE. I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AGAIN
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THE
WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE AND I
SINCERELY ENCOURAGE AN AYE VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. TAKE ROLL CALL. VOTE
ON SB 1280 Þ. WE NEED A MOTION.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. TAKE
A ROLL CALL. VOTE PLEASE. ON SB
1287, MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALL FOR AYE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN CONNOLLY
. AYE. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA.
PACHECO PATTERSON. REYES. REYES.
AYE. SANCHEZ OKAY. WE'LL PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. SENATOR
WIENER HAS TWO BILLS ON FOR
TODAY. FIRST UP IS SB 966. I GOT
A I HAVE TO GO TO ARTS. YEAH, I
HAVE TO RUN OVER TO ARTS
COMMITTEE REALLY QUICK, WHICH IS
RIGHT ACROSS THE HALL. OKAY, I
GOT IT. OH I'VE NEVER. WELL,
THAT'S A SHORT REASON. VACATION.
OH WE HAVE ESTABLISHED QUORUM.
WE JUST NEED TO HAVE A MEMBER
HERE, AND I. ARTS COMMITTEE IS
WAITING. I'M THE ONLY BILL THEY
HAVE LEFT. SENATOR WIENER, I
APOLOGIZE IF WE MAY HAVE TO TAKE
A SHORT RECESS. I THE ARTS
COMMITTEE ONLY HAS MY BILL LEFT
TO HERE, AND WE HAVE NO MEMBERS
HERE. OKAY, WILL I BE BUMPED
THEN IF I DO THAT? NO. OKAY. NO,
I'LL BE NEXT. NO, NO, YOU WON'T
BE BUMPED. YOU'RE HERE AND READY
TO PRESENT, I'M JUST WAITING TO
SEE IF WE CAN HAVE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS HERE. GIVE ME ONE
MOMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
I'LL GO NEXT DOOR. OKAY OKAY. SO
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND
PROCEED? I THINK WE HAVE MEMBERS
ON THEIR WAY. SO IN THE INTEREST
OF TIME, LET'S GET STARTED ON SB
966. IS THAT OKAY? THAT'S OKAY.
YEP. OKAY, I YEAH. SO, AGAIN,
FILE ITEM EIGHT SB 966, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. OKAY
APOLOGIES, MR. CHAIR. I THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, I'M HERE TODAY
TO PRESENT, SENATE BILL 966. TO
ENACT LONG OVERDUE REGULATION OF
PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS, WHICH
ARE WHO ARE HUGE PLAYERS IN THE
HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY AND HAVE
LITTLE TO NO OVERSIGHT, AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION IN PLACE,
FIRST, I WANT TO START BY ASKING
THE COMMITTEE WE HAVE AUTHOR
AMENDMENTS THAT WE WERE ASKING
THE COMMITTEE TO ADOPT, IF THE
BILL MOVES OUT OF COMMITTEE
TODAY, PBMS ARE, MIDDLEMEN, IF I
MAY USE A GENDERED TERM IN THE
HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY. AND THEY
STARTED OUT AS SMALL
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTORS TO HELP
HEALTH PLANS NEGOTIATE
FORMULARIES AND DRUG PRICES.
TODAY, THE PBMS ARE SO MASSIVE,
PARTICULARLY THE BIG THREE, THAT
THEY ARE FREQUENTLY BIGGER THAN
THE HEALTH PLANS. THEY CAN OWN A
HEALTH PLAN. THEY OWN THEIR OWN
PHARMACIES, FREQUENTLY, AND THEY
ENJOY UNBELIEVABLY POWERFUL
LEVERAGE WITHIN HEALTH CARE,
WHICH DRIVES UP DRUG PRICING,
AND ALSO COMPLETELY UNDERMINES
LOCAL INDEPENDENT PHARMACIES AND
CHAIN PHARMACIES. SO THIS BILL
DOES A FEW THINGS. FIRST, FOR
THE FIRST TIME, IT REQUIRES THAT
PBMS GET LICENSED IN CALIFORNIA,
UNDER THE OVERSIGHT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SECOND,
IT STOPS THE PBMS FROM
DESTROYING INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIES. AND IT DOES. SO,
HERE WE GO. THANK YOU. AND THIS
IS JUST JUST FOR THE MEMBERS
NOTE IS SB 966, FILE EIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, THE BILL,
IN ADDITION TO REQUIRING
LICENSURE, PUTS A STOP TO THE
PBMS EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE AND
DESTROY INDEPENDENT PHARMACIES.
AND IT DOES SO, BY PROHIBITING
THE PRACTICE OF PATIENT STEERING
WHERE PBMS EFFECTIVELY
MANIPULATE OR FORCE PATIENTS TO
ONLY USE THE PBMS PHARMACY
INSTEAD OF THEIR LOCAL
NEIGHBORHOOD PHARMACY. AND THEY
HAVE VARIOUS WAYS THAT THEY
ACCOMPLISH THAT, IT ALSO
PROHIBITS THE PRACTICE OF SPREAD
PRICING, WHERE THE PBM CHARGES A
HIGHER PRICE TO THE HEALTH PLAN
FOR DRUGS AND THEN PAYS THE
PHARMACY A LOWER PRICE, WHICH
HARMS THE PHARMACY, AND, OF
COURSE, CREATES A SPREAD, THAT
INCREASES COST WITHIN THE HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM. AND THEN THE BILL
ADDRESSES THE INCENTIVES THAT
PBMS CURRENTLY HAVE TO FAVOR
HIGHER PRICED DRUGS. AND,
COLLEAGUES, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN
AND BOTH THE NEW YORK TIMES AND
WALL STREET JOURNAL WERE RECENT,
SCATHING EXPOSÉS ABOUT HOW PBMS
ARE DRIVING UP THE COST OF
DRUGS. AND THAT IS BECAUSE Kò
FORM OF COMPENSATION THEY HAVE
ARE DRUG REBATES WHERE THEY,
WILL, THEY WILL PRICE THE DRUG,
LET'S SAY, AT $1,000. AND THEN
GIVE A QUOTE UNQUOTE, REBATE TO
THE HEALTH PLAN OF, LET'S SAY,
$500. SO INSTEAD OF JUST
CHARGING 500, THEY PRICE IT AT
1000 AND THEY REBATE THAT 500.
AND THEN TAKE A CUT OF THAT,
REBATE PERCENTAGE. AND SO THE
HIGHER THE COST OF THE DRUG, THE
HIGHER THE REBATE AND THE HIGHER
THE CUT THAT THE PBM, RECEIVES.
AND THAT'S WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
ON MANY FORMULARIES, THERE IS NO
GENERIC INSULIN. THERE IS ONLY
NAME BRAND INSULIN. AND I COULD
GO ON AND ON SO THAT, REBATES
WILL NOT BE PROHIBITED, BUT THEY
WILL HAVE TO PASS THE ENTIRE
REBATE THROUGH TO THE HEALTH
PLAN, WHICH WILL HELP READJUST,
INCENTIVES, SO, COLLEAGUES, THIS
IS AN OVERDUE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. I DO WANT TO STRESS
THIS BILL. TO THE SURPRISE OF
MANY, RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, A VOTE IN
THE SENATE, LITERALLY EVERY
DEMOCRAT, EVERY PUBLICAN,
EVERYONE VOTED FOR IT HAS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, REGULATION
OF PBMS IN CONGRESS, THIS IS, AN
ISSUE WHOSE TIME HAS COME, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
WITH ME TODAY, TO TESTIFY. IS
CLINT HOPKINS A PHARMACIST AND
OWNER OF PUCCI'S PHARMACY HERE
IN SACRAMENTO, AND RACHEL
BLUCHER, THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR
THE CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS
ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR
SPONSORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM DOCTOR
CLINT HOPKINS, PHARMACIST AND
OWNER OF PUCCI'S PHARMACY,
INDEPENDENTLY OWNED IN
SACRAMENTO RIGHT HERE SINCE
1930. AS SENATOR WIENER HAS
MENTIONED, ALLOWING PBMS TO
CONTINUE UNREGULATED IN
CALIFORNIA IS A DANGER TO
CONSUMERS. PBMS CONTINUE. I'M
SORRY. IN OUR PREVIOUS HEARINGS,
THE OPPOSITION HAS POINTED OUT
THAT WE DON'T HAVE DATA. IN JUNE
2022, THE FTC ANNOUNCED AN
INQUIRY TO THE LARGEST SIX PBMS,
REQUIRING THEM TO PROVIDE DATA
THEY HAVE IGNORED. THE FTC,
LIKELY IN HOPES THAT AN
ADMINISTRATION CHANGE MAY FIND
THEM LESS SCRUTINY. A RECENT
STUDY FROM THREE AXIS ADVISORS
ON THE DRUG BUPRENORPHINE
NALOXONE, 8-2 MILLIGRAMS
SUBLINGUAL TABLETS, WHICH COST
$95.60, SHOWED THAT HEALTH PLANS
WERE CHARGING $112. I'M SORRY,
$100.12 ABOVE THE COST, AND
PHARMACIES WERE REIMBURSED
$18.77 BELOW THE COST. A SPREAD
OF $118.89 FOR A DRUG WHICH ONLY
COSTS $95.60. THE OPPOSITION
ALSO ARGUED THAT SPREAD PRICING
PROTECTS EMPLOYERS FROM HIGH
COST DRUGS IN THE FUTURE. NONE
OF US KNOW THE COST OF DRUGS
THAT AREN'T ON THE MARKET YET.
SO ARE THEY EFFECTIVELY
ADMITTING TO US THAT THEY
OVERCHARGE TO PAD THEIR COFFERS
AS A PURCHASER OF HEALTH CARE,
WHERE CAN I OPT OUT OF SUCH A
SCHEME? AND THE ANSWER IS I
CANNOT. THE OPPOSITION IS ALSO
STATED THAT GENERIC SUBSTITUTION
IS REQUIRED IN CALIFORNIA. WELL,
THAT'S TRUE, BUT ONLY WHEN THE
PBM ALLOWS IT AN EXAMPLE OF PBMS
OVERRIDING GENERIC SUBSTITUTION
WITH A BRAND ONLY REQUIREMENT IS
IN OUR OWN STATE MEDICAID
PROGRAM, WHERE WE HAVE
IMPLEMENTED VIDAK: PLUS OR
NATIONAL AVERAGE DRUG
ACQUISITION COST PLUS PRICING.
BUT THE PBM STILL HAS ENOUGH
INFLUENCE WITH REBATES THAT THEY
OBTAIN FROM THE BRAND
MANUFACTURER TO REQUIRE THE
BRAND NAME TO BE DISPENSED. TAKE
TRUVADA FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH
BEFORE A GENERIC WAS AVAILABLE,
COST $1,842 PER BOTTLE. THE
GENERIC ONLY COST 14. IT BEGS
THE QUESTION HOW MUCH OF A
REBATE COULD THE PBM BE GETTING?
FOR TOO LONG, PBMS HAVE OPERATED
IN THE SHADOWS, EXTRACTING
EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM
THE SYSTEM THAT THEY'VE DESIGNED
FOR THE DRUGS WE DISPENSE. PBMS
CONTINUE TO FIND WAYS TO SCAM
PHARMACIES AND CONSUMERS USING
PRACTICES SUCH AS EFFECTIVE
RATES AND SPREAD PRICING.
WITHOUT THIS BILL, PBMS WILL
CONTINUE TO RUN AFOUL, CAUSING
PHARMACIES TO CLOSE, LOCAL JOBS
TO BE LOST AND PATIENTS TO LOSE
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
, THANK YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING,
RACHEL BLÜCHER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS
ASSOCIATION AND THE INTEREST OF
TIME, I'M HERE FOR TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YEAH, WE
HEARD, DO WE? GOOD MORNING. DO
WE HAVE OTHERS IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE ABBY ALVAREZ, ON BEHALF
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO AIDS
FOUNDATION AND APLA HEALTH, GOOD
MORNING. FRED. WE'RE
REPRESENTING PHARMA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. VIVIAN LIANG
WITH NORTHEAST MEDICAL SERVICES
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, RAND MARTIN,
ON BEHALF OF THE AIDS HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION, WHICH OPERATES 14
COMMUNITY BASED PHARMACIES
ACROSS THE STATE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
JENNIFER SNYDER WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN
DRUG STORES AND ALSO THE
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES, IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR ALEX KAHN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHRONIC CARE
COALITION, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR,
AS WELL AS THE ALS, ALS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, MOIRA, ON BEHALF OF
BIOCOM, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, TIM MADDEN,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT
BRANDON MARKEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT MICHELLE RIVAS,
CALIFORNIA PHARMACISTS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. MEGAN
SUBERS ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES LGBT CENTER, A
CO-SPONSOR IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY MAJOR,
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
VICE CHAIR DIXON AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS BILL
HEAD WITH PCMA, THE PBM TRADE
ASSOCIATION HERE, RESPECTFULLY,
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 966. WE DO
NOT OPPOSE BEING LICENSED OR
HAVING TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
AND REPORTING DATA TO THE STATE
THAT CAN BE ANALYZED AND
REPORTED BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE. HOWEVER, THIS THIS
LEGISLATION GOES FAR BEYOND
OVERSIGHT AND IMPOSES
RESTRICTIONS ON THE VERY TOOLS
THAT PLANS CONTRACT PBMS TO
PROVIDE. PBMS ARE THE ONLY
ENTITY IN THE DRUG SUPPLY CHAIN
THAT EXERT ANY DOWNWARD PRESSURE
ON THE DRUG PRICE. I WILL FOCUS
MY COMMENTS TODAY, THOUGH, ON
THE ONE PROVISION I THINK,
RELEVANT TO THIS COMMITTEE'S
JURISDICTION, AND THAT IS
SECTION 17 080, WHICH IN ESSENCE
IMPOSES A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION
ON A PBM TO THE PATIENT. THIS A
SIMILAR PROVISION. IT ACTUALLY
CALLED IT FIDUCIARY. PROVISION
WAS IN THE SENATE VERSION
ORIGINALLY AND WAS TAKEN OUT.
BUT NOW IT'S COUCHED IN
DIFFERENT TERMS. BUT ESSENTIALLY
IT'S THE SAME PROVISION. THERE
IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PBM
AND A HEALTH PLAN. EVEN THOSE
THAT ARE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED.
PBMS CONTRACT WITH NUMEROUS
ENTITIES, NUMEROUS HEALTH PLANS.
EACH ONE OF THOSE HEALTH PLANS
HAS A LEGAL FIDUCIARY
REQUIREMENT TO THE ENROLLEE.
UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THIS WOULD
ESTABLISH A STATE FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION ON THE PBM TO THE
ENROLLEE, CREATING CONFLICT
CONFUSION, AND I AND WE THINK
FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION THAT WILL
LEAD TO HIGHER COSTS ULTIMATELY
FOR PAYERS AND FOR PATIENTS.
SOME STATES DO IMPOSE A GOOD
FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
REQUIREMENT ON PBMS DEALING WITH
PATIENTS, BUT NOT A SINGLE STATE
IMPOSES A REQUIREMENT LIKE THIS.
SO TWO STATES PREVIOUSLY HAD PBM
FIDUCIARY REQUIREMENTS AND BOTH
REPEALED THEM. WE BELIEVE THIS
PROVISION ALONG WITH THE OTHER
PROVISIONS THAT UNRELATED TO THE
REPORTING AND LICENSING, ARE
GOING TO ADD TO THE COST OF CARE
FOR THE PAYER AND ULTIMATELY FOR
THE PATIENT. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE ASK THAT YOU'VE NOT ADVANCED
SB 966. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS JOHN WINGER, ON BEHALF
OF AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PLANS, WERE THE NATIONAL TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR HEALTH PLANS,
HEALTH PLANS, LARGE BUSINESSES,
LABOR GROUPS ALL USE PBMS
VOLUNTARILY TO MANAGE THEIR DRUG
BENEFIT AND ULTIMATELY REDUCE
THE COST OF DRUGS, I WOULD SAY
THERE'S A LOT OF PROVISIONS IN
THIS BILL THAT TAKE AWAY OUR
OPTIONS FOR WHEN WE'RE
CONTRACTING WITH A PBM. AND SO
THAT'S WHERE OUR OPPOSITION
PRIMARILY LIES, PARTICULARLY
WITH, THERE'S WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
LICENSING. I THINK THAT'S A
CONVERSATION WE'RE WILLING TO
HAVE, BUT JUST OUTRIGHT BANNING
CONTRACT PROVISIONS PRIOR TO
RECEIVING THAT DATA OR DOING A
THOROUGH ANALYSIS, WE THINK IS,
IS A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE. WE DO
HAVE ISSUES WITH THE BANNING OF
SPREAD PRICING IN PARTICULAR.
THAT IS AN OPTION FOR PAYERS TO
CREATE MORE STABILITY IN THE
DRUG SPEND. AND CREATE MORE
STABILITY IN THE PREMIUM. I
THINK I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF MY
PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. WHEN THERE
IS A DRUG THAT COMES MID-YEAR
THAT'S AT A SKYROCKETING HIGH
COST, THAT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE
PLAN. THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE
MANUFACTURER THAT SET THAT
PRICE, AND SO SPREAD PRICING
DOES PROTECT SOME OF OUR PAYERS
AGAINST THOSE, THOSE GROSSLY
INFLATED PRICES MID-YEAR,
THERE'S BEEN COMMENTS MADE THAT,
THAT PBMS ARE DRIVING UP THE
COST OF DRUGS. I WOULD SAY THERE
WAS A US HOUSE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE THAT DID A MULTI YEAR
INVESTIGATION WITH SUBPOENA
POWER, THAT WAS CONDUCTED AND
THEY FOUND ALL OF THESE CLAIMS
TO NOT BE TRUE. AND I WOULD JUST
QUOTE THIS DATA THAT WAS NEVER
BEFORE, BEEN SHARED WITH THE
PUBLIC, UNDERMINES INDUSTRY
CLAIMS THAT PRICE INCREASES ARE
PRIMARILY DUE TO INCREASING
REBATES AND DISCOUNTS PAID TO
PBMS. IN ADDITION, DOCUMENTS
SHOWED THAT PBMS SECURED
CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS THAT
DISINCENTIVIZE DRUG COMPANIES
FROM RAISING LIST PRICES WITHOUT
THOSE PROVISIONS SECURED BY
PBMS, DRUG COMPANIES LIKELY
WOULD HAVE RAISED LIST PRICES
EVEN MORE. AND SO WE JUST
FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT PBM IS
DOING THE DRUG CHAIN, AND WE ARE
OPPOSED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 966? GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS. MARTIN
VENDIOLA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET
METAL WORKERS. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, OR GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS JED
HAMPTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH PLANS HERE
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
NAOMI PETRONE, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA LIFE
AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES,
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ANTHONY BUTLER TORRES WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HISPANIC CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS? I BELIEVE
WE DO HAVE A MOTION, BUT NOT A
SECOND YET. I'LL ASK YOU A
QUESTION, MADAM VICE CHAIR,
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR
INTRODUCING THIS BILL. I THINK
IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD,
ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS ON SOME OF THE
ASPECTS. JUST EXPLAIN, IF YOU
WOULD, YOUR, POSITIONING THE
DEPARTMENT, THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER TO OVERSEE THIS NEW
REGULATION, SURE. SO WHEN WE
FIRST INTRODUCED THE BILL, THAT
WE DESIGNATED THE BOARD OF
PHARMACY AS THE REGULATORY BODY,
WE GOT A LOT OF, FEEDBACK ON
THAT DECISION, AND WE
ULTIMATELY, MADE A CHANGE THERE
BECAUSE, IT'S CLEAR THAT MEMBERS
DID NOT WANT TO SEE THAT, AND SO
WE DID AT THAT POINT, SHIFT IT
OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE, I WILL SAY THIS AS
DIPLOMATICALLY AS I CAN, THE
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH
CARE HAS A LOT ON ITS PLATE, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS, IF
THIS BILL IS PASSED AND SIGNED
INTO LAW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT
GETS FULLY IMPLEMENTED AND
ENFORCED. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
CHALLENGES WITH ENFORCEMENT AT
DMHC, WHICH I HOPE ARE GOING TO
IMPROVE, BUT AT THE MOMENT THERE
ARE SOME CHALLENGES. OKAY,
ANOTHER QUESTION. THE, CIVIL
ACTION JUST I DON'T THINK THIS
IS A RELATED BILL, AND IT'S
MAYBE NOT EVEN A PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION, BUT THERE ARE SOME,
REMEDIES THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN,
SEEK. IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT
THERE'S NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION IN THE BILL. THE
ENFORCEMENT IS BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. SO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO
THAT, MISS FLETCHER. YEAH. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION,
THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION, AS SENATOR WIENER SAID.
THERE. AND I THINK THAT THERE,
THERE INITIALLY WAS AND THAT WAS
TAKEN OUT OF THE BILL IN
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS. AND SO WE
VERY MUCH WERE RESPONSIVE TO
THAT AND TOOK THAT OUT. AS WAS
HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE
ANALYSIS. AND I THINK THE
OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP, THERE IS
SOME CLARIFICATION AROUND THE
DUTY OF CARE TO ENSURE THAT
THERE THAT ULTIMATELY THE
PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER IS
INTACT, BUT IT DOES NOT CREATE A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. AND
REALLY ONLY APPLIES IN
SITUATIONS WHEN THERE MIGHT BE A
CONFLICT BETWEEN A DUTY OF CARE
THAT THE PBM OWES TO THE PLAN
AND TO THE CONSUMER, AND SO THAT
IS A LIMITED SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES. WE'RE NOT
INTENDING TO ALLOW CONSUMERS TO
ENFORCE THAT. OKAY. THEN ONE
FINAL QUESTION TO THE
OPPOSITION. I'VE MET IN MY OWN
COMMUNITY WITH A COUPLE OF
INDEPENDENT PHARMACIES, AND
THEY'VE SHOWN ME THE DATA WORK
THAT THEY'RE TRACKING AND THE
COST OF THE DRUGS THAT THE PBM
REQUIRES IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER
THAN THE DRUGS THAT THEY WOULD
GET ELSEWHERE. OR THEY KNOW THAT
THE COST IS ELSEWHERE FOR A
LOWER PRICED DRUG. I'VE HEARD
THIS NOW FROM A NUMBER OF
INDEPENDENT PHARMACIES. SO NOW
I'M CONCERNED, HOW AND TO KIND
OF DIRECT THE PHARMACEUTICAL
PURCHASES TO THE MAJOR
RETAILERS. I JUST AM CONCERNED
ABOUT THE SMALLER INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIES. HOW DO YOU RESPOND
TO THAT? AND THAT'S A VALID AND
THAT'S A VALID QUESTION. AND
WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE
IMPACT ON PHARMACIES. AND WE
HOPE THE DATA IS GOING TO SHOW
THAT. BUT WE'RE PUTTING POLICY
AHEAD OF THE DATA ANALYSIS.
RIGHT. LET'S FIND OUT THE ANSWER
TO THOSE QUESTIONS. AND THEN
DETERMINE POLICY. BUT THIS BILL
GOES BEYOND THE DATA COLLECTION
AND ANALYSIS AND PRESUPPOSES A
CONCLUSION. AND ALREADY AND IT
PUTS IN ALL THESE OTHER
ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. WE'RE
NOT OPPOSED TO BEING TRANSPARENT
AND GIVING THE DATA TO FIND OUT
THE ANSWER TO THAT. AND HOW IS
IT COMMON? DOES IT HAPPEN, AND
WHAT INSTANCES DOES IT HAPPEN?
SO WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT FOR
THOSE REASONS. BUT THIS THIS
BILL GOES ALREADY DETERMINES THE
OUTCOME OF THAT ANALYSIS AND IS
DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE
ALL THESE OTHER PUBLIC POLICY
DECISIONS WITHOUT DOING THE
ANALYSIS. SO I THINK DATA IS
IMPORTANT. I JUST BE CONCERNED
WITH THE LACK OF COMPETITION IN
THE MARKETPLACE FOR
PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS,
PARTICULARLY FOR THE SMALL
LITTLE GUY OR GAL, COMPETING
AGAINST THE LARGE, NATIONAL
BRANDS. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. CHAIR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON. GREAT. THANK
YOU, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO
FIRST, ASK THE OPPOSITION. WHAT?
YOU KNOW, THE I SAW THIS BILL
LAST WEEK. I MEAN, IT KIND OF
RUNS TOGETHER, SO, BUT, YOU
KNOW, THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
ON THE AG, BRINGING A CLAIM, AND
I JUST WANTED TO SEE, YOU KNOW
WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE, IF THAT
WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION OR
IF YOU EXPECTED THAT. NO. AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THE
SPONSORS ON, ON, ON, ON,
CHANGING THAT. WE CAN APPRECIATE
THIS NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, WE'D BE
AMENABLE TO THE NOTION OF, HAS
OTHER STATES HAVE DONE IS PBMS
HAVING A GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALING REQUIREMENT WHEN IT
COMES TO ENROLLEES. BUT YOU'RE
PUTTING YOU'RE PUTTING THEM AT
ODDS WITH THE PLAN. WHO DOES
HAVE A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO
THE ENROLLEE. AND IT'S GOING TO
CREATE INHERENT CONFLICT BECAUSE
YOU'RE SAYING THEY BOTH HAVE AN
ULTIMATE DUTY TO THE ENROLLEE,
AND THAT SUPERSEDES ANY CONTRACT
OBLIGATIONS BY DEFINITION, THE
PBM IS CONTRACTING WITH THE
FIDUCIARY. SO ANYTHING THE PBM
DOES OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE
PATIENT HAS RECOURSE THROUGH
THROUGH THEIR HEALTH PLAN.
FIDUCIARY. YEAH. AND THERE'S
ALREADY GOOD FAITH DEALING
THROUGH AB 315 AS WELL. I THINK
WE'RE STILL REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS. IT'S A LOT. IT'S
BEEN A KIND OF A MOVING TARGET.
IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THIS FLEW
OUT OF THE SENATE. THAT BILL WAS
A LOT DIFFERENT THAN IT HAS BEEN
HERE. A LOT'S BEEN PUT IN IN THE
SECOND HOUSE THAT WE'VE HAD
ISSUES WITH. AND THIS NEW ONE, I
THINK THE COMPONENTS OF IT, WHEN
YOU'RE LOOKING AT PUTTING THAT
DUTY ON TOP OF THE BROAD
DISCRETION THAT THE AG IS GOING
TO HAVE TO BRING ACTIONS, IT
MIGHT NOT BE SPECIFIC, PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION, BUT IT FEELS
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, LIGHT,
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY
BROAD DISCRETION. AND, COULD BE
USED PRETTY AGGRESSIVELY. SO WE
DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT.
I'M SORRY. I JUST NEED TO BE
REALLY CLEAR HERE. THERE'S NO
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IN THE
BILL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ENFORCES THE LAW, JUST LIKE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ENFORCES MANY
LAWS, AND SO WE OFTEN IN THIS
BUILDING, BECAUSE I'VE HAD BILLS
WHERE WE START WITH A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION. AND IN THE END,
WE ARE SORT OF FORCED INTO AN
ATTORNEY GENERAL ENFORCEMENT.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS HERE. IT'S
AN ATTORNEY GENERAL. ENFORCEMENT
DOES NOT FEEL LIKE A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION. IT'S NOT A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. AND IN
TERMS OF THE FIDUCIARY DUTY,
ULTIMATELY, THIS SYSTEM SHOULD
ALWAYS BE AND ONLY BE ABOUT
DELIVERING CARE TO PATIENTS, AND
SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER YOU CALL IT WHETHER IT'S
A DUTY OF FAIR DEALING OR A
FIDUCIARY DUTY. YES. THE PBM
SHOULD HAVE A DUTY TO THE
PATIENTS, AND THAT'S WHY THAT IS
IN THERE. IT DOES NOT CREATE A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, THANK
YOU TO SENATOR AND OPPOSITION,
ON THE, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED
THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
CHANGES, I THINK WITH, YOU KNOW,
I'VE THE ONE THING THAT I SORT
OF TAKE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH IS
THAT WE HAVE I NOW, I, I DID
HAVE A FULL SET OF HAIR WHEN I
JOINED THE LEGISLATURE 18 MONTHS
AGO, BUT SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE
BEEN DISCUSSING PBMS IN SEVERAL
LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS. AND I
WON'T SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE
ISSUES AT ALL. I'VE MET WITH
PHARMACISTS ON ALL SIDES OR, YOU
KNOW, AND COMPANIES AND, YOU
KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN KIND OF
DABBLING AROUND THE EDGES. AND
SO WE KNEW THAT THERE THERE WAS
SOME SMOKE BEING CREATED AROUND,
CONCERNS WITH PBMS. AND WE SAY,
HEY, WE WANT TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ON THAT. WELL, I
KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD
THOSE CONVERSATIONS OVER THE
LAST 18 MONTHS. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, NOT TO SAY WE ALWAYS GO
WITH, THE DIRECTION, BUT I MEAN,
I'LL JUST GIVE YOU KNOW, I WAS
TALKING WITH ONE OF THE
PHARMACISTS IN MY DISTRICT, ALSO
AN INDEPENDENT PHARMACIST, AND
HE WAS KIND OF WALKING ME
THROUGH HOW THE AUDIT GOES FOR
HIM. A RANDOM AUDIT. AND, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S LIKE LITTLE
PRACTICES LIKE THAT AND WHO
KNOWS WHAT PBM THAT WAS OR WHO
IT WAS. BUT I THINK THAT OUR
BRINGING SORT OF A SENSE OF
FRUSTRATION AND I THINK DESPITE
FLAWS THAT I, I THINK I SEE IN
THE BILL, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE,
I'VE MENTIONED LAST TIME, I DO
NOT LOVE WHATSOEVER THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE BEING IN
CHARGE OF THIS AND MUCH IS, IS,
MUCH FAITH I HAVE IN THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, YOU
KNOW, MY DISTRICT REALLY DEMANDS
THAT HE FOCUSES ON, YOU KNOW,
BRINGING THE INSURANCE MARKET.
YOU KNOW, FOR PROPERTY BACK ON,
YOU KNOW, GET THAT FIGURED OUT,
SORTED OUT ASAP. MAYBE LIKE A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, SO, SO I
THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT
I DON'T LOVE ABOUT THE BILL, BUT
I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO ME, IT'S.
HOW WOULD WE DABBLE AROUND IT
SOME MORE? YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD I
MEAN? DATA YOU KNOW, I, I MEAN,
WHAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU GUYS
WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT AND NOT
OPPOSE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN
YOU, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU HAVE
SPONSORING LEGISLATION. NO, WE
WOULD WE WOULD LOVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE
LICENSING THAT AND WOULD BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT LICENSING
THAT WOULD HAVE DATA AND HAVE
ANALYTICS AND HAVE REPORTING
DONE TO YOU. BECAUSE I THINK
WHAT YOU SAID IS VERY WE FIND
VERY COMMON IS THAT THAT THIS IS
THIS IS A COMPLEX THE DRUG
SUPPLY CHAIN IS COMPLEX. RIGHT.
SO YOU'RE PUT IN A POSITION OF
REALLY JUST PICKING A SIDE,
RIGHT. RATHER THAN MAKING, YOU
KNOW, I THINK POLICY CHOICES
BASED ON, ON, ON DATA AND BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE DRUG SUPPLY
CHAIN. ONE THING THAT'S SORT OF
BEEN, I THINK, REMISS. AND
ALTHOUGH THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN
VERY GOOD ABOUT BRINGING THIS
UP, IS ULTIMATELY REALLY IT
STARTS WITH THE MANUFACTURER AND
THE DRUG PRICES. RIGHT. AND THEN
WE'RE SORT OF HAVING TO PLAY
CATCH UP BASED, YOU KNOW, ON
THAT. AND HOW DO WE SORT OF, YOU
KNOW, DO THIS? I THINK THE
FRUSTRATING THING FOR US TOO IS
WHERE IS THE CONSUMER IN THIS,
WHAT IT'S CONSUMER IMPACT ON
THIS. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
RURAL PHARMACIES, INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIES, BUT WHERE WHAT'S THE
CONSUMER IMPACT. BECAUSE FROM
OUR PERSPECTIVE, AT THE END OF
THE DAY THIS IS GOING TO
NEGATIVELY IMPACT PATIENTS.
YEAH. AND I WOULD JUST SAY I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONVERSATION
HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN AT THE TABLE ON
ANY OF THAT. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SPONSORS
AND THE AUTHOR, WHICH HAS BEEN
APPRECIATED, I HAVEN'T REALLY
SEEN ANY INFO HEARINGS. THERE
WAS MAYBE ONE IN A SELECT
COMMITTEE HEARING THAT WE GOT
ABOUT TWO MINUTES OF TESTIMONY
ON, SO THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN
A TON OF DISCUSSION, BUT I WOULD
SAY WE THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING
TO A BETTER PLACE IN THE SENATE.
AND THEN WE HAD A TON OF
AMENDMENTS DROPPED ON US IN THE
SECOND HOUSE. WE'VE OFFERED
AMENDMENTS MULTIPLE TIMES
THROUGH THIS PROCESS. ALL OF
IT'S BEEN REJECTED. SO WE'VE
TRIED TO BE AT THE TABLE, BUT
IT'S JUST THERE SEEMS TO BE A
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT ON
THAT. I GUESS. YEAH AND I, I
JUST ALSO WANT TO SAY THIS IS
NOT, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CLEAR
THAT THIS IS NOT LIKE THERE'S
NEVER BEEN WORK ON PBM,
TRANSPARENCY OR REGULATION. AND
THIS BILL JUST MATERIALIZED OUT
OF NOWHERE. NOT ONLY HAVE A
WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STATES ARE,
THEY'RE WAY AHEAD OF US IN RED
STATES, BLUE STATES, VERY
BIPARTISAN. BUT THEY'RE, YOU
KNOW, ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOOD DID A
BILL A FEW YEARS BACK. I CAN'T
REMEMBER THE BILL. NUMBER THREE
5315 AB. 315, THAT, YOU KNOW,
WAS ALSO OPPOSED, AND THAT WAS
ABOUT GREATER TRANSPARENCY. SO
THERE'S A LOT OF DATA OUT THERE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACADEMIC
AND POLICY RELATED DATA WORK IN,
IN, IN CONGRESS, AT THE STATE
LEVEL, AT UNIVERSITIES, IN THE
PRESS, BOTH WALL STREET JOURNAL
AND NEW YORK TIMES, LIKE,
THERE'S BEEN A LOT HERE. AND SO
THIS IS NOT LIKE WRITING ON A
BLANK SLATE. CAN I ASK YOU A
QUESTION, SENATOR? YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE GONE THROUGH
HOW MANY IS THIS? THE FOURTH
ONE. FOURTH ONE? YEAH. AND,
THERE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW,
CHANGES ALONG THE WAY. AND I
KNOW JUST WITH PIECE OF
LEGISLATION I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW,
THE IT ALWAYS MAKES IT'S USED TO
NOT HAPPEN BACK IN THE DAY, BUT
IT'S HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, IT
HAPPENS NOW BASICALLY WHERE YOU
CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT EVEN
AFTER IT PASSES POLICY
COMMITTEES. AND YOU TALK WITH,
YOU KNOW, THE CHAIRS OF THE
COMMITTEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
IS THERE IS THIS LIKE THE FINAL
FORM OR YOU THINK CONVERSATIONS
WILL CONTINUE TO, TO OCCUR? YEAH
AND I ALSO JUST BEFORE I ANSWER
THAT, I WANT TO KNOW IN TERMS OF
CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN
THE ASSEMBLY, THE FUNDAMENTAL
STRUCTURE OF THE BILL IS THE
SAME THE OBLIGATIONS, THE THINGS
THAT THEY OBJECT TO. YOU KNOW,
AT HEART IN TERMS OF THE SPREAD,
PRICING, REBATES, ETC. IT'S
THAT'S NOT MEANINGFULLY
DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE BILL.
I THINK THE BILL IS IN FANTASTIC
SHAPE, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW,
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE
ADMINISTRATION COMES IN OVER THE
SUMMER AND SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE
NEED TO SEE. AND I CAN NEVER
PREDICT, PREDICT WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATION WILL DO THAT ON
ANY GIVEN BILL. AND WHAT THEY'LL
SAY. SO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY,
THAT'S ALWAYS, OUT THERE, BUT WE
VIEW THIS BILL AS, YOU KNOW,
BEING WELL BAKED AND YOU'VE NOW
SEEN IT TWICE. AND WE'VE MADE A
LOT OF CHANGES TO IT SINCE THE
BEGINNING, INCLUDING REMOVING
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. AND
SO FORTH. SO WE THINK THE BILL
IS IN, IN GOOD SHAPE. AND I
REALLY APPRECIATED YOUR SUPPORT
AND HEALTH COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
WAS THERE A PRIVATE RIGHT IN THE
SENATE THERE? INITIALLY THERE
WAS. AND WE REMOVED IT IN THE
SENATE. OKAY. YEAH. GREAT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I KNOW WE'VE BOTH
DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THE HEALTH
CARE SPACE, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS
OF COSTS, AND I THINK THERE ARE
DIFFERENT CHOKE POINTS. AND I
THINK THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THIS
IS AN AREA THAT NEEDS, SOME KIND
OF OVERSIGHT IN TERMS OF THE
COST THAT AS IT, AS THE PB,
WE'VE SEEN DIFFERENT AS
INDICATED BY YOUR WORK AS WELL
AS THE ANALYSIS THAT, THERE ARE
POINTS AT WHICH WHEN IT GOES TO
PBMS THAT I THINK NEED FURTHER
ANALYSIS AND OVERSIGHT IN TERMS
OF ENSURING THAT WE'RE NOT
ADDING COSTS TO THE CONSUMER AND
COST TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
OVERALL. AND SO I APPRECIATE
YOUR WORK ON THIS. IT'S
COMPLICATED, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT,
BUT I ALSO AGREE, I THINK THE
BILL IS IN A GOOD POSITION AND A
GOOD PLACE. RIGHT NOW, AND WE'LL
ALL AWAIT WHAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS TO SAY ABOUT
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, I
THINK WE'VE SAID IT ALL. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU TAKE A ROLL
CALL, VOTE ON SB 966. MESH
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL
FOR AYE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. HANEY, MAIENSCHEIN
MACKINNON. PACHECO. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. REYES SANCHEZ.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PLACE THAT BILL
ON CALL. THAT WAS THE FASTEST
ROLL CALL I EVER HEARD. THAT'S
IMPRESSIVE. AND THEN, ITEM TEN,
SB 1047. THANK YOU. SIR THANK
YOU. OKAY YEAH, LIKE RIGHT OVER
HERE. HERE. OR YOU CAN. WHAT IS
IT? DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO
YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE FOR,
WORKING WITH US ON SB 1047, A
BILL TO, TRY TO, IMPROVE SAFETY
OUTCOMES AROUND OUR INCREDIBLY
EXCITING INNOVATION IN AI, FIRST
OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT I'LL
BE ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS THAT
WERE CRAFTED IN CONSULTATION
WITH THE COMMITTEE REGARDING
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS,
RESTRUCTURING THE ENFORCEMENT
SECTION, AND THEN SOME TECHNICAL
AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS THAT
FLOWED OUT OF THE PRIVACY
COMMITTEE. AND AS I STATED IN
PRIVACY, AND I WILL STATE HERE
AGAIN TODAY THAT I WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK TO REFINE THIS BILL IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMITTEE,
BUT ALSO IN CONSULTATION WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND IN THE
COMMUNITY AND IN THE AI SPACE,
INCLUDING THE OPEN SOURCE SPACE.
SO I INTRODUCED THIS BILL IN
FEBRUARY, BUT THE WORK STARTED
MUCH EARLIER, MY TEAM AND I HAVE
HAD HUNDREDS OF CONVERSATIONS
WITH FOLKS IN THE AI SPACE, AND
ACADEMIA POLICY, ETC. STARTING
IN EARLY 2023, WE IN FACT, LAST
FALL, SEPTEMBER, TOOK THE
UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF
INTRODUCING AN INTENT BILL WITH
A DETAILED OUTLINE OF WHAT
ULTIMATELY BECAME SB 1047. OUR
GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO BE VERY
TRANSPARENT ABOUT THIS AND TO
WELCOME CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK,
AND WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES TO THE BILL EVEN BEFORE
IT CAME TO ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES,
BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE IN
THE AI SPACE, INCLUDING IN THE
OPEN SOURCE SPACE, I DO WANT TO
SAY, AND I DID, A LETTER THAT I
KNOW WAS SUBMITTED AROUND, I
NEVER HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH ANYONE
OPPOSING ANY BILL THAT I AUTHOR.
THAT'S DEMOCRACY. AND IT'S,
WELCOME AND IMPORTANT. AND I
HEARTILY WELCOME CONSTRUCTIVE
FEEDBACK, EVEN FROM CRITICS OR
OPPONENTS OF BILLS. I DO THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE BE
ACCURATE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
BILL. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAVE
BEEN SOME DIALOG ABOUT THIS BILL
THAT HAS SPREAD SOME,
UNWARRANTED FEAR AND CONCERN
WITHIN, ESPECIALLY THE STARTUP
COMMUNITY, THIS BILL APPLIES TO
LARGE LABS WHERE THEY'RE
SPENDING OVER $100 MILLION TO
TRAIN INCREDIBLY LARGE AND
POWERFUL MODELS THAT DON'T EVEN
EXIST TODAY. BUT WILL, SOON.
THIS BILL IS PRO-INNOVATION IN
MANY WAYS, AND I SUPPORT
INNOVATION IN THE AI SPACE, THIS
BILL IS NOT GOING TO SEND ANY AI
DEVELOPERS TO PRISON. THERE HAVE
BEEN STATEMENTS THAT IF YOU'RE
IF YOU DEVELOP A MODEL AND
RELEASE IT AND IT DOES SOMETHING
THAT YOU DIDN'T ANTICIPATE OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR HARM
SOMEONE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO
PRISON. THAT IS FALSE, THE BILL
HAS A STANDARD PERJURY PROVISION
THAT JUST LIKE IF YOU LIE
INTENTIONALLY LIE AND
MISREPRESENT TO THE GOVERNMENT
ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE
APPLICATION OR A TAX RETURN OR A
CAL FRESH APPLICATION, THAT IS
PERJURY, NOT IF IT WAS A
MISTAKE, BUT IF YOU LIE AND
THAT'S THE CASE HERE. AND SO
THIS IDEA THAT THIS IS GOING TO
SEND, DEVELOPERS TO PRISON IS A
SCARE TACTIC. AND I WOULD ASK
FOLKS TO STOP MAKING THAT CLAIM,
THE LIABILITY THAT'S CREATED IN
THIS BILL IS INCREDIBLY FOCUSED
AND NARROW, ONLY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN FILE A LAWSUIT. AND
ONLY IF SOMEONE DOES NOT PERFORM
A SAFETY EVALUATION OR VIOLATES
A PROVISION OF THE BILL. AND I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE
TO UNDERSTAND THAT AI DEVELOPERS
CAN GET SUED TODAY. IF YOU
RELEASE A MODEL TODAY, NOT EVEN
A BIG ONE, EVEN A SMALL ONE, AND
IT CAUSES HARM TO SOMEONE,
SOMEONE CAN SUE YOU FOR THAT.
UNDER BACKGROUND TORT LAW. AND
THAT'S TRUE IN CALIFORNIA. AND
PROBABLY EVERY OTHER STATE. AND
THAT IS THE LAW TODAY. AND NOT
JUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT
ANY PRIVATE PARTY WHO'S HARMED.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS
BILL, THIS BILL IN TERMS OF
LIABILITY, IS SO PROFOUNDLY MORE
NARROW THAN EXISTING TORT LAW,
ONLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
ONLY IN VERY LIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE, I ALSO, JUST
WANT TO, STRESS THAT, THAT THE
BILL, WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO
BE AS CLEAR AS WE CAN BE ABOUT
THE BILL REQUIRES AND
FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT THE BILL
REQUIRES IS THAT IF YOU ARE
GOING TO TRAIN AND RELEASE ONE
OF THESE MASSIVELY LARGE MODELS,
WHICH MODELS THAT COULD CAUSE
INCREDIBLE GOOD TO HAPPEN IN THE
WORLD, CURE DISEASE, YOU KNOW,
FIND CURES FOR DISEASES, FIND
SOLUTIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE,
MODELS THAT ABSOLUTELY CAN MAKE
THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE FOR
EVERYONE. AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS
SO IMPORTANT AND SO EXCITING,
BUT JUST TO SAY THAT IF YOU'RE
GOING TO BE TRAINING AND
RELEASING THESE MODELS THAT ARE
SO INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, DO AN
EVALUATION OF LARGE RISKS. AND
IF YOU IDENTIFY A SIGNIFICANT,
HUGE RISK OF HUGE HARM, TAKE
BASIC STEPS TO TRY TO REDUCE
THAT RISK, NOT ELIMINATE IT.
LIFE IS NOT ABOUT ELIMINATING
RISK. IT'S ABOUT REDUCING RISK.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK
ABOUT HOW, OH, THIS IS
IMPOSSIBLE, OR WE CAN'T DO THIS
OR IT'S NOT THIS TESTING DOESN'T
EXIST. I WANT TO BE REALLY
CLEAR. ALL OF THE LARGE LABS
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AT THE WHITE
HOUSE IN SOUTH KOREA A MONTH OR
SO AGO, IN STATEMENTS THAT THEY
MADE ALL OF THE LARGE LABS HAVE
COMMITTED TO DOING THIS, THESE
SAFETY EVALUATIONS, THEY'VE ALL
COMMITTED TO IT OVER AND OVER
AGAIN. THEY HAVE ENTIRE
POLICIES, THAT THEY'VE RELEASED
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO
TO DO RESPONSIBLE SCALING OF
THEIR AI MODELS AND THAT'S ALL
WE'RE ASKING FOLKS TO DO. WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE AN OPEN DOOR.
IF SOMEONE SAYS, HEY, THE WAY
YOU THE WAY YOU, THE LANGUAGE
YOU'VE USED AROUND THE TESTING
IS WRONG. WE THINK IT SHOULD BE
PHRASED DIFFERENTLY. I'M ALL
EARS, BUT THIS IS A REASONABLE
BILL, IT REQUIRES THESE BASIC,
VERY LIGHT TOUCH SAFETY
MEASURES. IT REQUIRES YOU, IF A
MODEL IS STILL IN YOUR
POSSESSION, TO BE ABLE TO SHUT
IT DOWN, NOT AFTER YOU RELEASE
IT. IT'S IN YOUR POSSESSION, IT
REQUIRES CLOUD SERVICES TO
ACTUALLY KNOW WHO IS BUYING UP A
WHOLE BUNCH OF SPACE TO DO THIS
KIND OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THEY
KNOW WHO THEIR CUSTOMER IS. IT
REQUIRES PRICING TRANSPARENCY,
AND IT CREATES CAL COMPUTE TO
TRY TO EXPAND ACCESS TO COMPUTE
SO THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE A
LOT OF RESOURCES, CAN INNOVATE.
THIS IS A GOOD BILL WHOSE TIME
HAS COME, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR IVO. AND THE ONE LAST
THING I WANT TO SAY, THERE'S
BEEN SOME ALSO SOME DRAMATIC
STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW THIS IS
GOING TO SOMEHOW UNDERMINE,
INNOVATION OR PUSH COMPANIES OUT
OF CALIFORNIA, I THINK I AND
MANY PEOPLE COMPLETELY DISPUTE
THAT. WE HEAR THAT IN THIS
BUILDING. A LOT. WE HEARD IT
WHEN THE DATA PRIVACY LAW WAS
PENDING, THAT IT WAS GOING TO
PUSH EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA OUT.
IT DIDN'T. CALIFORNIA LED THE
WAY. WE SHOULD LEAD THE WAY
AGAIN. I ASK FOR YOUR AYE. VOTE
WITH ME TODAY, TO TESTIFY, IS,
DAN HENDRICKS, THE DIRECTOR OF
THE CENTER FOR AI SAFETY, ONE OF
OUR SPONSORS. AND SUNNY GANDHI,
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF POLITICAL
AFFAIRS OF, ENCODE JUSTICE.
ALSO, ONE OF OUR SPONSORS, WE
ALSO HAVE FOR TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS AROUND SAFETY TESTING,
CHRIS PAINTER, WHO'S THE POLICY
DIRECTOR OF MODEL EVALUATION AND
THREAT RESEARCH, METER, ASKED
FOR. AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS DAN HENDRICKS. I'M AN AI
RESEARCHER AND THE DIRECTOR OF
THE CENTER FOR AI SAFETY, A
NONPROFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
AIMED AT ENSURING AI SYSTEMS ARE
BENEFICIAL AND ALIGNED WITH
HUMAN INTERESTS. OUR SISTER
ORGANIZATION, THE CENTER FOR AI
SAFETY ACTION FUND, IS A
CO-SPONSOR OF SENATOR WIENER'S
SB 1047, SB 1047 IS A CRUCIAL
AND NECESSARY STEP TO ENSURE THE
SAFE DEVELOPMENT OF INCREASINGLY
ADVANCED AI SYSTEMS. AS THESE
SYSTEMS BECOME RAPIDLY MORE
GENERAL AND MORE POWERFUL, IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT WE PUT IN PLACE
SAFEGUARDS TO MITIGATE THEIR
RISKS. MY RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
INCLUDE THE JLU ACTIVATION
FUNCTION, WHICH IS USED IN
CHATGPT AND OTHER STATE OF THE
ART AI MODELS, AND I'VE MADE
SOME OF THE MOST USED BENCHMARKS
FOR EVALUATING THE CAPABILITIES
OF FRONTIER AI SYSTEMS. I ALSO
RESEARCH WAYS TO MEASURE THE
SAFETY OF THESE MODELS. AN
EXAMPLE IS THE WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION PROXY EVALUATION
THAT I CREATED WITH SCALE AI.
HOWEVER, PURELY TECHNICAL
RESEARCH SOLUTIONS ARE NOT
SUFFICIENT. WE NEED A
MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH THAT
INCLUDES PROACTIVE GOVERNMENT
POLICIES TO COMPLEMENT AND
STRENGTHEN TECHNICAL AI SAFETY
MEASURES BY SETTING CLEAR
REQUIREMENTS AROUND SAFETY
TESTING, SECURITY AND
TRANSPARENCY FOR THE MOST
ADVANCED AI SYSTEMS, SB 1047
WILL CREATE POWERFUL INCENTIVES
FOR COMPANIES TO PRIORITIZE
SAFETY. CALIFORNIA HAS AN
INCREASING HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LEAD THE WORLD BY EXAMPLE IN
RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
GOVERNANCE. BY PASSING SB 1047,
WE CAN BALANCE REAPING THE
IMMENSE BENEFITS OF AI WHILE
MITIGATING ITS MOST SEVERE
RISKS. THAT'S WHY I URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS SUNNY GANDHI AND I'M THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF POLITICAL
AFFAIRS AT ENCODE JUSTICE, ONE
OF THREE CO-SPONSORS OF SB 1047.
WE ARE THE LEADING GLOBAL YOUTH
MOVEMENT FOR SAFE, EQUITABLE AI
WITH OVER 1000 MEMBERS ACROSS
EVERY INHABITED CONTINENT.
ENCODE JUSTICE WAS CREATED TO
GIVE YOUNG PEOPLE A VOICE IN
SHAPING HOW AI SYSTEMS WILL
AFFECT OUR FUTURE. SINCE THEN,
WE HAVE ADVISED STAKEHOLDERS
RANGING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND WITH
CONGRESS NOW FAILING TO ACT, WE
LOOK TO CALIFORNIA TO LEAD THE
WAY. THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROUD TO
SPONSOR SB 1047. IT REQUIRES THE
DEVELOPERS OF FRONTIER AI
SYSTEMS TO TEST THEIR MODELS FOR
CATASTROPHIC HAZARDS, IMPLEMENT
COMMON SENSE SAFETY PRACTICES,
AND REPORT THEIR FINDINGS TO THE
GOVERNMENT. THIS LEGISLATION
WILL HELP ENSURE THAT AI
DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA IS
SAFE, SECURE AND EQUITABLE.
DESPITE THE CLEAR NEED FOR THESE
SAFEGUARDS, ADVOCATING FOR THIS
BILL HAS COME WITH SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES, BOTH ME PERSONALLY
AND IN CODE. JUSTICE AS AN
ORGANIZATION HAVE HAD OUR
PROFESSIONAL CREDIBILITY
UNDERMINED, OUR PEOPLE
THREATENED, AND THE LEGITIMACY
OF OUR VOICE QUESTIONED. LET ME
BE CLEAR WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OUR
FUTURE IS AT STAKE. SB 1047 ASKS
FOR EXTREMELY REASONABLE
SAFEGUARDS THAT ONLY TARGET THE
LARGEST PLAYERS AT A SUMMIT IN
SEOUL JUST ONE MONTH AGO, ALMOST
EVERY MAJOR AI LAB VOLUNTARILY
COMMITTED TO SIMILAR MEASURES.
WE ARE SIMPLY CODIFYING WHAT THE
INDUSTRY ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES AS
BEST PRACTICES IN A WAY THAT
CLARIFIES AND REINFORCES
EXISTING LAW. FOR 20 YEARS, WE
HAVE SEEN SOCIAL MEDIA IMPACT
SOCIETY WITH A CASCADE OF
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. WHY WOULD
WE LET TECH COMPANIES DO THE
SAME? NOW AND SET THE AGENDA ON
AI? A DECADE AGO, NOBODY
BOTHERED TO THINK ABOUT ASKING
FACEBOOK, HAVE YOU EVEN
ATTEMPTED TO WORK OUT THE
EFFECTS OF YOUR ALGORITHMS ON
SOCIETY? HAVE YOU TRIED TO
MITIGATE THOSE HARMS? MAYBE IF
THEY HAD, THE WORLD WOULD BE A
BETTER PLACE. I URGE YOU TO
THINK ABOUT THAT AS YOU VOTE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1047? KIM STONE
STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
CONSUMER WATCHDOG IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ARI KAGAN ON BEHALF
OF AMENTUM, A STARTUP THAT I
FOUNDED AND ON BEHALF OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY, CALIFORNIA,
ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. TERRY. OLLI, WITH
ECONOMIC SECURITY CALIFORNIA
ACTION, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
TYLER. AND ON BEHALF OF CENTER
FOR AI SAFETY ACTION FUND
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
TERRY BRENNAN, ON BEHALF OF SEIU
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. MARIKO YOSHIHARA, ON BEHALF OF
TECH EQUITY IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1047?
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS.
LARA BENNETT, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO SB 1047,
FIRST AND FOREMOST, OUR MEMBER
COMPANIES TAKE THE SAFE AND
SECURE INNOVATION OF AI
SERIOUSLY. HOWEVER, WE
UNFORTUNATELY CONTINUE TO
DISAGREE WITH THE ROUTE BY WHICH
SB 1047 ATTEMPTS TO GET THERE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE BILL GOES
FAR BEYOND SAFEGUARDS. IT MAKES
CERTAIN DEVELOPERS GUARANTEE
THAT THEY CAN PREVENT CERTAIN
HARMS SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY.
WHILE WE ARE CONTINUING TO
ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
SPECIFICALLY AS THEY RELATE TO
LIABILITY BASED ON OUR INITIAL
ASSESSMENT, WE BELIEVE OUR
ISSUES WILL PERSIST. SB 1047 IS
ALMOST EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON
DELIVERING DEVELOPER LIABILITY
PLACES AN UNTENABLE LEVEL OF
RISK ON DEVELOPERS THAT ARE JUST
ONE PART OF THE AI VALUE CHAIN,
AS OPPOSED TO HOLDING BAD ACTORS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HARM THEY
CAUSE. REQUIRING FRONTIER MODEL
DEVELOPERS TO IMPLEMENT FULL
SHUTDOWN CAPABILITIES AND TO
CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY, THAT A MODEL WILL NOT
LEAD TO CERTAIN OUTCOMES,
REGARDLESS OF THE INTERFERING
ACTIONS OF A THIRD PARTY, IS NOT
ONLY UNREASONABLE, BUT
UNREALISTIC. CONSIDER THE
EQUIVALENT OF SB 1047. IN TERMS
OF ROAD SAFETY, IT'S AKIN TO
REQUIRING DESIGNERS OR
DEVELOPERS OF ENGINES OF A
CERTAIN HORSEPOWER TO CERTIFY
THAT NO ONE CAN USE OR MISUSE
THE ENGINE TO BUILD A CAR OR
OTHER PRODUCT THAT IS
UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS, AND THEN
HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE
AUTOMATICALLY LIABLE FOR ANY
RESULTING HARM OF THE END
PRODUCT, EVEN IF THEIR COMPONENT
WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND THEY HAD
NO ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SOMEONE ELSE'S PRODUCT, NEITHER
AN ENGINE MANUFACTURER NOR AN AI
MODEL DEVELOPER CAN MAKE SUCH A
CERTIFICATION. WHEN THERE ARE SO
MANY MULTIPLE INTERMEDIARIES,
INTERMEDIARY FACTORS REQUIRING
THEM TO DO SO WOULD HAVE UP IN
TRADITIONAL PRODUCT LIABILITY
LAW AND SLOW, IF NOT STOP,
CUTTING EDGE AI DEVELOPMENT AND
INNOVATION, INCLUDING BOTH BOTH
OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CLOSED SOURCE
MODELS. STATED ANOTHER WAY, THIS
BILL WILL NOT LET LEND TO SAFER
TECHNOLOGY REGARDLESS OF INTENT.
THE IMPACT EXTENDS FAR BEYOND A
HANDFUL OF LARGE DEVELOPERS AND
TRICKLES DOWNSTREAM, DISRUPTING
THE ENTIRE AI ECOSYSTEM FROM
STARTUPS AND SMALL BUSINESSES
USING AI TO AI STARTUPS THAT
LOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING
ON THE LATEST, MORE CAPABLE AI
MODELS. TO RESEARCHERS. FOR
THESE AND OTHER REASONS, WE
OPPOSE SB 1047. THANK YOU. SO
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JOHN STOICA,
AND I'VE BEEN A PROFESSOR AT UC
BERKELEY SINCE 2000. I'M
CURRENTLY DOING RESEARCH IN AI,
AND I'M LEADING THE SKY
COMPUTING LAB AT BERKELEY. OVER
THE PAST 15 YEARS AT BERKELEY,
WE HAVE CREATED SOME OF THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS
FOR AI AND BIG DATA. WE HAVE
CREATED A DE FACTO STANDARD FOR
BIG DATA PROCESSING. ONE OF THE
SYSTEMS, WHICH HAS BEEN USED BY
OPENAI TO TRAIN THEIR CHATGPT
MODELS. THE MOST POPULAR OPEN
SOURCE SYSTEMS TO SERVE LARGE
LANGUAGE MODELS AND CHATBOT
ARENA, ARGUABLY THE MOST TRUSTED
SYSTEM TO EVALUATE THE
CAPABILITIES OF LARGE LANGUAGE
MODELS, WHICH HAS BEEN RECENTLY
USED BY COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE
AND OPENAI TO EVALUATE THEIR OWN
MODELS. I AM ALSO THE CO-FOUNDER
OF FOUR COMPANIES CONVIVA,
DATABRICKS, ANYSCALE, AND
OPAQUE. OF THOSE, THE LAST THREE
ARE BUILT ON THE OPEN SOURCE
SOFTWARE WE DEVELOPED AT
BERKELEY AND ARE COMMERCIALIZING
AI IN ONE FORM OF ANOTHER'S.
OPAQUE IS A SECURITY COMPANY
WHICH AIMS TO PROTECT USER
PRIVACY AND DATA
CONFIDENTIALITY. I REVIEWED THIS
BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM, AND I
AM ALL FOR REASONABLE CHECKS AND
BALANCES FOR AI DEVELOPMENT AND
DEPLOYMENT, BUT THIS IS NOT THE
WAY TO GO. WHILE THIS BILL IS
CALLED SAFE AND SECURE
INNOVATION FROM FRONTIER
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS,
IN ITS CURRENT FORM, IT WILL DO
THE OPPOSITE. IT WILL HURT THE
INNOVATION IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT
WILL RESULT IN A MORE DANGEROUS
RATHER THAN A SAFER WORLD. LET
ME EXPLAIN. FIRST, IF THIS BILL
PASSES WHEN IT COMES TO OPEN
SOURCE MODELS, I PREDICT THAT
WITHIN ONE YEAR WE WILL ALL USE
OPEN SOURCE MODEL DEVELOPED
OVERSEAS, LIKELY IN CHINA. WHY
BECAUSE THIS LAW WILL DISCOURAGE
A BUILDING. OPEN SOURCE MODELS
IN CALIFORNIA AND LIKE THE US
AND CHINESE OPEN SOURCE MODELS
ARE ALREADY VERY COMPETITIVE
INDEED. THREE OUT OF TOP SIX
OPEN SOURCE MODELS TODAY ARE
FROM CHINA, ACCORDING TO OUR
CHATBOT ARENA EVALUATION.
SECOND, IF THIS BILL PASSES AND
CALIFORNIA WILL LOSE ITS
COMPETITIVE EDGE WHEN IT COMES
TO AI. WHY? BECAUSE AS A
RESEARCHER IN SUCH A FAST
GROWING FIELD, YOU DO NOT WANT
TO BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRARY
LIMITATIONS. YOU GO ELSEWHERE
WHERE YOU CAN DO YOUR BEST
RESEARCH MORE AND MORE PHD
STUDENTS OF CHINESE ORIGINS WILL
GO BACK TO CHINA, WHILE OTHERS
MIGHT CONSIDER GOING TO SAUDI
ARABIA OR UAE. THANK YOU. CAN
ENJOY HUGE FUNDING FOR THEIR
RESEARCH AND THIS IS ALREADY
HAPPENED. THANK YOU. ONE ONE
MONTH. THANK YOU. I'VE ALREADY
ALLOWED YOU ACTUALLY, BUT I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1047? GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
NAOMI PATRONA, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. GOOD
MORNING. JAMIE HUFF, ON BEHALF
OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU, GOOD
MORNING, MISTER CHAIR CHRIS
MICHELI, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, LIZZY KUTSUNA
HERE ON BEHALF OF TECHNET AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHRIS LANGRIDGE FROM CONTEXT
FUND AND OPEN SOURCE AI
COMMUNITY IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MISTER CHAIR, STEPHANIE
MORRELL HERE. ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
AND THE CALIFORNIA FUELS AND
CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, JENNIFER
SNYDER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES, THEY
HAVEN'T OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CASSIE GILSON ON BEHALF OF
ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, ROBERT
SINGLETON WITH CHAMBER OF
PROGRESS, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. MOYAMOYA, ON BEHALF
OF ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS
COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, STEVEN SPENCER, WITH BROWN
SEEING ON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, AND,
SENATOR, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS,
SOME OF THE COMMENTS IN
OPPOSITION INCLUDE THAT THIS
WOULD BE UNTENABLE RISK ON
DEVELOPERS, BUT IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE
ALREADY MANY COMPANIES THAT
ALREADY VOLUNTARILY COMMIT TO
THIS, AND IN SOME CASES, EVEN
STRONGER STANDARDS INTERNALLY.
YEAH. SO AND THANK YOU FOR THAT,
WE, THEY'RE ALREADY SAYING THAT
THEY'RE DOING THIS OR COMMITTING
TO DOING IT, THEY'RE ALREADY
SUBJECT TO LIABILITY IN
CALIFORNIA OR ANY OTHER STATE
THAT THEY GO TO. AND, AND THAT
AGAIN, AS I SAID AT THE
BEGINNING, THAT'S ANY MODEL. DO
A MODEL. AND IF I DEVELOP A
MODEL AND I RELEASE IT AND
SOMEONE USES THAT MODEL TO BURN
DOWN A BUILDING, THEY CAN SUE
BOTH. AND THAT'LL BE LITIGATED
IN THE COURTS. BUT IN TERMS OF
LITIGATION EXPOSURE, IT IS THAT
RISK EXISTS TODAY AND IT IS
PROFOUNDLY BROADER THAN WHAT IT
IS IN THIS BILL, I ALSO JUST
WANT TO SAY THERE HAVE BEEN
SOME, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW,
RESPECTFULLY, SOME STATEMENTS
THIS BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE A
DEVELOPER TO GUARANTEE THAT
THERE WILL NOT BE A HARM THAT IS
NOT IN THE BILL. THAT'S NOT WHAT
THE BILL DOES. THAT IS SIMPLY
UNTRUE. THIS IS NOT A STRICT
LIABILITY, LAW. THIS IS NOT. YOU
HAVE TO JUST GUARANTEE THAT IS
NOT TRUE. YOU HAVE TO DO A
SAFETY EVALUATION, AND CERTIFY
THAT YOU'VE DONE SO, AND, AND
WHETHER YOU'VE IDENTIFIED ONE OF
THESE MASSIVE HARMS WHERE
THERE'S A REASONABLE RISK OF IT
HAPPENING AND THEN TAKE
MITIGATIONS TO TRY TO REDUCE
THAT RISK, YOU KNOW, AND I
AGREE, THE DEVELOPER IS ONE PART
OF THE I VALUE CHAIN. AND ALONG
WITH THE END USERS AND ETC, NO
ONE IS SAYING THAT THE
APPLICATION OR THE USE OF A
MODEL SHOULD NOT BE, COVERED AND
THERE ARE VARIOUS BILLS MOVING
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE NOW TO
ADDRESS THAT AROUND ALGORITHMIC
DISCRIMINATION AROUND DEEPFAKES
AND SO FORTH. SO ABSOLUTELY, BUT
TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
PHASE OF THE MODEL SHOULD JUST
BE OFF THE TABLE DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE. AND I APPRECIATE THE
ANALOGY TO AN AUTO MANUFACTURER,
SO IF YOU ARE BUILDING A CAR OR
A PLANE OR A SHIP, THAT IT'S
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT IF
SOMEONE MISUSES THAT, IF I TAKE
THAT PLANE AND I FLY IT AND I
EITHER NEGLIGENTLY OR
INTENTIONALLY CRASH IT INTO A
BUILDING, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, A
CRIME OR I'M LIABLE AND THE
PERSON SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE.
BUT WE ALSO TELL AUTO
MANUFACTURERS OR PLANE
MANUFACTURERS THAT YOU HAVE TO
DO SAFETY. YOU'RE NOT. YOU ALSO
HAVE TO ENGAGE IN A SAFETY
PROTOCOL IN TERMS OF DESIGNING
THAT ENGINE IN A WAY NOT TO
ENSURE THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE
A PROBLEM OR A MISUSE, BUT TO
REDUCE THE RISK. SO THAT WAS NOT
AN ANALOGY THAT I USED, BUT THE
OPPOSITION JUST USED THAT. AND I
THINK WE DO PUT SAFETY
OBLIGATIONS ALL ALONG THAT
CHAIN. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE
DOING HERE. I THINK IN A VERY
LIGHT TOUCH, REASONABLE WAY,
REQUIRING EVALUATIONS THAT THEY
ALREADY SAY ARE APPROPRIATE AND
THAT THEY ARE DOING OR WILL BE
DOING. AND TO THE CONCERN
REGARDING IF A IF A MODEL ENTERS
THE OPEN THE OPEN SPACE REALM,
AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY, WHAT DO
YOU SAY TO THAT POTENTIAL
LIABILITY ONCE ONCE IT'S IN THE
OPEN, OPEN SPACE REALM. YEAH. SO
FOR OPEN SOURCE, OPEN SOURCE.
AND I AND I AGREE WITH THE
OPPOSITION THAT OPEN SOURCE IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. AND AGAIN,
IF SOMEONE OPEN SOURCES A MODEL
TODAY AND SOMEONE USES IT TO DO
HARM, THAT OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPER
CAN BE SUED TODAY, THEY'LL
CONTEST IT. THERE WILL BE IT'LL
BE LITIGATED. AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S
A DEVELOPING AREA OF THE LAW.
BUT THAT OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPER
CAN BE SUED TODAY, AND, AND I
WILL SAY THAT YOU KNOW, META,
WHICH IS LIKE THE SORT OF THE
BIGGEST OPEN SOURCE AS FAR AS I
KNOW, THE BIGGEST OPEN SOURCE
MODEL DEVELOPER, HAS ALSO THEY
WERE THEY'VE ALSO SAID PUBLICLY
THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT TESTING
AND THEY AND THEY'VE MADE THAT
COMMITMENT, IN ADDITION, ONE,
ONE ISSUE THAT THE OPEN SOURCE
FOLKS HAD CONVEYED TO US WAS
THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED THAT
THEY, THAT THEY DIDN'T, THAT AN
OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPER WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE SHUTDOWN
CAPABILITY FOR THEIR MODEL, EVEN
THOUGH THEY'RE OPEN SOURCING IT
AND NO LONGER HAVE IT IN THEIR
POSSESSION. AND WE MADE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL TO MAKE
EXPLICIT WHAT WE HAD ALWAYS
INTENDED, THAT ONCE IT'S NO
LONGER IN YOUR POSSESSION, YOU
ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING
THAT IT CAN BE SHUT DOWN. IN
ADDITION, IF A MODEL IS
SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED, FINE
TUNED, PAST A CERTAIN THRESHOLD,
THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER IS NO
LONGER RESPONSIBLE. IT'S
EFFECTIVELY BECOMES A. AND SO
WE'VE, WE'VE WE'VE MADE CHANGES
TO THE BILL IN DIRECT RESPONSE
TO CRITIQUES FROM THE OPEN
SOURCE COMMUNITY. AND WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE AN OPEN DOOR,
TO THAT KIND OF CONSTRUCTIVE
FEEDBACK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CONNOLLY YEAH,
I'LL TAKE A STAB AT A COUPLE. I
REALLY WANTED TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR WADING INTO THIS,
IMPORTANT BUT COMPLEX AREA. I
THINK WE'RE ALL TRYING TO WRAP
OUR MINDS AROUND, SOCIETALLY
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
AND REALLY BALANCING, THE DESIRE
FOR INNOVATION ALONG WITH SAFETY
AS WELL. SO AS YOU NOTED, AND I
THINK IT WAS REITERATED BY THE
CHAIR, MANY OF THE BIGGEST
COMPANIES ARE, VOLUNTARILY
COMMITTED TO MANY OF THE
PRECAUTIONS OUTLINED IN THIS
BILL. THAT'S GOOD. ON THE OTHER
HAND, IT'S CONCERNING THAT
PRESENTLY WE'RE HAVING TO RELY
ON, VOLUNTARY, EFFORTS. SO I
GUESS WHAT I WOULD ASK THE
OPPOSITION, IS IT CONCERNING
THAT WE ARE, THAT WE SHOULD RELY
ONLY ON VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS,
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
CATASTROPHIC HARMS, HOW CAN WE
BE CONFIDENT THAT COMPANIES WILL
ALWAYS HONOR THOSE COMMITMENTS?
AND, DID YOU IN FACT SIGN ON TO
THE VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS? IF
NOT, WHY NOT? YEAH. SO THAT'S A
GREAT QUESTION. AND THERE ARE A
FEW ANSWERS HERE. BUT FIRST AND
FOREMOST, I THINK THAT WHAT WE
ARE REGULATING HERE, WE ARE
REGULATING SOME HYPOTHETICAL
RISKS, AND WE ARE USING SOME
HYPOTHETICAL TESTS. SO IF YOU
REALLY WANT TO LEAD SO WHAT WE
SHOULD DO, I THINK WE SHOULD
CREATE THIS KIND OF WHAT SOME
RESEARCH INSTITUTE TO FUND THE
RESEARCH TO FUND THE RESEARCH TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THESE
MODELS ARE WORKING IN A
TRANSPARENT MANNER, MANNER,
DEVELOP TESTS, DEVELOP
BENCHMARKS, AND THEN PUBLISH
THESE BENCHMARKS. AND THEN WHAT
THIS WHAT HAPPENS TODAY? EVERY
OF THE MODEL PROVIDERS, IF THE
IF THE BENCHMARK IS CREDIBLE,
THEY ARE GOING TO EVALUATE THEIR
MODELS AGAINST THESE BENCHMARKS.
IF THEY DON'T, THE THIRD PARTY
CAN USE THIS BENCHMARK TO
EVALUATE. IT'S A HUGE PRESSURE
IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC
PRESSURE, MARKETING PRESSURE,
PEER PRESSURE TO DO WELL ON
THESE BENCHMARKS. THERE IS NO
NEED FOR A LAW FOR THAT. AND IF
YOU IF YOU HAVE IF YOU
UNDERSTAND THE RISKS, IF YOU
UNDERSTAND THE TEST AND PEOPLE
DON'T DO IT NOW, THEN YOU CAN
MANDATE. BUT NOW IT'S TOO EARLY.
IT'S LIKE CAR INDUSTRY. WHEN DID
WE REGULATE CAR INDUSTRY? WE
DIDN'T REGULATE IN 1900. AND THE
OTHER BIGGEST PROBLEM OF THIS
BILL IS FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IN
MY MIND IS THAT WE ARE SAYING
THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE MODEL
SAFE, WE NEED TO LIMIT THE COST
AND THE COMPUTE. BUT ASK
YOURSELF, IN EVERY OTHER
INDUSTRY IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A
SAFER CAR, A SAFER PLANE, A
SAFER SHIP, ARE YOU GOING IS
GOING TO BE MORE OR LESS
EXPENSIVE? IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE,
MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. SO
BASICALLY, YOU ASK THE
DEVELOPERS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A
CAPABLE OPEN SOURCE MODEL OR A
LESS CAPABLE AND MAYBE SAFER
MODEL. WHY DON'T LET THE
DEVELOPERS BUILD THE MOST
POWERFUL MODEL AND THE MOST THE
SAFEST MODEL? SOME, PERHAPS MR.
HENDRICKS, COULD ALSO RESPOND TO
THAT, IF THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE. ABSOLUTELY. AND I
GUESS THE PUSHBACK IS, I MEAN,
IN EFFECT, DO WE DO WE WAIT FOR
A CATASTROPHE BEFORE REGULATING
FOR SAFETY? THAT'S THE DILEMMA.
AND I WILL SAY BEFORE I TURN IT
OVER TO MR. HENDRICKS, THAT WITH
CARS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DEBATE
SHOULD IT BE REGULATED IN 1900,
1910, 1940? WE KNOW THAT BY THE
TIME IT GOT REGULATED IN THE, IN
THE 60S, MASSIVE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE HAD DIED. BUT, MR.
HENDRICKS, YEAH, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO GET AHEAD OF THESE
RISKS. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T DO
THAT WITH SOCIAL MEDIA, AND
THERE WERE IMPLICATIONS FROM
THAT, I THINK RELYING ON
VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE MOST RELIABLE
WAY TO ENSURE SAFETY. WE CAN
SEE, OR THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
ARTICLES WHERE META JUST
DISBANDS OVER ON THEY RELEASE IT
ON FRIDAY EVENING, SO NOBODY
NOTICES THAT THEY JUST BANNED
THEIR RESPONSIBLE AI TEAM. AND,
MICROSOFT HAS DONE THAT. WE'VE
SEEN HIGH PROFILE INCIDENTS OF
THIS HAPPENING WITH WITH OPENAI.
IF THERE BEING AN EXODUS OF MANY
OF THEIR SAFETY PEOPLE. SO,
RELYING ON THE AI COMPANIES JUST
TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THIS
THEMSELVES, OR TO STICK TO WHAT
THEY SAID IS NOT NECESSARILY, AS
AS SAFE AS IF THERE ARE SOME
ACTUAL INCENTIVES FOR THEM IN
PLACE. SO, THAT'S WHY I THINK
IT'S, THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO TRY AND GET AHEAD
OF THESE RISKS AND JUST TARGET
SOME OF THE MOST SEVERE ONES.
AND, IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THINGS
THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN
SAYING. SO IT'S TESTING THAT
THEY'VE COMMITTED TO SEVERAL
TIMES IN THE WHITE HOUSE
VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS. THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER HAS THAT THE
SOCIAL COMMITMENTS HAVE THAT. SO
I DON'T THINK WE'RE PUSHING FOR
ANYTHING TOO UNREASONABLE HERE.
THANK YOU. AND JUST GIVEN THE
FACT THAT WE'VE HAD MEMBERS KIND
OF RUNNING ALL OVER THE
COMMITTEES THIS MORNING, IS
THERE A MOTION ON THE BILL ON.
ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND IT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON.
GREAT. THANK YOU. I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO IS I'M LEARNING
TODAY THAT JUDICIARY GETS EVERY
BILL THAT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH
POLICY. WELCOME TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. YEAH, I'M STILL MAD
AT MR. SALLY. JOIN JOIN THE CLUB
. HEY, HEY, HEY, HEY, BUT, YOU
KNOW, CAN WE, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD
A LOT OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT
THIS. AND EVER SINCE WE VOTED ON
IT IN, PRIVACY, I THINK THAT WAS
THE COMMITTEE CAME THROUGH. I
HAVE ALMOST LIKE YOU SAID I
WOULD BEEN REACHED OUT. A LOT OF
PEOPLE HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME.
JUST, I THINK FROM ALL OVER THE
WORLD, BASICALLY, ON EVERY
MEDIUM, YOU COULD THINK OF
EMAIL, TEXT MESSAGE, I DON'T
KNOW, MY NUMBER MUST BE IN THE
ETHER SOMEWHERE, BUT, YOU KNOW,
FACEBOOK MESSENGER. AND SO, I
THINK, YOU KNOW, MY CAN I MY TWO
CONCERNS AT THIS POINT ARE, IS I
THINK THE IDEA THAT THESE MODELS
SHOULD BE TESTED. I MEAN, I
DON'T THINK THAT'S A BAD, BAD
IDEA. I THINK, YOU KNOW, LIKE
YOU SAID, IT'S KIND OF SOMETHING
THAT THEY'VE COMMITTED TO, AND,
I, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
WHERE WHERE I KIND OF STRUGGLE A
LITTLE BIT WITH IS ONE IS, I'VE
TALKED WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS AS
WELL, OTHER STATES AND OTHERS
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND I
DO HAVE INTEREST IN CALIFORNIA
CONTINUING TO BE A HUB FOR THIS.
AND THE OPPOSITION. THE
OPPOSITION, INDIVIDUAL FROM
BERKELEY. ARE YOU FROM BERKELEY,
SIR? I AM FROM BERKELEY. YEAH,
BUT I ASSUME YOU WEREN'T BORN IN
BERKELEY AND NOT OR ALABAMA.
OKAY, YEAH, BUT MY PHD, I DID MY
PHD AT CARNEGIE MELLON
UNIVERSITY IN PITTSBURGH. THEN I
CAME TO BERKELEY AS A FACULTY.
OKAY, GREAT. WELL. THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT'S
JUST KIND OF AN ATTRACTIVE,
COMPONENT IS THAT WE'RE DRAWING
PEOPLE INTO CALIFORNIA FOR, FOR
THE RESEARCH AND THE TECHNOLOGY
AND THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE HERE
THAT ARE UNIQUE GLOBALLY. AND I
KNOW IT'S NOT YOUR INTENT TO
MESS THAT UP IN ANY WAY. I KNOW
THAT THAT'S VERY INTERESTING,
IMPORTANT TO YOU AS WELL. BUT, I
DO THE WAY THAT THE PENALTIES
ARE, ARE STRUCTURED IN THIS
BILL. I JUST WONDER IF THERE'S
AN AVENUE WHERE WE CAN SAY, HEY,
LET'S LET'S TEST THESE MODELS.
LET'S, LET'S GET SOME REPORTING
BACK AND LET'S I DON'T KNOW
REALLY HOW YOU WOULD ENFORCE IT
IF, YOU KNOW, A MODEL IS MESSED
UP. SO I KIND OF UNDERSTAND IN A
WAY WHY YOU WANTED SOME
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN THERE.
BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT THEY
MIGHT BE A LITTLE HEAVY. THEY
MIGHT BE HEAVY HANDED FOR
SOMETHING WE DON'T WE'RE NOT
TESTING YET. AND WE SHOULD WE
SHOULD TEST THEM. I'M JUST
WONDERING IF MAYBE THE PENALTIES
ARE SUCH THAT WE MIGHT DISTRACT
FROM INVESTMENT HERE INTO
CALIFORNIA. SO IF I MAY. YEAH.
PLEASE, THROUGH THE CHAIR, SO,
IN TERMS OF THE, THE PENALTIES,
I WANT TO AND I SOUND LIKE A
BROKEN RECORD, I KNOW, BUT, I
CAN'T REMEMBER WHO WAS HERE, AT
WHICH POINT IN TIME I'VE KIND OF
BEEN IN AND OUT. SO, IN AND OUT
OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS WHAT I'M AT.
IT'S THAT IT'S THAT TIME OF
YEAR. AND BY THE WAY, I WANT TO
APOLOGIZE TO MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC FOR HOW OUR INSTITUTION
WORKS. THAT YOU PRESENTED TO A
COMMITTEE. AND PEOPLE WERE
WALKING IN AND OUT, AND IT'S
VERY DISCONCERTING, BUT THAT'S
HOW WE ROLL HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE, IN TERMS OF THE
PENALTIES, YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY
AGAIN, THESE ARE VERY IT'S
BECAUSE THERE'S NO PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WE KNOW FROM
JUST OTHER CONTEXTS. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE
THE CAPACITY TO RUN AROUND SUING
EVERYONE. YOU AND I HAVE HAD
THIS CONVERSATION AROUND
HOUSING, WHERE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS FILED LIKE ALMOST NO
LAWSUITS, BUT A FEW IN THE MOST
EXTREME SITUATIONS, BECAUSE THAT
THEY HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT
CAPACITY AND RESOURCES. AND SO
WHEN YOU LIMIT THE ABILITY TO
ENFORCE ONLY TO THAT ONE ENTITY,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT'S GOING
TO BE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN
THE RAREST OF CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
MOST EXTREME CASES. AND PEOPLE
CAN BE SUED NOT NOT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEIR MODEL CAUSED HARM,
BUT ONLY IF THEY DIDN'T DO THE
TESTING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
DO, DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY WERE
SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER THE BILL.
AND CATASTROPHIC HARM CAUSED IS
CAUSED, AND THEN ONLY ONE PERSON
HAS THE ABILITY TO DO IT. SO I
JUST WANT TO REALLY EMPHASIZE
IT'S A VERY NARROW, LIABILITY AS
OPPOSED TO BACKGROUND TORT LAW,
WHICH IS MUCH, BROADER IN TERMS
OF, ATTRACTING PEOPLE TO
CALIFORNIA. THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO ME, TOO. I
REPRESENT SAN FRANCISCO, AND
THAT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO
ME. AND WE'RE VERY MINDFUL OF
THAT IN CRAFTING THIS LAW, TO BE
CLEAR, THIS, THAT WHAT TRIGGERS,
THE COVERAGE OF THIS LAW IS NOT
IF YOU ARE PHYSICALLY IN
CALIFORNIA, IT'S DOING BUSINESS
IN CALIFORNIA. SO IF YOU GO,
YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO YOU KNOW,
THE PROVERBIAL MIAMI, WHICH
EVERYONE SAID THEY WERE DOING.
AND, YOU KNOW, MIAMI WAS NOT THE
THING THAT PEOPLE SAID IT WAS
GOING TO BE. GO TO MIAMI TO
BUILD YOUR MODEL, UNLESS YOU'RE
GOING TO SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO
DO ANY BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA,
THEN YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE
GOING TO BE, COVERED. AS WELL.
IF YOU'RE DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF, OF CALIFORNIA, AND,
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO STRESS, THE
BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE PERMISSION
TO TRAIN OR RELEASE A MODEL. IT
DOESN'T REQUIRE A LICENSE. WE
SAID NO. I SAID NO TO THOSE
IDEAS, DOESN'T IMPOSE STRICT
LIABILITY IF YOUR MODEL CAUSES
HARM. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT
THAT. I SAID NO TO THAT. AS
WELL. AND WE TRY TO BE, LIGHT
TOUCH ON THE BILL. I KNOW THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH
THAT. THAT WAS OUR APPROACH.
YEAH. I THINK I SAID IN THE LAST
COMMITTEE, NO, NOBODY'S
DESCRIBED THIS TO ME AS LIGHT
TOUCH. PRO OR OPPONENT. TO IT.
BUT, SO CAN I ASK YOU, IN TERMS
OF THE AND YOU MENTIONED THAT
ALREADY EXISTING LAW, THIS IS
WHERE I WISH MR. SAILER WAS
HERE, BECAUSE I'M NOT A NOT AN
ATTORNEY, BUT YOU MENTIONED
EXISTING LAW, ALLOWS LITIGATION
FOR VIOLATIONS OF SOME OTHER LAW
OUT THERE, EXISTING LAW. SO IF
THAT'S THE CASE, WHY ADD
SOMETHING FOR THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL? WELL, THIS IS YEAH.
YOU'RE RIGHT. SO IT'S EXISTING
TORT LAW. IF YOU ANY PRODUCT
THAT YOU MAKE, WHETHER IT'S AN
AI MODEL OR ANYTHING ELSE, IF IT
CAUSES HARM, SOMEONE CAN YOU CAN
DEFEND AGAINST THE LAWSUIT AND
YOU CAN HAVE ALL SORTS OF
DEFENSES FOR WHY YOU'RE NOT
RESPONSIBLE. BUT SOMEONE CAN
CERTAINLY SUE YOU IF YOU, YOU
KNOW, TRAIN AND RELEASE AN AI
MODEL THAT ENDS UP BEING USED IN
SOME WAY TO CAUSE HARM, THIS
ACTUALLY, THIS IS WHAT I THINK
IS A BENEFIT OF THE BILL. THIS
ACTUALLY DEFINES A
RESPONSIBILITY THAT DO YOU KNOW,
DO THIS TESTING AND SO IT'S NOT
INTENDED TO REPLACE ANY OTHER
LAW THAT OR TORT DOCTRINE THAT
MAY BE OUT THERE. WE'RE WE'RE
NOT DOING THAT, BUT THIS IS A
VERY SPECIFIC THING WHERE WE'RE
REQUIRING SAFETY TESTING,
FRANKLY, TO REDUCE THE RISK THAT
THAT OTHER TORT LAW WOULD EVER
EVEN BE IMPLICATED, AND SO THAT
THAT'S, THE GOAL HERE. OKAY ONE
LAST QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND. SO YOU MENTIONED
ON A PREVIOUS BILL THAT I HAD
ALSO SEEN IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE,
THAT YOU NEVER REALLY KNOW WHAT
THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO
DO IN THE SUMMER, HE HAS
MENTIONED ON THIS PARTICULAR
TOPIC THAT HE'S OBVIOUSLY SEEMS
TO BE WANTING TO TAKE A HANDS
OFF APPROACH. I DON'T ACTUALLY
KNOW THAT. RIGHT? I MEAN, HE'S
BEEN KIND OF BUSY WITH,
OBJECTIONABLE ITEMS THAT WE'LL
TALK ABOUT LATER THIS WEEK, BUT,
DO YOU HAVE YOU HAD ANY
CONVERSATIONS? I MEAN, I MEAN,
WHERE DO YOU THINK THIS WILL END
UP? I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THE
GOVERNOR WOULD SUPPORT. IS THIS
THE DIRECTION THAT YOU THINK THE
ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO GO ON? I
MEAN, I'M WHATEVER DISCUSSIONS
YOU'RE HAVING, I'M OBVIOUSLY,
YOU KNOW, IS ONE THING. I'M JUST
THIS IS A THIS HAS BEEN
SOMETHING HE HAS OPINED ON, I
GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. AND SO
I'M WONDERING THIS SEEMS TO BE A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT
HE'S OPINED ON ANYWAYS, AT LEAST
PUBLICLY. I SPEAK FOR SCOTT
WIENER, NOT GAVIN NEWSOM. SO
YES, GREAT RESPECT FOR THE
GOVERNOR. I DO NOT SPEAK. I
WOULD NEVER PURPORT TO SPEAK FOR
HIM, THE SO I CAN'T SAY THE
GOVERNOR HAS MADE, STATEMENTS
ABOUT NOT ABOUT, I THINK
UNDERSTANDING THE NEED FOR
REGULATION AND NOT WANTING THE
REGULATION, WANTING TO STRIKE
THE RIGHT BALANCE. THIS IS MY
WHAT I HEARD AND MY
INTERPRETATION, SO THAT IT'S NOT
STIFLING INNOVATION. THAT'S MY
GOAL, TOO. AND THAT'S THE GOAL
OF THIS BILL. AND WE, AS ALWAYS,
WELCOME FEEDBACK FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY, NOTHING BECOMES LAW
WITHOUT THE GOVERNOR'S
SIGNATURE. SINCE THE LEGISLATURE
HAS ABDICATED ITS POWER TO
OVERRIDE VETOES. WE HAVEN'T DONE
IT IN ALMOST HALF A CENTURY. I
RECOMMEND WE SHOULD DO THAT ON
OCCASION, SO HE SO THE. SO IT
DOESN'T BECOME LAW UNLESS THE
GOVERNOR SIGNS IT. AND, SO WE
ABSOLUTELY, WOULD EAGERLY
WELCOME FEEDBACK FROM THE
GOVERNOR. THIS IS A GOVERNOR WHO
CARES DEEPLY ABOUT, TECH
INNOVATION IN CALIFORNIA, HE'S,
YOU KNOW, HE'S BEEN A LEADER IN
THAT SPACE, AND WE ABSOLUTELY
WELCOME HIS FEEDBACK. WE ALSO
CONTINUE TO WELCOME CONSTRUCTIVE
FEEDBACK FROM THE AI COMMUNITY
AND THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY IN
PARTICULAR. GREAT. WE HAVE FUN,
SUMMER. THANK YOU, WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THE TABLE ANY FURTHER
COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. WELL, AGAIN,
THANKS FOR BRINGING THESE EASY
BILLS THAT, HAVE NO COMPLEXITY
TO THEM AT ALL TO THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BUT I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS. I
ALSO APPRECIATE I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO READ YOUR SIX
PAGE RESPONSE LETTER. I THINK IT
WAS VERY THOROUGH AND ADDRESSED
A LOT OF THE CONCERNS, I THINK,
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, AND I
KNOW THERE'LL BE CONTINUED WORK
IN THIS SPACE. I REPRESENT SAN
JOSE, YOU REPRESENT SAN
FRANCISCO, THOSE TWO PLACES AND
ALL THE PARTS IN BETWEEN ARE
REALLY WHERE THIS INNOVATION IS
OCCURRING. AND THEN ALL OF US
WANT TO STIFLE STIFLE THAT. AND
I THINK YOUR BILL STRIKES THE
APPROPRIATE BALANCE IN THAT
REGARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE? THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. TAKE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE ON SB 1047. MOTIONS DO PASS
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL FOR A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON.
BAUER-KAHAN AYE. BAUER-KAHAN.
AYE BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY.
AYE. HANEY MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA.
PACHECO. PATTERSON ABSENT. NOT
VOTING. REYES. SANCHEZ ALL
RIGHT. THAT WILL BE PLACED ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR UMBERG.
YOU'RE DONE. THE GOOD NEWS IS
THAT WE'VE DISPENSED WITH THE
GLAZER SLASH WIENER BILLS. AND
SO NOW WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE
REST OF OUR HEARING. WELL, YEAH,
I DO, CHAIR UMBERG. THANK YOU.
MY SYMPATHY DOES GO TO THOSE
WHOSE NAMES ARE AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE ALPHABET TODAY, AND IF,
MR. CHAIR, IF YOU THOUGHT THAT
LAST BILL WAS EASY, THEN THIS IS
A NO BRAINER. SO, LET ME
DESCRIBE WHAT SB 42 DOES. SB 42
IS A CLEAN UP BILL FOR CARE
COURT. COURT, STRUCTURE. CARE
COURT, PROVIDES FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL TO PETITION THE COURT
TO HAVE, A FAMILY MEMBER OR
SOMEONE ELSE, BASICALLY ENGAGED,
ENROLLED, COME UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF CARE COURT. BUT
ONE OF THE GLITCHES THAT WE'VE
SEEN IS THAT SOMETIMES THE
PETITIONER IS NOT INFORMED AS TO
WHAT'S GOING ON. SO WHAT THIS
BILL DOES, IT GIVES THE JUDGE
THE ABILITY TO NOTIFY THE
PETITIONER AS TO THE STATUS OF
THE CASE, UNLESS THAT
NOTIFICATION OR THE COURT
DETERMINES THAT NOTIFICATION
WILL BE DETERMINED, DETRIMENTAL
TO THE CLIENT, OR IF IT
CONSTITUTES A HIPAA VIOLATION.
OTHERWISE, THE COURT THEN CAN
NOTIFY THE PETITIONER. URGE AND
I VOTE. I DO NOT HAVE ANY
WITNESSES OTHER THAN MYSELF
HERE. AND SENATOR, YOU ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENTS. I DO THANK YOU.
SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT? BY THE WAY, I SHOULD
THANK THE CHAIR AND, AND YOUR
STAFF IN PARTICULAR, MISS
ALLISON MERRILEES, FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE ON THIS AND OTHER
BILLS. THANK YOU SO MUCH, IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE A
MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? THE A
MOTION, A SECOND. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 42? IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 42?
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING,
MISTER CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
DEB ROTH WITH DISABILITY RIGHTS.
CALIFORNIA, HERE IN REGRETFUL
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL, WHEN
CARE COURT WAS FIRST ENACTED TWO
YEARS AGO, DRC OPPOSED THE BILL.
WE WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
LACK OF DATA TO SUPPORT ANY
PROGRAM LIKE IT, AND WE DIDN'T
THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
DRAG PEOPLE INTO AN ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDING. A COURTROOM FOR
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. BUT
CARE COURT WAS ENACTED, AND A
LOT OF STATE RESOURCES HAVE BEEN
ALLOCATED FOR ITS SUCCESS. SO WE
GENUINELY HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE
WHO ENTER CARE COURT ARE HELPED
BY THAT. WHAT THE AUTHOR JUST
STATED AS THE REASON FOR THE
BILL IS ALREADY PERMISSIBLE
UNDER THE CARE COURT STATUTE.
THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO KEEP
PEOPLE INVOLVED IF THE COURT
CHOOSES NOT TO KEEP PEOPLE
INVOLVED. I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT
THEY HAVE A VERY GOOD REASON FOR
IT. BUT WHAT THE AUTHOR IS
PROPOSING UNDER SB 42 IS TO FLIP
THE SCRIPT SO THAT THE DEFAULT
IS THIS CONSTRUCT THAT WOULD
VIOLATE PRIVACY LAWS, EXCEPT
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE
AMENDMENTS SO THAT YOU DON'T
REALLY HAVE TO VIOLATE PRIVACY
LAWS, BUT YOU HAVE TO START TO
CONTORT YOURSELF TO MAKE IT
WORK. AND YOU REALLY DON'T NEED
TO DO THAT BECAUSE WHAT THE
AUTHOR WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH CAN
OCCUR UNDER EXISTING LAW. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CLAIRE
CORTRIGHT. I'M THE POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR CAL VOICES. WE'RE A
PEER RUN ORGANIZATION, SO WE'RE
RUN BY AND FOR PEOPLE WITH
SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS,
INCLUDING MYSELF, WE'RE HERE
QUITE A BIT OPPOSING THINGS, AND
I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT MY TASK IS TO HELP YOU ALL
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE
US AND WHAT WORLD WE INHABIT. WE
HAD A VERY BRIEF CONVERSATION
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE ABOUT
THIS BILL, BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
BECAUSE OF THE LATE AMENDMENT,
WE HAVEN'T HAD A FULL
CONVERSATION. OUR UNDERSTANDING
IS, AS MISS ROTH TESTIFIED TO,
THAT THE EXISTING STATUTE ALLOWS
A JUDGE AT HER DISCRETION, TO
ASSIGN ONGOING NOTICE RIGHTS TO
A PRIVATE PARTY PETITIONER WHO
HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED OUT FOR THE
COUNTY IN A CASE. THIS BILL
WOULD REMOVE THAT DISCRETION AND
GIVE A PRIVATE PARTY, A PRIVATE
PETITIONER, A NON PARTY, TO THE
CASE, A RIGHT TO BE TOLD IN
WRITING THE STATUS OF THE CASE
AND THE REASON FOR THAT STATUS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PETITION IS
PROCEEDING TO HEARING BECAUSE
THE RESPONDENT DOES IN FACT HAVE
SCHIZOPHRENIA. HERE'S A DOCUMENT
WITH THE SEAL OF THE CALIFORNIA
ON IT. ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, 23, AN
ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE LOS
ANGELES TIME THAT I WAS
EXTENSIVELY QUOTED IN FOR THE
OPPOSITION. IN IT, MISS NANBARA
ALLEGED HER SON BELIEVED THAT HE
WAS SATAN AND EVERYTHING IN HIS
MIND WAS SUSPECT. THAT HE WAS,
QUOTE, A TWO YEAR OLD, THAT HE
DID DRUGS AND DID NOT TAKE HIS
MEDICATIONS. THIS IS WHAT'S AT
STAKE FOR US. MY FAMILY,
ALTHOUGH I VEXED THEM WITH MY
MENTAL ILLNESS, WOULD NEVER DO
THAT TO ME. THIS MAN WAS HIS
PRIVACY WAS INVADED. HE WAS
DEFAMED AND DRAGGED IN THE PAGES
OF THE LA TIMES BY HIS MOTHER.
THE LA TIMES DID NOT EVEN GIVE
HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT.
THIS IS WHAT I NEED YOU TO
UNDERSTAND. THESE HEARINGS ARE
PRIVATE IN THE FIRST PLACE,
BECAUSE WE FACE SYSTEMIC HATE IN
SOCIETY, DISCRIMINATION. WE LOSE
OUR JOBS, WE'RE EVICTED. WE LOSE
CUSTODY OF OUR CHILDREN, WE'RE
HELD UP TO DISREPUTE. AND
SOMETIMES OUR LIVES ARE
ENDANGERED. LIKE JORDAN, NEALY'S
WAS. IT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL
CHANGE. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT
IS. WE WOULD LIKE OUR PRIVACY
PROTECTED, AND WE THINK THE
EXISTING STATUTE IS A BETTER
BALANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 42? HELLO, CHAIR MEMBERS
RACHEL BOGERT WITH ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION, IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL, WITH ONGOING
PRIVACY CONCERNS ALSO
REGISTERING THE OPPOSITION OF
MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. WE ALREADY HAVE A
MOTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER
KHN, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE AUTHOR
AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE I KNOW,
THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR MOST
OF US HAVE STRUGGLED WITH IS HOW
DO WE CARE FOR THE CALIFORNIANS
WHO CURRENTLY NEED US TO SUPPORT
THEM? AND WHAT IS THE BEST WAY
TO DO THAT? AND THE LAST THING I
THINK MANY OF US WANT IS FOR
FOLKS TO BE DYING ON THE
STREETS. AND THAT IS REALLY THE
EFFORT THAT THIS IS BEHIND THIS.
BUT I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT
TO HEAR FROM THOSE WITH LIVED
EXPERIENCE. I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE AND SHARING YOUR
EXPERIENCE AND SPEAKING FOR
OTHERS AS WELL AS YOU DID SO
ELOQUENTLY, BUT I KNOW THE HEART
OF THE SENATOR, AND SO I KNOW HE
WOULD ABSOLUTELY CARE DEEPLY
ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF THOSE
INVOLVED IN THE DIGNITY THEREIN.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE HIM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT. SO
LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T
CONFUSE THE ISSUE, WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IS IT ACTUALLY DOES
PROVIDE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
COURT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE
PETITIONER. AND I'LL READ FROM
THE, FROM THE BILL, UNLESS IT'S
LIKELY THAT IT WOULD BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE TREATMENT OR
WELL-BEING OF THE RESPONDENT. SO
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE LIVED
EXPERIENCE OF THOSE WHO ARE,
ENGAGED EITHER IN CARE COURT OR
IN THIS SAME SPACE. WE HAVE
LIVED EXPERIENCE. I'VE LIVED
EXPERIENCE MYSELF. MY FAMILY HAS
LIVED EXPERIENCE. AND TO THE
EXTENT THAT, WE AS LEGISLATORS,
WE, VIEW EVERYTHING THROUGH THE
PRISM, AT LEAST I DO OF PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE. AND YOU EXTRAPOLATE
TO THE GENERAL CASE MAY NOT
ALWAYS BE ACCURATE, BUT I WILL
EXTRAPOLATE FROM OUR SPECIFIC
EXPERIENCE IS THAT WITH OUR
FAMILY MEMBER WHO WAS
SCHIZOPHRENIC, AND HAD MANY
OTHER CHALLENGES IN LIFE, IS
THAT THAT PERSON WOULD BE GONE
IN JAIL, HOMELESS, IN THE
HOSPITAL, VARIOUS PLACES, AND
HAD THIS EXISTED AND HAD WE
PETITIONED THE COURT, THEN AS WE
WOULD FOLLOW THIS, WE WOULD
KNOW. WE WOULD KNOW WHAT THE
STATUS. MAYBE IT MAYBE IT'S BEEN
DISMISSED, OR MAYBE IT HASN'T
BEEN DISMISSED. BUT MAYBE THIS
PERSON HAS MISSED THEIR COURT
APPEARANCE. MAYBE WE CAN HELP
THEM MAKE THEIR COURT APPEARANCE
SO THAT THE COURT CAN, AS IS
CONCEIVED, MAKE SURE THAT THEY
HAVE SHELTER, FOR EXAMPLE, OR
THAT THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF
TREATMENT. THAT'S THE WHOLE
PURPOSE. SO THIS IS A
CHALLENGING AREA, AND THAT'S WHY
WE'VE EXEMPTED. AND WE PROVIDED
THE COURT TO HAVE TO MAKE A
DECISION IF IT WOULD BE
DETRIMENTAL. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF
THE PETITIONER TURNS HOSTILE
TOWARDS THAT FAMILY MEMBER FOR
WHATEVER REASON, OF COURSE YOU
WOULDN'T WANT THAT PERSON TO BE
NOTIFIED OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF
THE INDIVIDUAL. AND THE SAME
THING GOES WITH SENSITIVE
MEDICAL INFORMATION. THAT WOULD
BE HIPAA PROTECTED. THAT SHOULD
NOT BE IN ANY COURT ORDER. AND
WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE COURT
WOULD FOLLOW THE LAW IN THAT
RESPECT. BUT YES, I MEAN, TO
ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, VERY
CHALLENGING AREA. SO WITH THAT,
I WOULD URGE AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. MR. THANK YOU, YEAH, I ALSO
FAMOUSLY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO,
DID NOT SUPPORT CARE COURT, AND
I STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ITS
IMPLEMENTATION AND ROLLOUT, AS
DOES SENATOR UMBERG AND ALL OF
US. IT IS A VERY COMPLEX, AREA
THAT WE'VE DELVED INTO, ON THIS
SPECIFIC NARROWNESS OF THIS ASK
OF THIS BILL TODAY. I'LL SUPPORT
THIS WITH THE PROTECTIONS AND
GUARDRAILS IN PLACE OF THE
PRIVATE INFORMATION, HEALTH CARE
INFORMATION, AND GIVING THE
COURT THE DISCRETION TO MAKE
DETERMINATIONS AS TO WHEN IT MAY
NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO DO SO, AND
MY, EYES AND EARS ARE STILL WIDE
OPEN IN TERMS OF HOW CARE COURT
HAS ROLLED OUT. OBVIOUSLY, WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION TAKING A
HUGE, ROLE IN DOING THAT. AND SO
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE SIMPLY, I VOTE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY. TAKE A
ROLL CALL. VOTE ON SB 42.
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I CALL, I
DIXON. BAUER-KAHAN AYE. KHN
AYE. BRIAN CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY.
AYE. HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
PACHECO. PATTERSON. PATTERSON.
AYE REYES. SANCHEZ. OKAY, WELL,
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. SENATOR BECKER,
SENATOR BECKER. SENATOR BECKER
SNUCK IN BECAUSE THERE WAS A
BUNCH OF SENATORS HERE EARLIER.
AND SO HE WAS WAITING, BIDING
HIS TIME, ITEM SEVEN, SB 942.
HONOR CHAIR TO APPEAR BEFORE
YOUR COMMITTEE, I THINK, FOR THE
FIRST TIME. AND HERE TO PRESENT
SB 942, THE CALIFORNIA
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
TRANSPARENCY ACT. A BILL TAKES A
BOLD STEP TO ADDRESSING THE
PROLIFERATION OF AI GENERATED
CONTENT. I FIRST, I'LL JUST SAY
I KNOW THAT THIS IS A ISSUE
THAT, YOU'VE STRUGGLED WITH MANY
ON THIS COMMITTEE OR ARE
INVOLVED IN VARIOUS EFFORTS AT
TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS
PROLIFERATION OF AI GENERATED
CONTENT. AND WE'RE ALL TRYING TO
STRIKE THAT RIGHT BALANCE AND
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, AS THE
TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING SO, SO, SO
QUICKLY, WHAT IS OUR ROLE HERE
IN CALIFORNIA? I WILL SAY FIRST,
I'LL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS THAT MAKE, CLARIFYING
CHANGES TO THE BILL'S
ENFORCEMENT, AGAIN, I WON'T GO
INTO DETAIL. I THINK YOU ALL
KNOW ABOUT, OBVIOUSLY, THE
PROLIFERATION, THE DEEPFAKES.
THAT WE SAW CLONED VOICEMAILS OF
PRESIDENT BIDEN. MONTHS AGO
WHERE OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE'S ON
CLOSE WATCH WITH THIS UPCOMING
CRITICAL, ELECTION STATEWIDE AND
NATIONALLY, AND TRANSPARENCY IS
NEEDED. THE EU HAS TAKEN STEPS
TO ADDRESS THIS THROUGH THE AI
ACT, WHICH MANDATES TRANSPARENCY
STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE
REQUIREMENT TO INFORM USERS WHEN
THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH AI
SYSTEM AND TO CLEARLY MARK
SYNTHETIC AUDIO, VIDEO, TEXT AND
IMAGES AS ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED
OR MANIPULATED. BOTH FOR USERS
AND IN A MACHINE READABLE
FORMAT. IN LINE WITH THE EU
LEGISLATION, SB 942 SERVES TO
ADDRESS THE GROWING UNCERTAINTY
SURROUNDING AI GENERATED CONTENT
BY REQUIRING LARGE CHEN AI
SYSTEM PROVIDERS TO DO THREE
THINGS. NUMBER ONE, LABEL AI
GENERATED CONTENT WITH LATENT
DISCLOSURES TWO SUPPLY AN AI
DETECTION TOOL FOR USERS TO
QUERY WHETHER CONTENT WAS
CREATED BY AI AND THREE INFERS
THIRD PARTY LICENSES. TO THE
EXTENT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TO
PREVENT UNDISCLOSED CONTENT.
PUBLICATION. IN THIS WAY SERVED.
THIS BILL SERVES TO ADDRESS THE
CHALLENGES POSED BY AI GENERATED
CONTENT. I WILL SAY WE'RE
ACTIVELY COLLABORATING WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS AND ENSURE THIS DOES
STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE. AS I
SAID, THIS IS A MOVING TARGET
HERE, AND WE ARE TRYING TO
STRIKE THAT RIGHT BALANCE. AND
I'M FORTUNATE TO BE JOINED BY,
AN EXPERT IN THESE ISSUES AND
CYBERSECURITY AND PRIVACY
GENERALLY. TOM KEMP. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
COLLURA AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I
WANT TO MAKE A FEW ADDITIONAL
POINTS THAT BUILD UPON SENATOR
BECKER'S REMARKS. NUMBER ONE,
THIS BILL IS BASED ON A
BIPARTISAN PROPOSAL AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL CALLED THE AI
LABEL ACT, THE AI LABELING ACT.
THIS IS WHAT SENATOR SCHATZ SAID
PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHETHER
OR NOT THE VIDEOS, PHOTOS AND
CONTENT THEY SEE AND READ ONLINE
ARE REAL OR NOT. AND I AGREE
WITH THIS BIPARTISAN SENTIMENT.
NUMBER TWO, THIS BILL ONLY
APPLIES TO THE LARGEST PROVIDERS
OF GENERATIVE AI, SO IT WON'T
STIFLE INNOVATION. NUMBER THREE,
THE LARGEST AI PROVIDERS HAVE
ALREADY PLEDGED TO DELIVER THIS
CAPABILITY AS PART OF BIDEN'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER ON AI, AND SB
942 PUTS THESE COMMITMENTS INTO
PRACTICE. NUMBER FOUR, LARGE AI
PROVIDERS, AS SENATOR BECKER HAS
REFERENCED, ALREADY, HAVE TO
DELIVER COMPARABLE TRANSPARENCY
AS PART OF THE EU AI ACT. SO IF
THEY CAN AND WILL DELIVER THIS
FOR EUROPEAN CONSUMERS, WE THINK
THAT THEY CAN ALSO DO SO FOR
CALIFORNIA'S. NUMBER FIVE, SB
942 TAKES A PRAGMATIC APPROACH.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC
TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION, SUCH
AS WATERMARKING AS AFFILIATE
PROFESSOR JAY ZEZIMA OF THE
UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON
SAID, SB 942 DOES NOT, QUOTE,
DOES NOT HAVE A HEAVY HANDED SET
OF REQUIREMENTS. NUMBER SIX,
RECENT CHANGES TO THE BILLS HAVE
ADDRESSED MANY OPPOSITION
CONCERNS COMING OUT OF THE
PRIVACY COMMITTEE. FOR EXAMPLE,
A CRITIC JUST RECENTLY WROTE
THAT RECENT CHANGES HAVE, QUOTE,
FIXED THE BIGGEST ISSUES I'VE
HAD WITH THE BILL AND NUMBER
SEVEN, FINALLY, RECENT TECHNICAL
ADVANCES SUCH AS THE NEW RELEASE
OF GOOGLE SYNTH ID AND META AND
SNAPCHAT'S LABELING CAPABILITIES
THAT THEY HAVE RELEASED HAVE
MADE THIS TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE.
SO IN SUMMARY, LET'S GET AHEAD
OF THE CURVE WITH CONCERNS
AROUND AI TRANSPARENCY. UNLIKE
WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH SOCIAL
MEDIA IN THE PAST. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 942? IS THERE ANY
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 942?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LIZZY
KUTSUNA. I'M WITH CHAU YODER AND
SCHMELZER AND L®NG, AND I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, TECHNET,
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB
942. FIRST OF ALL, WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE PROGRESS THAT HAS
BEEN MADE ON THE BILL AND THE
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE
HAD WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE.
OVERALL, WE AGREE WITH THE
INTENT OF SB 942 TO CREATE
GREATER TRUST AND USER GENERATED
CONTENT ONLINE BY FOSTERING THE
ADOPTION OF DISCLOSURES. OUR
MEMBERS ARE WORKING THROUGH THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS AND PUTTING
TOGETHER FEEDBACK ON A NUMBER OF
AI BILLS, INCLUDING SB 942. UPON
OUR INITIAL READ, WE THINK THE
AMENDMENTS MOVE THE BILL IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. A COUPLE OF
ISSUES TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR ON FIRST
CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS SUCH
INCLUDING TERMS SUCH AS
SYNTHETIC AND MANIFEST
DISCLOSURE. SECONDLY,
IDENTIFYING WHAT ASPECTS ARE AND
ARE NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
AND FINALLY, CONSIDERING THE
POTENTIAL TRADE OFFS OF
MANDATING THE CREATION OF AI
DETECTION TOOLS AND HOW THEY
COULD POTENTIALLY BE UTILIZED BY
BAD ACTORS TO FIND LOOPHOLES IN
THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED AT THIS TIME, BUT LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE? IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 942, MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS CARL LONDON ON
BEHALF OF THE RECORDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, HAVE
SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS. WE
HAVE HAD VERY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO A LONG,
HOT JULY OF GOING NOWHERE AND
DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT
WORKING ON THIS BILL. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW, DON'T
YOU WANT ME TO HOLD YOU TO THAT
LARA BENNETT WITH CALIFORNIA
ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF CAL
CHAMBER IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION. WE'RE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED, BUT WOULD
ECHO THE COMMENTS MADE BY
TECHNET. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
OH MY GOSH, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS
THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A
SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. AND I
WANT TO I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
BECKER. I THINK THAT YOU'RE THE
APPROPRIATE AUTHOR, IN TERMS OF
DELVING INTO THIS SPACE, WHICH
IS COMPLEX. I KNOW WE'VE DEALT
WE'VE BEEN LOOKING A LOT INTO
THIS SPACE AS WELL AS OUR
PRIVACY CHAIR, BAUER-KAHAN ON
HOW TO GRAPPLE WITH AI,
ESPECIALLY IN THE PUBLIC REALM.
AND SO AND AS EVEN THE
OPPOSITION INDICATED, PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE. AND I
KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A DEEP
INTEREST NOT ONLY IN PROTECTING
CONSUMERS, BUT ALSO IN
PROTECTING THIS INDUSTRY AS
WELL. AND I'M CONFIDENT YOU'LL
BE ABLE TO, FIND A WAY TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT IN IN THIS
PARTICULAR BILL AS WELL. I THINK
THAT IT'S IN A GOOD PLACE NOW,
BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S STILL
SOME OPPOSITION CONCERNS, AND
I'M CONFIDENT YOU'LL CONTINUE TO
HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU.
YEAH WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION AND MAY CALL THEM
FROM THE BEACH NOW, BUT, I KNOW
THAT THERE AGAIN, ARE STILL
THINGS TO WORK THROUGH AS WE,
YOU KNOW, WORK ON THIS MOVING
TARGET, BUT VERY HAPPY WITH THE
PROGRESS THAT WE'VE MADE AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. IF WE CAN HAVE A ROLL
CALL, VOTE ON SB NINE FOR TWO
MOTIONS. DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL, I CALL.
AYE, DIXON. BAUER-KAHAN AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY
MAIENSCHEIN. MACKINNON. PACHECO.
PATTERSON. NO PATTERSON. NÓ.
REYES. SANCHEZ POLICE THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CAN
Ó. YES. WE APPRECIATE THE
SENATORS THAT ARE HERE. READY TO
WORK. SENATOR SMALLWOOD CUEVAS
SB 1089. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR.
CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON. HOT AFTERNOON. NOT
AFTERNOON YET, THANKFULLY. YEAH.
SB 1089. OH, WAIT, IS IT STILL
MORNING? OH OKAY. WELL, LOOK AT
ME. I THOUGHT IT WAS. I THOUGHT
WE WERE IN THE EVENING ALREADY.
THANK YOU. YES, WE'RE GOING TO
DO 1089, AND WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU, MEMBERS, I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT SB 1089, WHICH IS A
PRIORITY BILL OF THE LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS REPARATIONS
PACKAGE, AND I WANT TO THANK
YOUR COMMITTEE FOR YOUR YOUR
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS AS WELL. IN
2020, THE STATE LEGISLATURE
PASSED AB 3121 TO AUTHORIZE A
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE TO STUDY
THE ONGOING EFFECTS OF SLAVERY
ON AFRICAN AMERICANS IN OUR
STATE. AND AFTER YEARS OF STUDY,
THE TASK FORCE OFFERED HUNDREDS
OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS
FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN
ORDER TO ADDRESS THE ENDURING
INEQUALITIES AND WEALTH AND
HOUSING AND HEALTH FOR BLACK
COMMUNITIES. AND KNOWING THAT,
WHEN ONE OF OUR COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITIES IS SUFFERING, ALL OF
OUR COMMUNITIES SUFFER. THE
DISPARITIES ILLUSTRATED IN THE
TASK FORCE REPORT, ARE OF NO
COINCIDENCE, BUT RATHER
PREDICTABLE OUTCOME OF DECADES
OF DISINVESTMENT OF INDUSTRY
FROM MINORITY COMMUNITIES WHO
PRIORITIZE SUBURBAN WHITE
NEIGHBORHOODS OVER OUR LOWER
INCOME BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES, WHICH THEY SEEM
DEEMED TO BE UNDESIRABLE. THE
NUMBERS SIMPLY SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES. 1 IN 5 BLACK PEOPLE
FACE FOOD INSECURITY, WHILE
WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS, ON AVERAGE,
HAVE FOUR TIMES AS MANY
SUPERMARKETS AS THOSE IN
PREDOMINANTLY BLACK
NEIGHBORHOODS. SIMILAR TO FOOD
DESERTS. DECREASED ACCESS TO
PHARMACIES HAVE TURNED MANY
BLACK COMMUNITIES INTO PHARMACY
DESERTS, AND RECENT REPORTS ARE
SHOWING THAT BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES HAVE ALSO BEEN MOST
IMPACTED BY PHARMACY CLOSURES OF
LATE, LEAVING MANY RESIDENTS
WITHOUT ACCESS TO THEIR FIRST
POINT OF CONTACT FOR HEALTH AND
FOOD NECESSITIES AND QUESTIONS.
WHEN PHARMACIES CLOSE
PRESCRIPTIONS MAY ALSO BE SOLD
TO ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT, OFTEN
WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE
CONSUMERS, LEAVING THEM UNAWARE
OF WHERE TO PICK UP THEIR
MEDICATIONS OR PRESCRIPTIONS MAY
EVEN BE TRANSFERRED OUTSIDE OF A
PATIENT'S NETWORK, FORCING THEM
TO PAY OUT OF POCKET, IN TERMS
OF TRANSFER FEES AND ADDITIONAL
FEES FOR DEDUCTIBLES, NOT TO
MENTION JUST THE LOGISTICS OF
BEING ABLE TO USE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER METHODS
JUST TO GET TO GET ACCESS TO
YOUR BASIC MEDICAL NEEDS AND
FOOD NEEDS. SINCE OCTOBER OF
LAST YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN OVER
100 RITE AID, RITE AID CLOSURES
ALONE, MANY WITH JUST TWO WEEKS
NOTICE TO AS LITTLE AS THE SAME
DAY NOTICE FOR WORKERS IN THE
COMMUNITY. AND AS WE WILL HEAR,
THESE CLOSURES ARE EXTREMELY
DESTABILIZING. A CHILLING EFFECT
ON CONSUMERS AND PATIENTS ALIKE.
AND TO THE WORKERS, MANY OF WHOM
LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND
STRUGGLE TO FIND A JOB, THIS
BILL ADDRESSES THESE HARMS BY
REQUIRING GROCERY STORES AND
PHARMACIES WITH FIVE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE 60 DAY
NOTICE OF A CLOSURE AND 30 DAY
NOTICE OF STORES WITH FIVE OR
FEW FEWER WORKERS. AND SINCE
THIS BILL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED,
WE HAVE MADE AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
STEADILY ON THIS BILL TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THEIR NEEDS, INCLUDING,
YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT THERE
IS THE DISCLOSURE OF NOTICES.
THAT INCLUDES MAKING SURE WE'RE
NOT SHARING TOO MUCH INFORMATION
ABOUT WHY THE CLOSURE IS
HAPPENING, BUT REALLY JUST TO
NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE
CAPPED THE ENFORCEMENT.
PENALTIES TO ABOUT $10,000 PER
CLOSURE, AND WE REMOVED THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR
THESE VIOLATIONS. WORKING AGAIN
VERY CLOSELY WITH WITH THE
OPPOSITION ON THIS THROUGH THE
NEGOTIATIONS. AND I'M COMMITTED
TO CONTINUING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS, WITH ME TODAY IS
SAMANTHA WEBSTER, A FORMER
GROCERY WORKER WHO WILL SHARE
HER EXPERIENCE WITH THE SUDDEN
STORE CLOSURE. AND OF COURSE,
JASSI GREWAL WITH THE UFC. W THE
CO-SPONSOR ON THIS BILL TO
ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SAMANTHA
WEBSTER AND I'M A FORMER GROCERY
WORKER AND NOW WORK AT UFCW
LOCAL FIVE. ON APRIL 13TH, 2021,
SAFEWAY CLOSED THE GROCERY STORE
I WORKED AT FOR 19 YEARS IN
RODEO. RODEO IS A SMALL
UNINCORPORATED TOWN NEAR PORT
COSTA AND CROCKETT. THE GROCERY
STORE WAS A SOCIAL HUB FOR OUR
COMMUNITY, WHO WERE MAINLY OLDER
RESIDENTS AND WAS THE ONLY
GROCERY STORE SERVING THE AREA.
THERE WERE 56 WORKERS AT THE
STORE BELOW THE WARN NOTICE
THRESHOLD OF 75 EMPLOYEES LAID
OFF. SO OUR STORE ONLY RECEIVED
A ONE WEEK NOTICE ABOUT THE
CLOSURE. THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
STORE WERE SEASONED WORKERS, AND
ON AVERAGE HAD FIVE PLUS YEARS,
BUT THERE WERE WORKERS WITH TEN,
15 AND 19 YEARS LIKE MYSELF,
WHOSE LIVES WERE DISRUPTED.
SAFEWAY OPENED A NEW GROCERY
STORE IN HERCULES, AND SOME
WORKERS WERE OFFERED TRANSFERS
THERE, BUT OTHER WORKERS WERE
TRANSFERRED TO STORES IN VALLEJO
AND ALBANY. BUT IT WAS DIFFICULT
FOR WORKERS TO MAKE THAT COMMUTE
BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE AND THE
DRASTIC CHANGES TO THEIR
SCHEDULES. FOR MY COWORKERS THAT
ARE WORKING PARENTS, THEY HAD
ONE WEEK TO FIGURE OUT CHILDCARE
SCHEDULES AND SCHOOL DROP OFF.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS NO
ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
ABOUT THE CLOSURE OF THE GROCERY
STORE WHEN THE GROCERY STORE
LEFT. SO DID OTHER BUSINESSES.
AND NOW THE AREA IS A GHOST TOWN
. SAFEWAY CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN
THE LEASE FAR AFTER THE CLOSURE,
AND NOW, THREE YEARS LATER, THE
BUILDING REMAINS VACANT. ALL OF
THIS HAPPENED OFF THE HEELS OF
COVID 19 PANDEMIC, WHEN THE
GROCERY STORES SAY THEY CARE,
THEIR ACTIONS SHOW THAT IT IS A
LIE. THAT IS WHY SB 1089 IS SO
IMPORTANT. NOT ONLY TO WORKERS,
BUT THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE
SERVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LET'S HEAR FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY.
THANK YOU, ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1089? MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS SARA FLOCKS, CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CLIFF
BERG, JEWISH PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ROBERT HORA WITH THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, KELLY
O'BRIEN WITH WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1089?
GOOD MORNING LINDSEY GOLAN HERE
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATIONS COMMUNITY PHARMACY
COALITION. FIRST, I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONVERSATIONS
THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE AUTHOR
AND THE SPONSORS ON THIS BILL.
AS RECENTLY AS LAST FRIDAY.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AMENDMENTS
AND SOME OF OUR CONCERNS, AND WE
ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO
DO THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE
OPPOSED TO SB 1089 UNLESS IT IS
AMENDED TO ADDRESS SOME OF OUR
REMAINING CONCERNS, WHICH WE
THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT,
PHARMACIES IN PARTICULAR ARE
LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE
BOARD OF PHARMACY AND MUST
ADHERE TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE STORAGE AND DISPENSING
OF DRUGS. PATIENT PRIVACY AND
NOTICE TO THE BOARD UPON
CLOSURE. PHARMACIES ARE REQUIRED
TO NOTICE THE BOARD BEFORE
CLOSURE AND PROVIDE INFORMATION
ABOUT WHERE THE PRESCRIPTION
INVENTORY WILL BE TRANSFERRED.
AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR
PHARMACIES TO BE SELECTIVE IN
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT
PATIENT PRIVACY AND ENSURE THE
SAFE HANDLING OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS, WE AREN'T OPPOSED AT ALL
TO CLOSURE NOTIFICATIONS, NOR DO
WE DISAGREE WITH THE INTENT OF
THE BILL. AND WE UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF PATIENTS AND
KNOWING WHERE THEIR DRUGS WILL
BE TRANSFERRED WHEN A PHARMACY
CLOSES. ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE
AMENDMENTS TAKEN IN THE SENATE
THAT MAKE SOME OF THE NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE BILL MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL WARN
ACT, INITIALLY THE BILL HAD A 90
DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT THAT'S
BEEN AMENDED DOWN TO 60 DAYS. WE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE A 30 DAY
NOTICE REQUIREMENT, BUT DO
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE TAKEN IN THE SENATE, WE
ALSO CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
NOTICES REQUIRED AND LACK OF
CLARITY AROUND HOW THESE NOTICES
SHOULD BE HANDLED, FOR EXAMPLE,
WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME
MORE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FOR
TEMPORARY CLOSURES, AND THE
METHOD OF NOTICE SHOULD BE
STREAMLINED, GIVEN THAT SOME
PHARMACIES DON'T HAVE THE
SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO PROVIDE
NOTICE TO CONSUMERS OF A CLOSURE
VIA DIGITAL MEANS AS REQUIRED IN
THE BILL. SO IN CLOSING, I JUST
WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE BILL
MANDATES REALISTIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE MOST
RELEVANT TO PATIENTS AND
PHARMACY EMPLOYEES AND THAT
DON'T IMPEDE ANY OF THE CLOSURE
PROCESSES ALREADY IN PLACE
THROUGH REGULATORY OVERSIGHT. SO
FOR THESE REASONS, WE MUST
UNFORTUNATELY OPPOSE SB 1089
UNLESS IT IS AMENDED, BUT AGAIN,
ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE OPPOSITION OR THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, LOUIS
BROWN, HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA GROCERS
ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN AN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION, LIKE TO
ALSO SHARE OUR RESPECT FOR THE
AUTHOR AND THAT HER WILLINGNESS
TO TALK TO US AND THE SPONSORS
OF THE BILL AND WORKING WITH US,
WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
CONCERNS THAT HAVE YET TO BE
RESOLVED. OUR TWO MAIN CONCERNS
DEAL WITH THE EMPLOYEE THRESHOLD
AND THEN THE PENALTIES. SO,
FIRST OF ALL, THE EXAMPLES
YOU'VE HEARD ARE THE BIG NAMES,
YOU'VE HEARD RITE AID, YOU'VE
HEARD SAFEWAY'S, YOU'VE HEARD
OTHERS, WHAT YOU'VE NOT HEARD
ARE THE INDEPENDENT GROCERS,
THAT ARE ACTUALLY NOW IMPACTED
BY THIS BILL. ANY STORE WITH
FIVE OR MORE EMPLOYEES. AND SO
YOUR INDEPENDENT GROCER IN YOUR
TOWN, WHO MAY HAVE 1 OR 2 STORES
LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, WILL NOW
BE IMPACTED BY THIS. THEY'LL
HAVE TO GIVE IF BY CHANCE THEY
CLOSE, WHICH WE WOULD HOPE THEY
WOULDN'T. BUT IF BY CHANCE THEY
CLOSE, THEY'D HAVE TO GIVE A 60
DAY NOTICE, AND THEY'D BE
SUBJECT UP TO A $10,000 PENALTY
IF THEY HAPPEN TO GET THIS
WRONG. THAT'S A LOT ON A SMALL,
INDEPENDENTLY OWNED GROCER, JUST
THE FACT OF GIVING THE 60 DAY
NOTICE. WE HAVE GROCERS THAT ARE
VERY CONCERNED THAT BY DAY 42,
THEY WOULD HAVE NO EMPLOYEES TO
ACTUALLY CONTINUE OPERATING THAT
STORE. AND THEN IF THEY MAKE ONE
MINOR MISTAKE, THEY COULD BE
SUBJECT TO UP TO A $10,000
PENALTY. AND WE GET VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE TYPES OF
RAMIFICATIONS, ESPECIALLY ON THE
SMALL BUSINESSES, THE LARGER
GROCERS THAT WE DEAL WITH
OPERATE WITHIN THE WARN ACT.
THEY UNDERSTAND THE WARN ACT,
AND WE APPRECIATE MAKING THE
NOTICES AS CONSISTENT TO THE
WARN ACT AS POSSIBLE. BUT WE DO
HAVE A VERY, VERY BIG CONCERN
WITH THE IMPACT THAT THIS WILL
HAVE ON THE SMALL, MEDIUM
INDEPENDENT GROCERS, AND THAT
ALL SERVE YOUR COMMUNITIES AND
WE HOPE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE AUTHOR AND RESOLVE THOSE
ISSUES IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1089? GOOD
MORNING, ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
YES. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN. OKAY. ONE, LET'S
START WITH POINT OF
CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I THINK
WHAT THE OPPOSITION SAID, I'M A
LITTLE CONFUSED NOW. OKAY. WELL,
LET ME CLARIFY. LET ME, BECAUSE
I HAVE THE VERY LONG LIST OF
AMENDMENTS THAT WE TOOK. SO
FIRST OF ALL, WE LOWERED THE
NOTICE PERIOD RIGHT FROM 90 DAYS
INITIALLY TO 60 DAYS. OKAY. THE
NOTICE PERIOD IS 30 DAYS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT WITH FIVE OR
FEWER. OKAY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE
THINGS I ALSO WANT TO I WANT TO
ALSO SAY THAT WE HAVE EXEMPTED
INDEPENDENT PHARMACIES WITH 15
OR FEWER STORES FROM THE NOTICE
REQUIREMENT AS WELL. WE'RE WE'RE
WORKING ON THAT NOW. OH, OKAY. I
WAS LIKE, I DIDN'T SEE THAT.
YEAH, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT NOW.
THAT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S THAT'S
THE NEW. THIS IS THE NEW OKAY.
GREAT. NEW LIST. YEAH. THAT
WE'RE WORKING THROUGH. SO I JUST
WANTED TO SAY AND I DON'T KNOW
I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIR, DID I
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS I THINK
SO, WELL, AND I HAVE MORE, BUT I
APPRECIATE. YES. OKAY. THAT WAS
A GREAT START BECAUSE I WAS A
LITTLE CONFUSED. I WAS LIKE, I
THINK I'M READING THIS BILL.
RIGHT. AND I WANT TO SAY I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE 15 OR
FEWER, BECAUSE WE HAD THIS
CONVERSATION AND I THINK I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU AND
THE SAFEWAY'S. AND THE RIGHT IS
THE WORLD. THEY KNOW THEY'RE
CLOSING MORE THAN 60 DAYS IN
ADVANCE. BUT I WILL SAY, AS WE
KNOW IN OUR COMMUNITIES, THE
INDEPENDENTS, AND WE HEARD A
BILL FROM, SENATOR WIENER
EARLIER ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIES THAT ARE BEING DRIVEN
OUT OF BUSINESS BY THE PBMS AND
BY THE MARKET AND THAT'S REALLY
SAD. I WANT TO BE FRANK. LIKE
THOSE FOLKS ARE REALLY THE
PEOPLE WHO KNOW OUR COMMUNITY.
THEY'RE SOMETIMES THE FRONTLINE
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, TO BE
HONEST, IN SOME OF OUR RURAL
COMMUNITIES AND SO I DO WANT TO
DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SUPPORT
THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES. AND I
ONE OF MY FEARS HERE WAS THAT IF
YOU WERE A SMALL BUSINESS, YOU
WOULDN'T KNOW TO DO THIS, RIGHT?
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REDDIT,
YOU'RE NOT SAFEWAY, YOU DON'T
KNOW THE REGULATIONS AND HERE
YOU ARE GOING AT A BUSINESS
WHICH I'M SURE IS THE ONE OF THE
SADDEST DAYS OF YOUR LIFE. AND
THEN WE'RE GOING TO HIT YOU
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU HAD
TO GIVE NOTICE. AND AGAIN, I'M
NOT WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE WITH
MORE THAN 15 STORES. I THINK
THEY KNOW. BUT IF I'M A SMALL
MOM AND POP SHOP, I JUST DON'T
KNOW HOW YOU WOULD KNOW YOU
NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THIS. AND
THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME, I DON'T
WANT TO HIT INSULT TO INJURY
WITH THOSE FOLKS, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT AMENDMENT. I DID
HAVE ONE FURTHER CLARIFYING
QUESTION, WHICH WAS SOMETHING WE
TALKED ABOUT, AND I APOLOGIZE. I
DIDN'T CIRCLE BACK, AS I READ
IT, CESSATION OF OPERATIONS
WOULD MEAN ANY EVEN TEMPORARY
CLOSURE IN THE BILL, I TOLD YOU
ABOUT. I HAVE AN INDEPENDENT
PHARMACIST WHO WORKS ON HIS OWN,
AND WHEN HE GETS SICK OR A
FAMILY MEMBER GETS SICK, HE HAS
TO SHUT DOWN TEMPORARILY. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE SOMEONE LIKE THAT
ISN'T HIT BY THIS. YEAH AND WE
ARE ACTUALLY WORKING ON. OKAY. I
THINK THAT POINT WAS RAISED. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK
TO THAT MORE. YEAH. THE
EXEMPTIONS THAT WE HAVE UNDER
THE BILL RIGHT NOW ARE THE
CLARIFIERS OF WHEN NOTICE LIKE
IF YOU'RE DELAYED ON NOTICE AND
WHEN THAT'S GIVEN IS SIMILAR TO
THE WARN ACT. WE ARE WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO
UNDERSTAND TEMPORARY CLOSURES
AND THE ISSUES IN WHICH WE
SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THOSE IN THE
EXEMPTIONS. I THINK FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, WE WANT TO BE
NARROW ON WHAT A TEMPORARY
CLOSURE IS. IS A YEAR LONG A
TEMPORARY CLOSURE 18 MONTHS. SO
I THINK WE'RE GETTING EXAMPLES
FROM THE OPPOSITION TO BE ABLE
TO ADDRESS THOSE SITUATIONS
WHERE LIKE FOR A DAY, IF A
PHARMACIST ISN'T THERE, THEY
HAVE TO SHUT DOWN THEIR
OPERATIONS. PERFECT OKAY. SO
WITH BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, I'M
REALLY HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS
BECAUSE I DO THINK WE'RE SEEING
THESE LARGE CHAINS. YOU KNOW,
LEAVING OUR COMMUNITIES IN WAYS
ESPECIALLY ON THE PHARMACY SIDE.
I MEAN, PEOPLE NEED ACCESS TO
THEIR MEDICATIONS AND THEY NEED
IT CLOSE. I KNOW I WAS TALKING
TO A FRIEND WHO LIVES IN SAN
FRANCISCO, WHERE THE ONLY
PHARMACY CLOSE WAS A SAFEWAY. IT
SHUT DOWN, SENIORS WHO DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES IN
THE SAME WAY WE DO TO ORDER
ONLINE AND THE LIKE. NOW DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR PHARMACIST.
AND IT REALLY IS OFTEN YOUR
PHARMACIST WHO'S THE PERSON WHO
TALKS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR BLOOD
PRESSURE GOING UP AND SORT OF
THOSE FRONTLINE MEDICAL ISSUES
THAT WE REALLY NEED FOLKS TO,
SOMETIMES INTERFACE WITH THESE
PEOPLE. SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO HERE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND AS LONG AS WE'RE
FOCUSED ON THOSE SMALL
BUSINESSES WHO ARE JUST TRYING
TO GET BY AND THE WAYS THEY NEED
TO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
EFFORT. SO THANK YOU FOR
CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS. AND
WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
THOSE COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT.
MADAM SECRETARY, IF WE CAN TAKE
A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON Ó, YES,
SENATOR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE. AND
YEAH, EVEN YOU TALKED ABOUT
RURAL AND INNER CITY SOUTH LÀ
FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS FROM HOW TO
GET THEIR HEALTH CARE TO, HEY, I
GOT BURNED. WHAT DO I PUT, YOU
KNOW, SO THEY DO BECOME MINI
CLINICS, SO OFTENTIMES AND I
WANT TO ALSO SAY THAT, THE
NOTIFICATION IS SAYING DO IT IN
THE WAY THAT YOU TYPICALLY
COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR
COMMUNITY. AND, YOU KNOW, I HEAR
THE POINTS ABOUT THE, THE
DIGITAL NOTIFICATION, I THINK
THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT WE'RE,
WE'RE WORKING ON. THIS IS A
COMMON SENSE BILL. WE JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THERE IS
CLOSURE THAT OUR COMMUNITIES,
PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ISSUES
AROUND TRANSIT, THAT HAVE EBT
AND SUBSIDY, THAT THEY NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER THIS
TRANSFER OR THIS NEW GROCERY
STORE, THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO
TRAVEL TO, THAT THEY WILL BE
ABLE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT
WITH THE SERVICES THAT THEY
HAVE, PARTICULARLY OUR, DISABLED
TWO COMMUNITIES THAT RELY ON
TRANSIT AND PARATRANSIT. THOSE
ARE SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER
WHEN WE CLOSE THE GROCERY STORE
IN A PHARMACY THAT THESE
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES WILL HAVE
TO FIGURE A WAY TO GET TO THEIR
BASIC NEEDS AND GET THEM MET.
AND SO I THANK YOU ALL FOR THE
DISCUSSION TODAY. CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION ON
THIS, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR,
FOR YOUR WORK IN THIS SPACE. AND
THANK YOU FOR THE AMENDMENTS
THAT REALLY ADDRESSED THE TRUE
MOM AND POPS, YOU KNOW, THAT
DON'T MAY NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY
AS AS LARGER, SOMETIMES RENT
GOES UP QUICKLY AND THEY CAN'T
MAKE IT ANOTHER MONTH OR SO. WE
RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT FOR THE
MIDDLE MEDIUM TO LARGER SIZE,
THEY USUALLY KNOW MONTHS IN
ADVANCE OR AT LEAST SEVERAL
WEEKS IN ADVANCE. SO I THINK
IT'S RESPECTFUL TO ALL PARTIES,
WORKERS AND CONSUMERS ALIKE THAT
THE NOTICE GETS OUT THERE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AND SO IF WE CAN
HAVE ROLL CALL VOTE ON SB 1089,
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHOLERA A
CHOLERA I DIXON. DIXON, NÓ
BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN I BRIAN
I BRIAN I. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
PACHECO. PATTERSON. REYES
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO OKAY. WE'LL
PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU.
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. WELL, I'M. I
HAVE ONE MORE. 1341 MORE TO COME
BACK IN A COUPLE OF HOURS. RIVAS
SPECIAL HERE. ONE MORE FILE. 16
SB 1342. I KNOW I'M WITH YOU.
LET'S KEEP IT. LET'S GO, LET'S
GO. WE GOT THIS. I AM REALLY
EXCITED TO PRESENT TO YOU SB
1340, WHICH IS A SENATE
PRIORITY. I WOULD LIKE TO START
BY SAYING THANK YOU TO YOUR HARD
WORKING COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS
AND OUR TEAM FOR HELPING TO
DRAFT SOME CLARIFYING
AMENDMENTS, WHICH I HAVE
ACCEPTED. THIS BILL IS, IS ALL
ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY. AND QUITE FRANKLY,
FOR US AS MEMBERS RECEIPTS. HOW
ARE WE HOW DO WE HAVE EVIDENCE
THAT WHAT WE ARE MAKING PUBLIC
INVESTMENTS IN IS REACHING OUR
MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND
HELPING TO ADDRESS POVERTY, TO
BEGIN, THIS BILL WOULD SUPPORT
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR WILL.
LAST YEAR WHEN WE SUPPORTED AND
PUSHED FOR THE ADOPTION OF SB
150, WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR, WHICH HELPS TO GUIDE
THE STATE'S USE OF INCOMING
FEDERAL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
FUNDING. THIS INCLUDES THE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND
JOBS ACT, THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT, AND THE CHIPS AND
SCIENCE ACT FOR WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, GOOD JOBS AND
COMMUNITY BENEFIT PLANS FOR
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
IS OUR TOP PRIORITY AND
PRESIDENT BIDEN ENSURED THAT
THERE WERE GUIDELINES THAT
CALLED FOR CALIFORNIA IN EVERY
STATE IN ORDER TO BE
COMPETITIVE, THAT WE HAVE SOME
STRICT GUIDELINES AROUND
ADDRESSING UNDERREPRESENTED
POPULATIONS AND ADDRESSING
EQUITY IN THIS FUNDING TO ENSURE
THAT THESE ARE GOOD JOBS WITH
REAL LABOR STANDARDS AND
ENSURING ALSO THAT WE ARE
MAXIMIZING COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
BUT IN CALIFORNIA, IN ORDER FOR
US TO DO THIS, WE HAVE TO
ADDRESS EXISTING BARRIERS,
BARRIERS AND INSTITUTIONAL
BARRIERS. INDUSTRY,
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS OF
RACISM, OF EXCLUSION, OF LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND THAT'S WHY SB 1340 REALLY
AUTHORIZES THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT IN PARTNERSHIPS WITH
DIR AND OTHER AGENCIES, TO
INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE CASES OF
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
EMPOWERING OUR CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT HERE AT THE STATE TO
PARTNER WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
THAT ALSO HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS
ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY, THERE WAS
A RECENT REPORT DONE BY CRD IN
2020 THAT SAID THEY RECEIVED
23,000 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
COMPLAINTS. THAT IS UP TO ABOUT
25,000, BY THE TIME WE GOT TO
2022, THE HIGH VOLUME OF THESE
COMPLAINTS, IN ADDITION TO THE
DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES,
WHICH ARE GROWING AS WE IN THE
LEGISLATURE PROTECT MORE AND
MORE CLASSES, WE'RE PUTTING MORE
AND MORE RESPONSIBILITY ON CRD,
WHICH IS ALREADY OVERBURDENED
AND UNDERSTAFFED AND HAS A
BACKLOG OF THOUSANDS OF
UNADDRESSED DISCRIMINATION
CLAIMS. THE LOS ANGELES CIVIL
RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A
NEW DEPARTMENT THAT WAS CREATED
IN 2019 AND MY DISTRICT HAS
TRAINED AND STAFFED UP AND IS
READY TO ADDRESS THESE CLAIMS
AND TO PARTNER WITH THE STATE.
AND WE KNOW THAT THESE LOCAL
ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES EXIST IN
SAN DIEGO AND SAN FRANCISCO, IN
THE BAY AREA ALIKE. AND, AND
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH WE MAY
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE
BOOTS ON THE GROUND, EXISTING
LAW PREEMPTS THEM FROM
INVESTIGATING THE LARGE MAJORITY
OF CLAIMS THAT THEY RECEIVE AND
REQUIRE THEM TO FORWARD THEM TO
THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WHICH ONLY
SERVES TO INCREASE THE BACKLOG
AND UNFORTUNATELY, NOT PROTECT
WORKERS. SO NOW THAT WE HAVE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS COMING IN
FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO
ACTUALLY CREATE OPPORTUNITIES,
WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT
STRUCTURE THAT'S READY AND ABLE
TO RECEIVE THOSE DOLLARS AND
ENSURE THAT OUR MOST
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES HAVE
ACCESS. CRD WILL NEED TO HAVE
LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS TO DO THIS,
AND THEY WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO
WORK IN COORDINATION WITH THOSE
ENTITIES AND AS WELL AS HAVE A
CONTRACTOR COMMUNITY THAT
UNDERSTANDS HOW WE NEED TO
PARTNER TOGETHER TO REACH OUR
GOALS OF BUILDING A CLIMATE
RESILIENT CALIFORNIA. BUT ALSO
CALLING IN THOSE MOST VULNERABLE
AND UNDERREPRESENTED POPULATIONS
TO THE OPPORTUNITY. WE CAN DO
THAT BY ENSURING THAT WE ARE
COLLECTING DATA, THAT WE ARE
MAKING THAT DATA PUBLIC, AND
THAT WE'RE BUILDING ACROSS
MULTIDISCIPLINE TASK FORCE THAT
CAN WORK TOGETHER, TO ENSURE
THAT WE ARE BRINGING IN BUILDING
PATHWAYS INTO WORK. TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE COMING
TO CALIFORNIA TO CREATE GOOD
JOBS. HOW DO WE ENSURE OUR MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES GET IT?
AND I WANT TO SAY IN THIS
CLIMATE OF SAFER COMMUNITIES,
WHEN WE ARE CREATING NEW,
FELONIES, WHEN WE ARE CREATING
NEW PATHWAYS INTO PRISON,
CALIFORNIA HAS TO ALSO CREATE
PATHWAYS INTO QUALITY JOBS. THE
NUMBER ONE WAY THAT OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE SAFE IS WHEN
FOLKS HAVE ACCESS TO CAREERS
THAT HELP THEM BE ABLE TO
SUSTAIN THEMSELVES AND THEIR
FAMILIES, AND THAT'S WHAT
THEY'RE TÍNH 40, IS INTENDED TO
DO WITH ME TODAY. I HAVE DON
WATKINS WITH THE LOS ANGELES
BLACK WORKER HUB FOR REGIONAL
ORGANIZING, AND TIA WITH THE
UCLA LABOR CENTER TO SPEAK MORE
ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, GLAD TO BE WITH YOU ALL
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT SENATE BILL
1340. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BLACK WORKER
HUB, COMPRISED OF OUR BLACK
WORKERS CENTERS ACROSS SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND LA COUNTY, SAN
DIEGO, SAN BERNARDINO AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, ORGANIZING
TO SECURE ACCESS TO NEW AND
TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIES, PATHWAYS
TO THOSE FAMILY, SUPPORTIVE
CAREERS, AND PROTECTIONS FOR ALL
BLACK WORKERS IN THE WORKPLACE.
WE'RE PLEASED TO SPONSOR THIS
BILL. SENATE. THIRD, SENATE BILL
1340 TO PROVIDE LOCAL
ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION
CASES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT. FIVE QUICK POINTS,
ONE, CLEARLY WE, HAVE GOT TO BE
ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATION
LOCALLY AND BREAK THIS
BOTTLENECK AT THE STATE LEVEL,
WORKING WITH CRD TO ADEQUATELY
NOT ONLY, ADJUDICATE, BUT TO
ATTRACT THE CLAIMS OF THE
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FILED
ACROSS THE STATE. BLACK WORKERS
ARE OVERREPRESENTED AS WE ARE
OFTEN IN EVERY INDUSTRY, IN
EDUCATION, DISPROPORTIONATELY IN
HOMELESSNESS, DISPROPORTIONATE
AND HOUSING DISPROPORTIONATE IN
OUR WORKFORCES. AND IMPACTS OF
ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE
AFFECTING A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT
DISPROPORTIONATELY BLACK PEOPLE.
RIGHT. BUT, OF ALL THE CLAIMS
FILED AT THIS STATE, OVER A
THIRD OF BLACK WORKERS REPORTED
EXPERIENCING PREJUDICE AND
DISCRIMINATION DURING THE
PANDEMIC ALONE. WE'VE SEEN AN
INCREASE OF 34% OF
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS OVER
THE LAST 30 YEARS. YET WE HAVE
NOT SEEN A PROPORTIONATE GROWTH
IN THE STATE'S CAPACITY TO BE
ABLE TO PROCESS THESE CLAIMS.
NUMBER THREE OF FIVE
ANTI-BLACKNESS AND
DISCRIMINATION HAS DEEPENED THE
CRISIS FOR BLACK WORKERS. THE
UNEMPLOYMENT, THE UNEMPLOYMENT
AND UNDERREPRESENTATION OF BLACK
WORKERS AND PROFESSIONAL CAREERS
AND JOBS IN OUR STATE ARE DIRECT
EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE
DISCRIMINATION. ONE LAST POINT I
READ A PIECE ON, THAT JUST CAME
OUT ON THE GOVERNOR WANTING TO
IMPRISON PEOPLE FOR PETTY
THEFTS, MAKING THEM FELONIES,
CLAIMING THAT IT'S A CRACKDOWN
ON CRIME WHEN IT'S NOT, IT'S
CRIMINALIZING THE UNDEREMPLOYED.
AND SO WHEN WE KNOW THAT
ANTI-BLACKNESS AND
DISCRIMINATION HAS SUCH A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT
RATES, IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE
HAVE TO MOVE SOMETHING LIKE 1340
SENATE BILL 1340 TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THOSE CHALLENGES LOCALLY
AND THEREFORE HELP, SHIFT THE
IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING, ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS TIA KOONTZ.
I'M WITH THE UCLA LABOR CENTER,
AND I'VE WORKED WITH THE SENATOR
ON THIS VERY ISSUE. ACCESS TO
QUALITY JOBS FOR
UNDERREPRESENTED WORKERS SINCE
STARTING MY LEGAL CAREER BACK IN
2008, I HELPED TO WRITE THE
SOBERING 2010 ASSESSMENT OF THE
DF, THEN THE DF IN ITS 50TH
YEAR. THAT IS CITED FREQUENTLY
IN THIS COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS.
AND THEN TOGETHER, THE SENATOR
AND I HAVE RESEARCHED ICONIC LÀ
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS LIKE THE
MLK HOSPITAL EXPANSION AND THE
CRENSHAW LIGHT RAIL LINE. AND
WE'VE SEEN TIME AND AGAIN THAT
BLACK WORKERS AND WOMEN IN
PARTICULAR GET TURNED AWAY FROM
QUALITY JOBS, RIGHT IN THE HEART
OF BLACK L.A. OR THEY EXPERIENCE
WHAT ARE SO-CALLED TURNAROUNDS
IN WHICH YOU STAY ON THE JOB, ON
ANY GIVEN JOB, ONLY SO LONG,
MAYBE JUST A FEW HOURS IN A
MONTH IN ORDER TO HAVE A CHECK
MARKS ON A BOX THAT THAT
CONTRACTOR IS FILLED, HIRING
GOALS. AND EVEN THAT TIME IS
SPENT OFTEN IN THE VERY LOWEST
PAID POSITIONS, OFTEN TRAFFIC
FLAGGING FOR EXAMPLE. WE NEED
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COUPLED
WITH ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT, AND THIS BILL
COMBINES THE TWO. IT TAKES
ADVANTAGE OF MASSIVE JOB GROWTH
IN CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THESE
NEW AND FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DOLLARS, AND IMPROVES OUR
ENFORCEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AT
THE SAME TIME AND IT DOES THIS
IN THREE WAYS. ONE, IT'S GOING
TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BOOTS
ON THE GROUND. LIFTING
PREEMPTION ALLOWS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO ASSIST IN TO
ASSIST THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
AND ENSURING OUR
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE
COMPLIED WITH. THE SENATOR
ALREADY MENTIONED SAN FRANCISCO
SAN DIEGO, LOS ANGELES. THEY'VE
ALREADY GOT CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICES
THAT ARE READY TO PARTNER
ALONGSIDE OUR OUR STATE'S
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS
ENFORCEMENT. SECOND, THIS BILL
ENSURES TIMELY, THOROUGH DATA
MONITORING. EQUITY GOALS ARE
NOTHING WITHOUT ACTIVE
MONITORING AND TRANSPARENCY AND
CONSEQUENCES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
AND YOU GET THAT FROM DIRECT
SURVEYS OF WORKERS THEMSELVES
USING SAMPLING TECHNIQUES THAT
CONTROL FOR BIAS. THAT'S LONG
STANDING AND FREQUENT METHODS TO
OBTAIN HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA AND WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES.
ANY DATA YOU GUYS HAVE EVER USED
HAS COME FROM SURVEYS. AND THEN
THIRD, THE BILL TAKES ADVANTAGE
OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS THAT
ALREADY EXIST WITH LOCAL
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
WITH A TRACK RECORD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1340? MARIKO
YOSHIHARA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WORKER
POWER IN SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
SARA FLOCKS, CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JAZZY GREWAL, UFC WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. K¾T WEBER, SACRAMENTO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1340?
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. SCOTT.
GOVERNOR, ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS
ASSOCIATION, THEY ARE THE
LARGEST UNION SIGNATORY BUILDING
CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE. I'D
LIKE TO THANK YOU. AND YOUR
STAFF FOR A VERY THOROUGH
ANALYSIS. AND ON THAT POINT,
JUST A PROCEDURAL THING. THIS
BILL CLEARLY VIOLATES THE SINGLE
SUBJECT RULE. PROPONENTS SPOKE
PRIMARILY ABOUT ENFORCEMENT,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY IN THE TITLE
OF THE BILL. SECTION FOUR,
RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE SURVEYS
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. TO
RESOLVE THAT PROBLEM, I SAY YOU
STRIKE SECTION FOUR AS IT
RELATES TO THE UNDERLYING
POLICY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT
OF DISCUSSION IN THE BUILDING
ABOUT PRIVACY AND EMPLOYEE
RIGHTS. UNDER THIS BILL. WE AS
CONTRACTORS ARE OBLIGATED TO ASK
OUR EMPLOYEES EVERY SINGLE
MONTH. DO YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF
HOMELESSNESS? WHETHER YOU'RE A
CUSTODIAL SINGLE, SINGLE PARENT,
WHETHER YOU RECEIVE PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE, LEVEL OF EDUCATION,
WHERE YOU FORMERLY INCARCERATED,
HISTORY OF CHRONIC UNEMPLOYMENT,
ETC. THIS IS NOT DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA. THIS IS EXCEEDINGLY
PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT,
FRANKLY, AS EMPLOYERS, WE DON'T
WANT THE EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO
ASK THEIR EMPLOYEES. THE
EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO FEEL
OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO THIS,
EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT
OBLIGATED TO. WE THINK THAT PUTS
EMPLOYEES IN A VERY AWKWARD
POSITION. THEN WE HAVE TO TAKE
THIS INFORMATION AND PROVIDE IT
TO THE CRD. NOW, TO THE EXTENT
EMPLOYEES ELECT NOT TO RESPOND,
WHICH I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD
DO BECAUSE IT IS PERSONAL, WE'RE
GOING TO BE GIVING DATA TO THE
CRD THAT IS INCOMPLETE AT BEST.
IF YOU GET 510% RESPONSE RATE,
THEN CRDS GOT TO COME UP WITH
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON
BAD DATA, THE PENALTY FOR NOT
COMPLETING THESE REPORTS, EVEN
IF THERE ARE NO RESPONDENTS, IS
$100 PER EMPLOYEE PER DAY,
AGAIN, WE DON'T THINK THIS DATA
IS USEFUL. I KNOW BRETT'S GOING
TO SPEAK ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE
DISPATCH ISSUE, WHICH IS
SPECIFIC TO UNION EMPLOYERS, BUT
AGAIN, JUST ON THE SINGLE
SUBJECT RULE ALONE, WE'D ASK YOU
TO PLEASE CONSIDER STRIKING
SECTION FOUR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS
BRETT BARROW WITH THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE
PLUMBING, HEATING, PIPING
INDUSTRY AND UNITED CONTRACTORS.
AND WE ECHO THE COMMENTS OF CEA.
WE ARE ALSO A LARGE SIGNATORY
CONTRACT UNION CONTRACTORS IN
THE STATE, AND WE SPECIFICALLY
FOLLOW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS THAT LAY OUT THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR LABOR
THAT IS GOING TO BE ON OUR JOB
SITE. SO THEY ARE DISPATCHED TO
US BASED ON A NUMBER OF CRITERIA
, INCLUDING THOSE ON PUBLIC
WORKS THAT FOLLOW THE STATE'S
REQUIREMENTS FOR SKILLED AND
TRAINED WORKFORCE, FOR
JOURNEYMAN APPRENTICESHIP
QUOTAS, ETC. SO THE ASSERTION
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO TURN AWAY
FOLKS WHO SHOW UP TO THE JOB
SITE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT MEET
THE CRITERIA OR THE STANDARDS OR
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE.
WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE NEXT, NEXT
DISPATCH BASED ON THE SKILLED
WORKER, AS WELL AS THE LOCAL
WHO'S DISPATCHING AND WHO'S NEXT
IN LINE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE ARE ALSO OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. AND THAT INCLUDES THE
REMOVAL OF SECTION FOUR. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1340? MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS CHRIS WALKER ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SHEET
METAL AIR CONDITIONING
CONTRACTORS, WE TOO ARE OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. SECTION FOUR OF
THE BILL CAUSES LOTS OF
PROBLEMS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
BRETT GLADFELTER, ON BEHALF OF
THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS
AND SAN DIEGO CHAPTERS.
UNFORTUNATELY OPPOSED TO THE
SECOND SUBJECT, WHICH IS SECTION
FOUR, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE MEMBER IN THE
FUTURE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, NAOMI
FORGIONE, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN SUBCONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
WILL, ACTING WITH THE AMERICAN
COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING
COMPANIES. WE ARE ALSO IN
OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING,
ASHLEY HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF CAL
CHAMBER IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN, SENATOR, I WANT TO
START WITH THE FIRST, PIECE THAT
YOU GUYS DISCUSSED, WHICH I
THINK WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE
THIS IS JUDICIARY. SO OBVIOUSLY
THE ENFORCEMENT PIECE IS
PRIMARILY THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE, AND I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT I
USED TO DO REGULATORY LAW, AND I
ABSOLUTELY SAW THAT WHERE AND I
PRACTICE IN AREA WHERE BOTH
LOCALS AND STATE HAD
JURISDICTION. AND IT WAS ALWAYS
THE LOCALS WHO KNEW WHAT WAS
HAPPENING IN THEIR COMMUNITY.
OFTEN THE STATE WOULD THEN
PARTNER IN AN ACTION WITH THE
LOCAL ENTITY, CITY ATTORNEY OR
OTHERWISE, BUT IT WAS THOSE
LOCAL ENTITIES THAT WERE WALKING
AROUND THEIR OWN COMMUNITY AND
SAW WHERE THE PROBLEMS WERE AND
WERE HEARING ABOUT THEM. AND SO
I THINK BRINGING IN THE LOCAL
ENTITIES TO DO ENFORCEMENT IS
GAME CHANGING. SO I WANT TO JUST
HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT
AND HOW MUCH I SUPPORT IT,
BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE
THINGS WE HEAR A LOT IN THIS
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS IS ABOUT
PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION. AND
ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, THINGS
PEOPLE SAY IS, WELL, THE
GOVERNMENT'S NOT ENFORCING
THINGS AND WE SHOULD BE
ENFORCING OUR LAWS. I MEAN, I
THINK EVERY TIME THERE'S NO
QUESTION THERE SHOULD BE
ENFORCEMENT IS INCUMBENT UPON
GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE OUR LAWS.
AND YOU'RE TAKING A STEP FURTHER
IN THAT, I HAVE TO ASK A
QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW AS A
FELLOW MEMBER OF THE WOMEN'S
CAUCUS, THIS IS A CONCERN THAT I
IMAGINE YOU WOULD SHARE. ONE OF
THE QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY IS
WHETHER SOMEONE IS A SINGLE
CUSTODIAL PARENT. I'LL BE HONEST
WITH YOU, THAT AS A WOMAN THAT
CONCERNS ME. IT'S SOMETHING THAT
EMPLOYERS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO ASK
AND COULD LEAD TO FURTHER
DISCRIMINATION. AND SO I JUST
WANTED YOU TO ADDRESS THAT
BECAUSE I THINK WE DON'T WANT
EMPLOYERS GETTING INTO SPACES
WHERE IT'S JUST GOING TO LEAD TO
WORSE PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY FOR
WOMEN. SO AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
YOUR COMMENTS AND ABSOLUTELY
AGREE THAT, BRINGING LOCAL AND
STATE ENFORCEMENT TOGETHER,
PUTTING MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND
HELPS US TO ADDRESS JUST HOW
MANY SCHEMES ARE OUT THERE TO
COVER MILLIONS OF WORK SITES,
AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THE STATE BEING POISED TO GET
$180 BILLION IN CLIMATE
RESILIENT FUNDING FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALONE, THAT'S
NOT INCLUDING OUR BONDS. THAT'S
NOT INCLUDING WHAT WE ARE
PUTTING ON THE TABLE. WE WELL
NEED A PROCESS TO TRACK AND
MONITOR HOW AND WHO IS GETTING
THIS MONEY, MY GOOD COLLEAGUE
FROM UCLA LABOR CENTER NOTED
THAT WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN
CONSTRUCTION, LARGE SCALE PUBLIC
PROJECTS IS SO SMALL YOU CAN
BARELY MEASURE IT. YEAH, THERE
WAS A TIME WHEN WE STARTED DOING
THIS WORK AND LOOKING AT THIS
WORK, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE
10% BLACK APPRENTICES AT THIS
COMING OUT OF THE DA'S, BUT ONLY
2% OF THEM SHOWING UP IN LA
COUNTY PROJECTS. RIGHT? SO WE'VE
GOT TO AND I APPRECIATE AND I
YOU KNOW, WE NEED GOOD
CONTRACTORS IN ORDER TO HAVE
GOOD WORKERS THAT ARE IN GOOD
JOBS WHERE THEY CAN HAVE A
CAREER. SO I'M APPRECIATING THE
CONCERNS. BUT THIS IS ABOUT
SOMETHING NEW BREAKING THROUGH.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE A VOLUNTARY
WE'RE NOT FORCING ANYONE TO
REVEAL INFORMATION. AND I WANT
TO SAY THAT FROM LA COUNTY TO UC
DAVIS HOSPITAL PROGRAM TO THE
PORTS IN IN OAKLAND, THIS MODEL
OF TRACKING IS THE STANDARD. IT
IS THE STANDARD AT LA METRO. WE
ON THE K LINE, WHICH WAS
BUILDING THE CRENSHAW LINE,
WHICH RAN THROUGH THE BLACK
COMMUNITY OF LOS ANGELES, $23
BILLION PROJECT. WE DIDN'T HAVE
ONE PENALTY FILED AGAINST A
CONTRACTOR FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO
MEET OUR DISADVANTAGE. AND THIS
IS ABOUT BRINGING DISADVANTAGED
WORKERS, SINGLE MOMS, SINGLE
PARENTS ARE DISADVANTAGED IN
THIS ECONOMY. WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE SEE THEM. FORMERLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS ARE
DISADVANTAGED IN OUR SOCIETY. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SEE
THEM IN THESE PROJECTS. SO THIS
IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM AND THEIR
WORKERS ARE ABLE TO OPT OUT. BUT
I WILL TELL YOU, IN LARGE
SYSTEMS, AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
LA METRO AND THE SCALE OF
PROJECTS AND FEDERAL AND STATE
AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
CONTRACTS, NOT ONLY ARE THEY
COLLECTING THIS DATA, THEY'RE
EXCEEDING THE GOALS. SO WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, IF WE CAN DO THIS IN
LA COUNTY FOR WORKERS, WE CAN DO
IT FOR WORKERS IN BEAVER AND NÓ
WHO IS DISADVANTAGED. MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE TRACKING THEM AND
THAT WE CAN HAVE REAL RECEIPTS
ON WHAT IS THEIR PARTICIPATION
IN PROJECTS WE HAVE. YOU KNOW,
I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT, YOU KNOW,
I TRUST OUR LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL.
I TRUST OUR COMMITTEE STAFF TO
KNOW WHAT THIS THIS IS A TWO
ISSUE RULE OR NOT. IT IS NOT. IT
HAS PASSED JUDICIARY ON THE
SENATE. IT HAS PASSED ALL OF THE
COMMITTEES. I'M BRINGING IT HERE
BEFORE YOU. WE HAVE ADDRESSED
THIS ISSUE. BUT WHAT IS
HAPPENING HERE? AND I WAS GOING
BACK TO MY ANALOGY. WE'RE GIVING
BIRTH TO A NEW WAY OF TRACKING
HOW WE INVEST IN OUR PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE. AND IT'S GOING
TO BE PAINFUL. IT'S GOING TO
HURT. BUT AT THE END, IT'S GOING
TO BE A BEAUTIFUL THING TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE A REPORT THAT SHOWS
US, OKAY, WHAT ZIP CODES
DIRECTLY BENEFITED WHAT POOR
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, ZIP CODES
DIRECTLY BENEFITED FROM THIS
PROJECT? WHAT SINGLE MOM
BENEFITED? WHAT FORMERLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL
BENEFITED? AND I WANT TO SAY
THESE CONTRACTORS ARE ALREADY
DOING THIS. I MEAN, AND THEY'RE
DOING IT SUPERBLY IN OTHER PARTS
OF OUR STATE. MOST OF OUR STATE
WHERE THIS IS THE RULE, THIS
PROGRAM, THIS IDEA OF AND WE
CALL IT DISADVANTAGED WORKER
CONSTRUCTION CAREERS POLICY IS
20 YEARS OLD. IT HAS BEEN WORKED
ON, HONED AND IMPROVED OVER THE
LAST 20 YEARS, AND IT'S TIME FOR
US TO SCALE IT HERE AT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, SO THAT THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA KNOW THAT
THEIR INVESTMENTS ARE NOT JUST
BUILDING THE MATERIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT IT'S ALSO
BUILDING THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
AND STABILITY OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS AND PULLING OUR
MOST VULNERABLE, VULNERABLE
FOLKS OUT OF THE SAFETY NET AND
INTO SELF-SUFFICIENCY. SO LONG
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT I
WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS THIS IS
WE'RE BEHIND THE CURVE HERE AT
THE STATE. AND I HEAR WHAT THE
OPPOSITION IS SAYING, BUT
THEY'RE DOING THIS IN OTHER
PLACES AND THEY'RE ROCKING IT.
WE THINK THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DESERVES IT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
TO FIGURE IT OUT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I MAY JUST. YEAH. SO
I WANT TO I WANT TO THANK YOU.
AND I TRUST YOU. AND THAT'S WHY
I ASKED THE QUESTION, SAYING, I
KNOW YOU SHARE MY DESIRE FOR
SINGLE MOMS TO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS
TO ALL OF THIS WORK, YOU KNOW, I
JUST I KNOW, LIKE MANY WOMEN, I,
WHEN I APPLIED FOR JOBS, I
DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW I WAS
A PARENT BECAUSE I KNEW THAT IT
WOULD DISADVANTAGE ME IN THE
APPLICATION PROCESS. RIGHT AND
THAT'S THE REALITY WE LIVE WITH
AS MOMS. AND SO I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT AS WE MOVE THIS
FORWARD, AND WE'RE SAYING THAT
THEY SHOULD ASK THIS QUESTION
AND OTHERS TO YOUR POINT, THAT
COULD LEAD TO DISCRIMINATION,
THAT WE'VE GOT OUR EYE ON THAT
BALL, THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE
THAT IT'S NOT DISADVANTAGING
PEOPLE, THAT INSTEAD IT IS
ACHIEVING EVERY GOAL YOU YOU
ACHIEVE. BUT I TRUST YOU, AND I
KNOW YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS WORK
FOR A LONG TIME, SO I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT. IT'S JUST I WANTED
TO RAISE IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS.
ABSOLUTELY. APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION. O'BRIEN NO, I MEAN,
LISTENING TO THE LINE OF
QUESTIONING AND THE AUTHOR, IT
JUST ESPECIALLY THE APPLICATION
POINT THAT WAS JUST MADE, IT
ALWAYS REMINDS ME THAT JUST
BLACK SOUNDING NAMES, ARE LESS
LIKELY TO BE HIRED THAN WHITE
FOLKS WITH PAST CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT. AND THAT'S
NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN HIDE OR
CHOOSE NOT TO DISCLOSE THE NAME
YOU WERE GIVEN AT BIRTH, OR
WHERE YOU LIVE, YOUR ADDRESS,
ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE
PROXIES FOR AREAS OF
DISCRIMINATION. MOSTLY, I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT I KNEW THE
SENATOR BEFORE SHE WAS IN THIS
CAPACITY, AND THIS IS LIFE'S
WORK FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON
THE PROPONENTS SIDE OF THIS
TABLE. AND SO TO SEE YOU,
SENATOR, BRINGING THIS INTO THE
POLICY ARENA AND INTO THE SECOND
HOUSE, GIVES ME A LOT OF PRIDE
FIGHTING WORKER DISCRIMINATION,
FIGHTING FOR EQUITY, ACCESS TO
JOBS, ACCOUNTABILITY. THOSE ARE
THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT BUILD A
CALIFORNIA ECONOMY THAT INCLUDES
EVERYBODY. AND PART OF INCLUDING
EVERYBODY MEANS TRACKING, SEEING
AND KNOWING WHETHER
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ARE A
PART OF SPECIFICALLY PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE DOLLARS. RIGHT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU
REPRESENTING, REFERENCING THE K
LINE THAT IS RIGHT OUTSIDE OF
OUR OUR HOUSES, AND TAKES US
RIGHT BACK HOME. AND SO WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL,
BUT JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU,
SENATOR, THAT I COULD NOT BE
MORE PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BLACK CAUCUS AND TO SEE YOU
DOING THIS WORK AT THIS LEVEL.
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS
THERE A SECOND, MADAM VICE
CHAIR? YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
LET ME UNDERSTAND WITH THIS, OUR
FEDERAL LAWS, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN
HEARING ABOUT THE FEDERAL LAWS
FOR DECADES. SO WHY ARE NOT THE
FEDERAL LAWS ACHIEVING WHAT IT
IS THAT YOU WANT? I AM
CONCERNED, AS MY COLLEAGUE, ON
SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS AND WHAT
THE OPPOSITION HAS SAID. WHO
WANTS TO ADMIT THAT THEY WERE
HOMELESS? I MEAN, MY
UNDERSTANDING OF WORKING WITH
MANY, UNION PROGRAMS AND UNION
REPRESENTATIVES, THEY HAVE
APPRENTICE PROGRAMS, THEY HAVE
THE SKILLED TRAINING. I THINK
IT'S A REMARKABLE POSITIVE
SYSTEM OF HOW SKILLED WORKERS
ARE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE UNION
SYSTEM THROUGH THE
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS. SO IF
THE UNION IS PROVIDING THE JOB,
THE PEOPLE TO GO TO THE JOBS,
HAVEN'T THEY BEEN VETTED THROUGH
THE UNION? I MEAN, TO I JUST
HAVE A VISCERAL REACTION ABOUT
ONE MORE REGULATION ON ONE MORE
BUSINESS WHEN THERE'S EXISTING
FEDERAL LAW, A LONGSTANDING
ABOUT WORKFORCE DISCRIMINATION
AND HOW TO GET AROUND IT. I
COMMEND YOU WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I, YOU I RESPECT THE FACT YOU'VE
SEEN A NEED AND YOU'RE TRYING
IT, JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS
JUST SAID, YOU FOUND US A WAY TO
GET PEOPLE WORKING. I THINK
THAT'S A NOBLE, EXCEPTIONAL
CAUSE I'M JUST. AND YOU SAY IT'S
VOLUNTARY, BUT IS IT REALLY? I
MEAN, YOU STILL REQUIRE THE
BUSINESS, THE CONTRACTOR, TO SIT
EVERYBODY DOWN AND ASK ONCE A
MONTH. I MEAN, REALLY ONCE A
MONTH? COULD IT BE ONCE A YEAR,
THE WORKFORCE CHANGES ALL THE
TIME. I MEAN, I WANT YOU TO BE
SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING
EVERYBODY WHO NEEDS A JOB IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHO'S
TRAINED AND SKILLED IN THOSE
PARTICULAR JOBS FOR THAT
PARTICULAR JOB CLASSIFICATION.
YES, WE'VE GOT TO GET THEM TO
WORK WITH ALL THE MONEY COMING
IN 100. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND,
WE DON'T WANT UNSKILLED PEOPLE
WHO ARE GETTING INTO A JOB
POSITION THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE.
I HOPE THAT THE UNION HOUSE, IS,
IS SORTING ALL THIS OUT WHEN
THEY, DISPENSE WITH PEOPLE TO GO
OFF TO A PARTICULAR SITE. AND
THEN THE CONTRACTORS CLEARLY ARE
WANT TO WORK WITH SKILLED
WORKERS TO GET THE JOB DONE
RIGHT AND GET IT DONE IN AN
EXPEDITIOUS MANNER. SO I THINK
THE OBJECTIVES ARE THERE. I JUST
THINK THIS IS ONEROUS. I DON'T
DISAGREE WITH YOUR LONG TERM
OBJECTIVES. I JUST THINK THE
REQUIREMENTS ARE OWNERS, WHETHER
YOU SAY ARE VOLUNTARY OR NOT,
THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO
DO IT OR ELSE THEY'LL HAVE A
BLACK MARK OF SOME SORT OF,
DISCIPLINARY ACTION. MAY, MAY OR
MAY NOT BE TAKEN, BUT WHY IMPOSE
ONCE AGAIN, THIS I SIT IN ALL
THESE COMMITTEES AND IT'S ONE
REGULATION, ONE CIVIL ACTION.
WE'RE JUST KILLING, KILLING,
KILLING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WANT
JOBS, I WANT JOBS, I WANT
BUSINESS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, TO
CREATE JOBS. AND WE'RE JUST
MAKING IT SO DIFFICULT. WELL,
YOU KNOW, I AND I APPRECIATE
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
DIXON, FOR SUPPORTING THE VISION
AND FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF UNION
AND SKILLED AND TRAINED WORKERS
AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'LL WE'RE
BUILDING PATHWAYS IN. I WANT TO
ADDRESS THE FIRST QUESTION
AROUND THE UNION PIECE. SO
CERTAINLY UNIONS HAVE
APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINED. BUT
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS THE
CONTRACTOR WHO EMPLOYS SO
WORKERS CAN COME FROM A HIRING
HALL. THEY CAN BE SENT TO A
WORKER. AND I THINK MY GOOD
COLLEAGUE SPOKE TO THE
TURNAROUND. RIGHT. FOLKS CAN
COME TO A PROJECT. BUT IN FACT
THE EMPLOYER HIRES THEM. SO I
JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE
MONTHLY REPORTING CONSTRUCTION
IS AND I'VE LEARNED AND YOU
KNOW, I'M IT'S YOU REALLY DO
NEED A PHD IN IT BECAUSE IT'S
COMPLEX. RIGHT. AND HOW TO DO IT
. BUT YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 200 300
SUBS UNDER A PRIME AND A WORKER
CAN WORK HOURS, MAYBE AN HOUR
HERE OR THREE HOURS THERE. AND
LIKE A 9,000,000 HOUR PROJECT.
SO WE HAVE TO TRACK MONTHLY
BECAUSE THE ACTUAL SKILLS THAT
ARE NEEDED COME IN AND OUT OF
THE PROJECT. SO SOME WILL LEAVE
AND SOME WILL COME OUT. WHAT WE
FOUND IS IF YOU WAIT TILL THE
END OF THE PROJECT, YOU'RE SORT
OF COUNTING BODIES. SO YOU COULD
SAY WE HAD 300 WOMEN ON THIS
PROJECT, BUT THEN YOU COULD FIND
THAT WHEN YOU DIG DEEPER INTO
THE ANALYSIS, THEY WERE THERE
FOR MAYBE THE FIRST THREE MONTHS
OF A FIVE YEAR PROJECT. SO WHAT
WE WANT IS TO HAVE ROUTINE
TRACKING. AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE
STANDARD ON MOST LARGE SCALE
PROJECTS THAT EXIST IN OUR
STATE. AND THERE ARE
TECHNOLOGIES, SOFTWARES THAT
REALLY DO MOST OF THIS
CRUNCHING. IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL,
YOU KNOW, CONTRACTORS THAT'S GOT
TO FIGURE THIS OUT. BUT THE IDEA
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES
TO US AS LEGISLATORS, THIS MODEL
IS ABOUT US ALL BEING ABLE TO
LOOK AND SEE HOW OUR DOLLARS ARE
BEING SPENT. I THINK YOU CAN
APPRECIATE ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU
CAN APPRECIATE TRANSPARENCY. YOU
CAN APPRECIATE HOW MUCH MONEY
THE GOVERNMENT IS INVESTING AND
WHAT ARE WE GETTING. SO THIS IS
OUR RECEIPT. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS
BILL IS BUILT ON A LOT OF
EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE. THESE
ARE NOT, METHODS THAT ARE
UNKNOWN TO THIS SECTOR. AND WE
JUST THINK IT'S TIME TO BRING IT
TO CALIFORNIA, PARTICULARLY WHEN
WE ARE ON THE CUSP OF RECEIVING
SO MUCH FEDERAL FUNDING AND
BUILDING OUR CLIMATE RESILIENT
FUTURE HERE IN CALIFORNIA. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL WORKERS
PARTICIPATE AND GET AN
OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. AND I
WILL JUST ECHO THE APPRECIATION
FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN ON
YOUR WORK ON THIS AREA. FOR MANY
, MANY YEARS, BUT IN PARTICULAR
ON THIS BILL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I JUST THANK YOU ALL FOR
THE CONVERSATION, I THANK THE
WITNESSES AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION ON
THIS. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. IF WE
CAN, TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE OR
HAVE A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON SB
1340, PLEASE. MOTIONS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CHOLERA A CHOLERA I DIXON.
DIXON. NÓ BAUER-KAHAN. KHN I
BRIAN. BRIAN I. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. I HANEY I HANEY. I
MAIENSCHEIN MCKINNEY. CHICO.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. NÓ. REYES.
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. NO. REPLACE
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. SENATOR, WAHAB SB 402 AND,
IF I CAN LET EVERYBODY KNOW ON
THE COMMITTEE, JUST A CHECK
HERE. WE HAVE 18 BILLS ON THE
REGULAR AGENDA. WE'VE ONLY DONE
NINE OF THEM IN OVER THREE
HOURS. SO IF YOU HAVE IF YOU
HAVE, I'M JUST LETTING FOLKS
KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT
CAN BE TAKEN OFFLINE WITH THE
SENATORS AND THEIR THEIR STAFF
ARE INCREDIBLY RESPONSIVE.
OTHERWISE, HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS
VERY DIRECTED. AND LET'S HAVE A
WONDERFUL REST OF THE HEARING.
MOVE THE BILL DONE. SEE SOME OF
BRIAN PAUL'S DIRECTIONS VERY
WELL. ONLY CARRIES GOOD BILLS.
RIGHT. AND THERE'S A SECOND LOOK
AT IT. WE HAVE A SECOND.
WONDERFUL. OKAY. SENATOR WAHAB,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, FIRST, I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK ON THE AMENDMENTS. THERE
ARE NOTED AS AUTHOR AMENDMENTS
IN THE ANALYSIS, AND I FULLY
ACCEPT THEM. SB 402 APPROPRIATE
RESPONSE TO MENTAL HEALTH CRISES
SIMPLY ENSURED TRAINED, LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ARE
ABLE TO ACCESS THE COUNTY
DESIGNATION PROCESS FOR 5150
AUTHORIZATION. I WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND THE
ANALYSIS AND OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. FIRST AND FOREMOST, SEIU
HAS REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION,
THIS DESIGNATION TO INITIATE A
5150 IS A CHOICE FOR LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. IT
IS NOT MANDATORY AS CRISIS IS
NOT FOR EVERYONE. CURRENT LAW IS
UNCLEAR REGARDING LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO
ARE NOT EMPLOYED OR CONTRACTED
BY THE COUNTY. THIS WILL CLARIFY
THAT LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS MAY DO THIS WORK
AS LONG AS THEY GO THROUGH THEIR
RESPECTIVE COUNTY'S PROCESS AND
MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
DIRECTOR. LIABILITY CONCERNS
HAVE BEEN RAISED OVER WILK 5278
STATES. AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS
SHALL NOT BE HELD EITHER
CRIMINALLY OR CIVILLY LIABLE FOR
EXERCISING THIS AUTHORITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE
COLLABORATED WITH SENATE HEALTH
TO ENSURE THE COUNTY DESIGNATION
PROCESS, WHICH ENCAPSULATES
TRAINING, WAS APPLICABLE TO
THESE LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS. OUR MOST RECENT
AMENDMENTS WILL ENSURE LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS MUST
HAVE AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA
LICENSE AND BE IN GOOD STANDING,
AND THAT FOR TRANSPORT, THEY
WILL HAVE TO UTILIZE EXISTING
TRANSPORT OPTIONS AND NOT
TRANSPORT THEMSELVES. WE HAVE
RECEIVED QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW
THIS IMPACTS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN A CLINICIAN AND THEIR
CLIENT. LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS MUST INFORM
CLIENTS OF THEIR LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY MUST
BREAK CONFIDENTIALITY, INCLUDING
INITIATING A 5150 FROM THE START
OF THE THERAPEUTIC PROCESS
THROUGH INFORMED CONSENT. THERE
IS NO SECRET THAT THIS IS PART
OF THEIR LEGAL AND ETHICAL
RESPONSIBILITY AS A LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL,
THERE IS A CLAIM THAT BY
AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO
INITIATE A 5150, IT WILL LEAD TO
AN UNNECESSARY INCREASE IN CALLS
TO POLICE AND THE NUMBER OF
HOLDS PLACED ACCORDING TO THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
STEPHANIE LEWIS, THE ACTING
SYSTEM OF CARE DIRECTOR IN
CRISIS SERVICES FOR ALAMEDA
COUNTY. WHEN PEOPLE WHO PRESENT
VOLUNTARILY AT OUR SENT TO PSYCH
EMERGENCY INVOLUNTARY BY POLICE
WHO ARE ADMITTED ONLY 28% FIT
THE CRITERIA FOR A 5150 HOLD BY
A COUNTY OPERATED BY MOBILE
CRISIS TEAMS, AND ONLY 50% MEET
THE CRITERIA, WITH THAT,
HOWEVER, FOR A 5150 HOLD WITH A
LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS PROGRAM 75%
ACTUALLY MEET THE CRITERIA OF A
5150 HOLD. THIS TELLS US THAT
LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS PURELY UNDERSTAND
THIS ISSUE, UNDERSTAND WHAT IS
THE REQUIREMENT, UNDERSTAND IF
THEIR CLIENT MEETS THOSE
THRESHOLDS AND WHEN TO INITIATE
A 5150. THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE
AND THE EDUCATION IN THIS FIELD
WITH THE RECENT EXPANSION OF
GRAVELY DISABLED, THERE IS A
CONCERN THAT 5150 HOLDS WILL BE
UTILIZED FOR NOT JUST MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS AND DISABILITIES,
BUT FOR A GRAVE DISABILITY AS A
RESULT OF SEVERE SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER OR A CO-OCCURRING
MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER AND A
SEVERE SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER.
BUT EXISTING LAW ALREADY
CONSIDERS GRAVELY DISABLED A
DISABILITY IN THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR 5150 HOLD. HOWEVER EXISTING
LAW ALSO REQUIRES THAT TWO
CONDITIONS MUST BE MET TO
INITIATE A 5150 A MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER AND A DANGER TO OTHERS.
A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR IS
GRAVELY DISABLED AND THE
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US.
THIS NEXUS REQUIREMENT IS WHAT
WE SEE. COUNTIES TRAINING THEIR
DESIGNEES ON. IN SHORT, A 5150
SHOULD ONLY BE INITIATED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL WITH A SEVERE
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER IF THEY
ALSO HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER. THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOLDS THAT
MEET CRITERIA. AN INDIVIDUAL
MUST HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER FIRST, AND FOREMOST, A
HOLD CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE
WRITTEN SIMPLY BECAUSE AN
INDIVIDUAL HAS A SEVERE
SUBSTANCE. USE DISORDER. WE ARE
BEING TOLD THAT WE ARE
AUTHORIZING PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO
RELATIONSHIPS TO THE COUNTY,
WHEN IN FACT LICENSED MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ARE
INVOLVED. THE RESULT IS LESS
HOLDS THAT DO NOT MEET THE
CRITERIA. SB 402 IS NOT
UNNECESSARILY EXPANDING THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAN
INITIATE A 5150. HOWEVER, I DO
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WHEN WE
PASSED PROP 63 THAT ALLOWED FOR
PREVENTION AND EARLY
INTERVENTION BY CBOS, COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS, THESE
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
ARE SOMETIMES VERY SMALL. FOR
EXAMPLE, I BELONG TO THE AFGHAN
COMMUNITY AND THERE IS VERY
SMALL COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS AND VERY FEW THAT
ACTUALLY WORK WITH THE AFGHAN
COMMUNITY IN MY DISTRICT. AND
FIRST AND FOREMOST, THEY WILL
HIRE PEOPLE THAT ARE LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OR
LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS
THAT REALLY HAVE THE FORMAL
EDUCATION, THE ACTUAL LICENSE
AND LOOK LIKE THEM. AND SPEAK
THEIR LANGUAGE. BEING ABLE TO
BUILD A STRONGER RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE CLIENTS AND THE
INDIVIDUALS THAT DO HAVE MENTAL
HEALTH, ISSUES. WITH THAT SAID,
WHEN THEY INITIATE A 5150, THEY
DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY. THEY KNOW
THAT IT IMPACTS NOT ONLY THE
INDIVIDUAL CLIENT, BUT ALSO
THEIR FAMILIES AND OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SO I ASK YOU
ALL TO SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE.
AND WITH THAT, I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES WITH ME. MATTHEW
MEADOWS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
COLLABORATIVE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
AND JUSTIN PHILLIPS, A LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH AND FAMILY
THERAPIST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
OPTIONS RECOVERY SERVICES. THANK
YOU. YOU MAY BEGIN, GOOD
MORNING. COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MY
NAME IS MATTHEW MEADOWS, AND I'M
A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL
WORKER AND THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH COLLABORATIVE OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY. THE COLLABORATIVE IS AN
ASSOCIATION OF 44 BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH NONPROFITS WHO PROVIDE
SAFETY NET SERVICES ACROSS
ALAMEDA COUNTY. EACH COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATION HAS STAFF
INTEGRATED IN THE COMMUNITY WHO
TRULY UNDERSTAND THEIR CLIENT
NEEDS. WE SUPPORT SB 402 BECAUSE
WE BELIEVE IT PROMOTES SAFER AND
MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICES. THERE
ARE SOMETIMES SITUATIONS DURING
SERVICE DELIVERY WHEN A CLIENT
IS IN AN ACUTE CRISIS. WHEN
THESE UNCOMMON SITUATIONS ARISE,
CBO STAFF CONTACT ONE OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY'S MOBILE CRISIS RESPONSE
TEAMS TO COME TO THEIR LOCATION
AND CONDUCT AN EVALUATION.
MOBILE RESPONSE STAFF OFTEN
DE-ESCALATE THE CLIENT OR
IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES TO A 5150
HOLD, AND SOMETIMES PLACE A HOLD
. HOWEVER, CBO'S REPORT THAT IT
COULD TAKE MANY HOURS FOR MOBILE
MOBILE RESPONSE TO ARRIVE,
ESPECIALLY DURING BUSIER
AFTERNOON HOURS WHEN SITUATIONS
ARE VOLATILE OR DANGEROUS. CBO
STAFF CALL THE POLICE.
UNFORTUNATELY POLICE RESPONSE
CAN ALSO TAKE HOURS. ESCALATE
THE SITUATION AND RETRAUMATIZE
THE CLIENT. THIS IS WHY LICENSED
CLINICIANS ARE SO CRUCIAL TO
THIS PROCESS. THEY KNOW THEIR
CLIENTS WELL SO THEY CAN PROVIDE
THE MOST RESPONSIVE SUPPORT.
ALAMEDA COUNTY HAS ESTABLISHED A
SYSTEM TO DELEGATE 5150
AUTHORITY TO LICENSED CLINICIANS
WHO COMPLETE THE COUNTY TRAINING
. THIS SYSTEM IS ONLY A FEW
YEARS OLD, AND IT HAS ALREADY
HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT. LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO
NEED TO PLACE A 5150 HOLD ON
THEIR CLIENT CAN USE ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION METHODS SUCH AS
PRIVATE AMBULANCE PROVIDERS OR
SECURE MOBILE CRISIS TRANSPORT.
THIS MEANS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE IN
CRISIS ARE NOT ESCALATED BY THE
THREAT OF ARREST, RESTRAINT OR
HANDCUFFS. HIGHLY STRESSED AND
PARANOID CLIENTS ARE NOT WAITING
HOURS TO BE EVALUATED BY SOMEONE
THEY DO NOT KNOW. WHEN
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IS
NOT AVAILABLE OR APPROPRIATE.
POLICE INVOLVEMENT IS LIMITED TO
FACILITATING SECURE TRANSPORT.
THANK YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING OR
GOOD AFTERNOON. AS CLOSE AS WE
ARE TO IT. MY NAME IS JUSTIN
PHILLIPS, I CURRENTLY SERVE AS
THE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
OPTIONS RECOVERY SERVICES, A
MULTI-SERVICE, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
AGENCY LOCATED IN ALAMEDA AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES. I ALSO
SERVE AS BOARD PRESIDENT FOR
NRDC'S CALIFORNIA AFFILIATE, THE
ADDICTION PROFESSIONALS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
REPRESENTING A STRONG PERCENTAGE
OF CALIFORNIA'S ADDICTION
TREATMENT WORKFORCE, I'VE SPOKEN
ON IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE THIS,
LIKE SB 402, ON CAPITOL HILL IN
WASHINGTON AND THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY. I PROUDLY SERVED IN THE
UNITED STATES MILITARY DURING
CONFLICT AND COMBAT, RECEIVED
AWARDS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
SO I HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN
PSYCHOLOGY. I AM A MENTAL HEALTH
PRACTITIONER AS A LICENSED
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST TO
MASTER ADDICTION COUNSELOR, I AM
ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE
ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS WE SEE IN THIS COUNTRY.
HIS OPTIONS CEO. I MANAGE THE
ESTEEMED OCCUPATIONAL MENTOR
CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, WHICH
GIVES VOICE TODAY TO THOUSANDS
OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS. MY
COLLEAGUES INSIDE THE WALLS
BATTLING ADDICTION AND MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS EVERY DAY. MOST
IMPORTANTLY, I AM A RECIPIENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES. I'M A
CLIENT AND UNDER THE WRONG
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WRONG TIME. I
COULD BE IN A CRISIS. ANY OF US
UNDER THE WRONG CIRCUMSTANCES AT
THE WRONG TIME COULD BE IN A
CRISIS. AS A PERSON. JUST. AND I
HAVE TO ASK MYSELF, WHAT WOULD I
DO? WHAT WOULD I DO IF I WAS A
CLIENT AND I WAS IN CRISIS AND I
WAS IN THAT SITUATION, I'D CALL
MY THERAPIST. I CALL MY
THERAPIST AT THE VA BECAUSE I
TRUST HER. SHE WOULD HANDLE
THAT. SHE WOULD HANDLE THAT FOR
ME. I WOULD CALL MY WIFE BECAUSE
SHE COULD SHE WOULD HANDLE THAT
FOR ME. SO THE IDEA HERE IS
ABOUT MINIMIZING RISK AND
MATTHEW, REALLY DID A GREAT JOB
OF ARTICULATING THE
TECHNICALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH A
CLINICIAN INITIATING AND WALKING
SOMEONE THROUGH A 5150. I'VE
SEEN THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT OF
THE IMPACT OF LESSENING THE PAIN
ASSOCIATED WITH 5150 HOLDS, WHEN
ME, ME OR ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
ARE MANAGING THE SITUATION.
THANK YOU. I HAVE ALMOST 20
YEARS OF DOING THIS STUFF. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK
IN THIS SPACE, ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 402? HI. VIVIAN
LIANG WITH NORTHEAST MEDICAL
SERVICES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 402?
HELLO, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
SUZANNE. YES, MY NAME IS RACHEL
BHAGWAT, AND I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE AT ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION. I'VE ALSO BEEN A
PROVIDER OF MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES AND A CLIENT, LIKE MANY
FOLKS ON THIS DAIS, THE ACLU
DEEPLY REGRETS THAT WE HAVE TO
OPPOSE SB 402. WE AGREE WITH THE
HIGHEST LEVEL PREMISE OF THIS
BILL, THE IDEA THAT WE NEED
HEALTH FOCUSED, NOT LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOCUSED RESPONSES TO
MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. HOWEVER,
THE APPROACH OF THIS BILL IS NOT
RIGHT. SB 402 WILL ACTUALLY
INCREASE CALLS TO POLICE FOR
MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS AND WILL
LEAD TO MORE FOLKS BEING PLACED
IN INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS. WE
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE WITH SOME OF
THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL, IF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
INAPPROPRIATELY RESPONDING TO
MENTAL HEALTH CRISES AND PLACING
HOLDS, THEN THE ANSWER IS TO
FURTHER REGULATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT. PLACEMENTS OF THESE
HOLDS, NOT TO EXPAND THE POOL OF
FOLKS WHO ARE ABLE TO PLACE
THOSE HOLDS. WE DON'T SEE ANY
WAY THAT THIS COULD NOT JUST
INCREASE THE VOLUME OF HOLDS
BEING PLACED. WHEN YOU HAVE ALL
THE FOLKS ALREADY PLACING HOLDS,
AND THEN SOME MORE. WE ALSO KNOW
THAT THERE ARE SO MANY EFFORTS
IN THE STATE AROUND MOBILE
CRISIS, AROUND ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION PILOTS AND OTHERS
THAT ARE STILL GROWING, STILL
BEING BUILT, AND WE DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE
TO, YOU KNOW, PASS LEGISLATION
THAT DOESN'T COORDINATE WITH
THOSE IN ORDER TO TRY TO RESOLVE
THIS ISSUE. LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL
STILL BE CALLED TO FORCIBLY
TRANSPORT THE PERSON TO A MENTAL
HEALTH FACILITY. IN THE CASE IN
WHICH A MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL PLACES THE HOLD
THAT'S ON ALMOST ALL CASES
NECESSARY. WHEN PEOPLE DON'T
WANT TO GO. I DON'T THINK I NEED
TO READ THE STATISTICS TO THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT THE DEADLINESS
OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND PEOPLE PERCEIVED
TO HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH
DISABILITY, WHICH IS VERY
DISPROPORTIONATE. WE'RE
DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE IT DOES
SEEM THAT AUTHOR HAS HELPFUL
INTENTIONS, WHICH WE'VE EXPLORED
THROUGH TENS OF HOURS OF ROBUST
DISCUSSION WITH HER OFFICE ABOUT
MOBILE CRISIS FOCUSED APPROACHES
, OFFERING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
AND MAKING REQUESTS FOR
GUARDRAILS AGAINST THIS BILL
BEING ABUSED AND USED
IRRESPONSIBLY. HOWEVER, BECAUSE
THE GENERAL FRAME HAS REMOVED
REMAINED THE SAME, WE'RE
COMPELLED TO ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS CLAIRE CORTRIGHT. I'M
A PERSON WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE
OF SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. I'M
AN ATTORNEY. I DID A LOT OF
DEFENSE OF FOLKS ON INVOLUNTARY
HOLDS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. SO
I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR
CONCERNS, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF IMPACTED PEOPLE, JUST TO
RECAP, ON THE BILL CURRENTLY,
POLICE DESIGNATED MOBILE CRISIS
AND LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS CAN WRITE 5150,
BUT LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS ONLY IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS WORKING FOR A
HOSPITAL MENTAL HOSPITAL CRISIS
STABILIZATION UNIT. THIS BILL
ALLOWS PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS WHO
ARE EMPLOYED AND SUPERVISED,
POSSIBLY BY NO ONE, IN
COMPLETELY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE,
TO PLACE 5150 HOLDS, INCLUDING
ON PERSONS WHO THEY DO NOT HAVE
A CLIENT PROVIDER. RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE COUNTY'S TRAINED SUCH
FOLKS AND DESIGNATE THEM. BUT
AFTER THAT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
KEEP TRACK OF THE QUALITY OF THE
HOLDS BEING WRITTEN BY MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE NOT
SUPERVISED BY ANYONE, I
UNDERSTAND THE AUTHOR INDICATED
25% OF THE HOLDS WRITTEN BY
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WERE
NOT JUSTIFIED. THAT'S A VERY
LARGE NUMBER, DCS ESTIMATED
SOMEWHERE AROUND 150,000 PEOPLE
A YEAR ARE PLACED ON 5150 HOLDS
IN THE STATE. CURRENTLY, 25% OF
THEM WILL BE 37,000 PEOPLE. WHEN
YOU ARE PLACED ON A THREE DAY
HOLD, YOU HAVE NO LEGAL
RECOURSE. YOU DO NOT HAVE A
HEARING. YOU DO NOT. YOU CANNOT
SUE FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. YOU
CANNOT SUE FOR BATTERY. YOU
CANNOT SUE FOR FALSE
IMPRISONMENT NO MATTER WHAT
HAPPENS TO YOU DURING THOSE
THREE DAYS. WE ALSO DON'T HAVE
CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS, THE
FOLKS WRITING HOLDS ARE NOT
CATEGORICALLY CONSIDERED STATE
ACTORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SECTION 1983. SO WHAT HAPPENS TO
OUR FOLKS? WHAT HAPPENS IF WE
HAVE A DOCTOR WHO'S RACIST? WHAT
HAPPENS IF WE HAVE A PROVIDER
WHO'S SEXIST? THERE IS NO
RECOURSE FOR THIS, FOLKS. AND
PROVIDERS WILL PROFILE THEIR
CLIENTS FOR DANGEROUSNESS OR
POTENTIAL DANGEROUSNESS AND CALL
THE POLICE WHEN THEY ANTICIPATE,
BASED ON THEIR FEAR, THAT THE
SITUATION MAY GO SIDEWAYS WHEN
THEY PLACE A HOLD. THAT'S THE
ISSUE. WE'VE RAISED IT AND WE'VE
RAISED IT, AND WE'VE RAISED IT,
AND WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S BEEN
ADDRESSED. SO IF YOU VOTE FOR
THIS, YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITH
YOUR EYES OPEN BECAUSE THIS WILL
HAVE AN IMPACT. WE WILL KNOW
WHAT HAPPENS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 402? DEB ROTH,
ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA, ALSO ON BEHALF OF
MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA
CALIFORNIA. REGRETFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, BETH
MALINOWSKI. WE HAVE CALIFORNIA.
AS THE AUTHOR NOTED, WE ARE
REMOVING OUR OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION TODAY, REALLY
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION
AMENDMENTS BEING TAKEN TODAY AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATION REGARDING OUR
CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
AND I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR.
I KNOW THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED
AND THAT WERE ACCEPTED, IN ORDER
TO PUT THE TRAINING AND THE
TRANSPORTATION GUARDRAILS AS
WELL AS THE REPORT, THE SUNSET,
AND SO I'M REALLY GRATEFUL. I
AGREE WITH THE INTENTION. MY
STAFF SHARED AN ARTICLE THIS
MORNING ABOUT LÀ AND HOW THAT
PROGRAM HAS BEEN KIND OF IN
FLUX. SO THERE'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL
MODELS, NOT SO SUCCESSFUL
MODELS. A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO
WITH HAVING APPROPRIATE STAFF
AND TRAINING, TO BE ABLE TO DO
IT RIGHT. I DO WANT TO SAY JUST
IN ESPECIALLY WITH ACLU, I THINK
WE AGREE ON 95% OF THE THINGS. I
WOULD SAY THAT FOR THE
REGULATING LAW ENFORCEMENT, HOW
TO DO THIS BETTER IS NOT GOING
TO GET US ANYWHERE. WE'VE TRIED
THAT FOR DECADES, LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS NOT THE RIGHT, IN
MY OPINION, IS NOT APPROPRIATELY
SITUATED TO DEAL WITH MENTAL
HEALTH CALLS AND DOING ONE MORE
TRAINING FOR THEM, I DON'T THINK
IS GOING TO GET THEM THERE. I
AGREE WITH THE GOALS OF WHAT THE
SENATOR IS TRYING TO DO. WE'VE
TRIED IT BEFORE IN DIFFERENT
WAYS. LET'S SEE IF THIS CAN
RESULT IN POSITIVE OUTCOMES WITH
THE CONCERNS TAKEN UNDER
CONSIDERATION FROM OUR FRIENDS,
WHO ONLY HAVE THE INTEREST OF
THE PATIENTS IN MIND, AND I
THINK WE ALL CAN RESPECT THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES,
NUMBER ONE, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS WILL
ALWAYS HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH AND
COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY. THE
COUNTY WILL REQUIRE THEM TO
CONTINUE THEIR TRAINING WITH
THEM ON A QUARTERLY, YEARLY
BASIS, WHATEVER THE COUNTY
REQUIRES, AND THERE WILL BE
OVERSIGHT. THERE IS A REPORTING
MECHANISM IN THIS BILL THAT WAS
ALSO ADOPTED, AND NOTHING IN
THIS BILL PROHIBITS COUNTIES
FROM ENACTING POLICIES THAT
ENSURE LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS ARE IN TIGHT
COORDINATION WITH THEIR
RESPECTIVE COUNTIES, AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY, THE COUNTIES CAN
STATE THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL HAS
DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
AND NOT ALLOW THAT PARTICULAR
PERSON TO INITIATE A 5150. I
WILL ALSO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW,
WITH RESPECT TO THE OPPOSITION,
AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION
WITH THEM, I DO BELIEVE AND
AGREE WITH MANY OF THEIR POINTS
IN THE SENSE THAT, TO BE QUITE
FRANK, WE NEED A DIFFERENT PATH
TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS THAT ARE IN A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS MOMENT, AND THE
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THIS BILL,
TOO, BECAUSE IF WE ADD 1 OR 2
MORE TRAININGS, IT'S NOT GOING
TO DO ANYTHING. WHEREAS LICENSED
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS HAVE
SPENT YEARS OBTAINING THEIR
DEGREE, BUT THEN ALSO LITERALLY
YEARS AND OVER 3000 HOURS TO BE
LICENSED AS WELL AS THE REGULAR,
UPDATE OF THOSE LICENSES. SO I
DO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. I KNOW THAT THIS IS A
DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT I ALSO
THINK WE NEED TO BUILD A PATH
TOWARDS NOT UTILIZING OUR POLICE
SERVICES FOR A MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU
COULD TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON
SB 402. MOTIONS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL.
I CALL I DIXON BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
HANEY. AYE MAIENSCHEIN.
MACKINNON. PACHECO. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON AYE. REYES. SANCHEZ.
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON THE CALL.
THANK YOU. KNOW THE SENATORS
COME IN. OH. SHE'S NOT. IS SHE
HERE? NO. SHE SHE WAS COMING
BACK.
OKAY I WAS NOT PLANNING ON
TAKING A RECESS. BUT IF THERE
ARE NO SENATORS HERE. OH,
ACTUALLY, YEAH, I WAS. LET ME
DO. IS THERE A MOTION? THERE'S A
COUPLE OF BILLS WE NEED MOTIONS
ON. IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM
TWO? SB 793? GLAZER WE HAVE A
MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND. ALL RIGHT. AND WE HAVE A
SECOND. WE CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE ON SB 393 MOTIONS. DO PASS.
KALRA A CALL. AYE. DIXON.
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE HANEY. AYE. HANEY.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN MCKINNEY.
PACHECO. PATTERSON. PATTERSON.
AYE. REYES SANCHEZ. OKAY. PLACE
THAT ON CALL AND THEN. ITEM SIX
SB 827. GLAZER IS THERE A MOTION
? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE.
MOTIONS. DO PASS AS AMENDED.
KALRA A CALL. AYE DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY A HANEY.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN. MACKINNON.
PACHECO. PATTERSON A. PATTERSON.
AYE. REYES. SANCHEZ. I WILL
PLACE IT ON CALL. ITEM FIVE IS
SB 697. HURTADO YOU MAY BEGIN
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, TODAY I WILL BE
PRESENTING SB 697, WHICH AMENDS
PENALTIES UNDER THE CARTWRIGHT
ACT TO ALIGN WITH THE STATE'S
FEDERAL COUNTERPART, THE SHERMAN
ACT. INCREASING CORPORATE FINES
FROM UP TO 100 MILLION IN
INDIVIDUAL FINES TO 1 MILLION,
WITH POSSIBILITY OF A TEN YEAR
IMPRISONMENT THIS WEEK. THERE
HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION
REGARDING CRIMES, SPECIFICALLY
RETAIL THEFT, WE ALL AGREE ON
THE NEED TO TAKE ACTION, PERHAPS
TO VARIOUS DEGREES. BUT TODAY I
BRING TO YOU A BILL THAT TACKLES
A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CRIME WHITE
COLLAR CRIME. AND THE CRIME
OFTEN GOES UNNOTICED AND
UNPUNISHED. BUT THE CRIME ITSELF
CAN HAVE DEEP CONSEQUENCES AMONG
OUR COMMUNITIES. WE ARE. WE ARE
STUCK DELIBERATING HOW WE SHOULD
PUNISH THOSE THAT ARE STEALING
ITEMS FROM STORES. THE REAL
QUESTION IS WHAT IS DRIVING THEM
TO DO THAT? MORE AND MORE
FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE
ENDS MEET IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, FROM RENT TO FOOD TO
ENERGY BILLS. YOU KNOW WHAT IS A
MOTHER OR A FATHER SUPPOSED TO
DO WHEN RENT IS DUE AND THEY
HAVE TO DECIDE BETWEEN RENT OR
FOOD FOR THEIR CHILD. AND OVER
THE LAST 20 YEARS, THE GLOBAL
ECONOMY HAS WITNESSED A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE
CONCENTRATION OF MARKET POWER,
WITH MORE MONOPOLIES DOMINATING
VARIOUS SECTORS. THIS TREND IS
PARTLY DUE TO ADVANCEMENTS IN
TECHNOLOGY, MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS, AND STRATEGIC
PRACTICES THAT EFFECTIVELY LIMIT
COMPETITION. AS THESE ENTITIES
GROW IN SIZE AND POWER, THEIR
POTENTIAL TO MANIPULATE MARKETS
AND SET UNFAIR TERMS INCREASES,
OFTEN AT THE EXPENSE OF SMALLER
COMPETITORS AND CONSUMERS. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
PENALTIES ESTABLISHED BY EARLIER
LEGISLATION LIKE THE SHERMAN ACT
AND MIRRORED BY THE CARTWRIGHT
ACT, HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED TO
MATCH THE SCALE AND IMPACT OF
THESE MODERN CORPORATE GIANTS.
THESE OUTDATED PENALTIES ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO ACT AS A REAL
DETERRENT AGAINST
ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIORS. IN
TODAY'S HIGH STAKES ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT, AND AS CORPORATIONS
HAVE GROWN LARGER AND MORE
FINANCIALLY ROBUST, FINES THAT
WERE ONCE SUBSTANTIAL ARE NOW
OFTEN VIEWED AS MINOR COST OF
DOING BUSINESS RATHER THAN
SIGNIFICANT PUNITIVE MEASURES.
WE NEED LAWS THAT ARE BOTH
ADAPTABLE TO RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES AND STRONG ENOUGH TO
PROTECT MARKET INTEGRITY, TO
PROMOTE GENUINE COMPETITION AND
CURB MONOPOLY PRACTICES, WE MUST
UPDATE LEGAL PENALTIES TO
REFLECT THE CURRENT ECONOMIC
LANDSCAPE AND POTENTIAL HARM,
ENHANCING THE ENFORCEMENT
CAPABILITIES OF REGULATORY
BODIES IS ESSENTIAL TO BETTER
PROTECT MARKET COMPETITION AND
ENCOURAGE FAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES. SB 697 PROPOSES
CRUCIAL UPDATES TO THE PENALTIES
UNDER THE CARTWRIGHT ACT TO
ADDRESS CONTEMPORARY MARKET
CHALLENGES. SPECIFICALLY, THE
BILL SUGGESTS INCREASING THE
MAXIMUM FINE FOR CORPORATE
VIOLATIONS OF 100 MILLION FOR
INDIVIDUAL VIOLATORS, RAISING
THE FINE TO 1 MILLION WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF IMPRISONMENT FOR
TEN YEARS. MEMBERS. SO LET US BE
PROACTIVE TODAY. LET US ENSURE
THAT WE HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THOSE
WHO ARE MANIPULATING THE MARKETS
AND SETTING UNFAIR TERMS AND
INCREASE AND PROTECT CONSUMERS
AGAINST MONOPOLIES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU SENATOR, AND DO
YOU HAVE A WITNESS? I HAVE,
MARISOL IBARRA. SHE'S PART OF MY
TEAM HERE ON ANY TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE? GREAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, WOULD YOU BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS? YES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 697? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 697? OKAY.
SECOND. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS,
JAMIE HUFF ON BEHALF OF THE
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, WITH GREAT RESPECT TO THE
AUTHOR AND APPRECIATE THE STAFF
WORK ON THIS. WE JUST DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NECESSARY
TO DO THIS YEAR WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF UNDERSTANDING THE
ENTIRE SCOPE OF THE REFORMS THAT
WE ANTICIPATE WILL BE ATTEMPTED
NEXT YEAR. ON ANTITRUST POLICY
REFORM, WE HAVE STRONG CONCERNS
ABOUT PASSING A BILL AT THE LAST
POLICY HEARING OF THE YEAR
WITHOUT ANY OTHER COMMITTEE
VETTING, WITHOUT MEANINGFUL
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, AND
WITHOUT TOTALLY UNDERSTANDING
HOW THE APPLICATION OF THIS LAW
WILL CHANGE WITH THE ANTICIPATED
RELEASE OF THE REFORMS COMING
OUT OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW
REVISION COMMISSION, WHICH WE
JUST HEARD WILL BE DECEMBER OF
THIS YEAR. SO WE HAVE A LITTLE
TIME YET BEFORE WE'RE GOING TO
SEE WHAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE. THIS BILL IS MAKING
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THOSE
ANTICIPATED RECOMMENDATIONS,
PUTTING THE PENALTY PIECE BEFORE
THE CARTWRIGHT REFORM HORSE, IF
YOU WILL. WE DON'T BELIEVE IT'S
ADVISABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
PENALTY REFORM WHEN THE SCOPE
AND THE BREADTH OF THE
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
STILL YET TO BE DETERMINED. AND
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
MIRRORING FEDERAL PENALTIES AT
THE STATE LEVEL IS NOT AN APPLE
TO APPLE COMPARISON. OUR OWN
HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY NOTED
THAT THE CARTWRIGHT ACT IS
BROADER IN RANGE AND DEEPER IN
REACH THAN THE SHERMAN ACT,
MEANING THAT PENALTIES UNDER OUR
STATE LAW COULD NOT BE
CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW
BECAUSE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY
APPLY TO CONDUCT BEYOND THE
SCOPE CONTEMPLATED AS ILLEGAL
UNDER THE FEDERAL COUNTERPART.
AND WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OUR CONCERNS
WITH THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT TO
DELAY IMPLEMENTATION UNTIL 2026,
WE THINK IT UNDERSCORES WHY WE
DON'T NEED TO DO THIS TODAY. WE
HAVE A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE
THIS WOULD EVEN TAKE EFFECT. WHY
NOT POSTPONE? ALLOW THE
COMMISSION TO RELEASE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS, PERMIT ALL THE
INTERESTED PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN
A MORE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY
CONVERSATION AROUND CARTWRIGHT
ACT REFORM. WE TAKE NO ISSUE
WITH THE AUTHOR WANTING TO HOLD
BAD ACTORS ACCOUNTABLE. WE JUST
WANT TO BE ABLE TO COME TO THE
TABLE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION
BROADLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 697? ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR HURTADO. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE. AND ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES. THANK YOU. I WOULD
SAY THAT WE SHOULD ALL WANT TO,
HOLD BAD ACTORS ACCOUNTABLE.
PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING BECAUSE OF
THE ACTIONS OF BAD ACTORS. SO WE
NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE SHOULD
HAVE DONE THIS A YEAR OR TWO
YEARS AGO. WE WERE KIND OF A
LITTLE BIT LATE ON ON THE ON ON
THE MATTER. BUT I DO RECOGNIZE
THAT THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT ARE COMING OUT. AND THAT'S
WHY IN THE BILL, I HAVE ACCEPTED
AMENDMENTS TO DELAY THE
IMPLEMENTATION. AND I JUST THE
OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO STATE
IS THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN
PROSECUTED. THE LAST PERSON THAT
WAS PROSECUTED UNDER THE
CARTWRIGHT ACT WAS IN 1995, AND
THERE'S ONLY BEEN A HANDFUL OF
CASES. AND SO, WE, I OBVIOUSLY I
THINK THERE'S THERE NEEDS TO BE
A LOT MORE ENFORCEMENT, BUT I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
ON THIS MEASURE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY, FOR ROLL
CALL. VOTE MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
FOR A CALL FOR AYE. ALL RIGHT.
AND WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU, ITEM 12, SB 1100
PORTANTINO. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
IT'S BEEN LIKE A REVOLVING DOOR.
YOU IN AND OUT ALL MORNING. I'VE
SEEN THAT. YOU MAY BEGIN
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 1100,
WHICH WOULD MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR
AN EMPLOYER TO INCLUDE A
STATEMENT IN EMPLOYMENT
MATERIALS THAT AN APPLICANT MUST
SUPPLY A DRIVER'S LICENSE, WE
KNOW THAT MANY JOBS DON'T
REQUIRE YOU TO DRIVE, SO WHY
SHOULD YOU BE REQUIRED TO SHOW
YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN THERE
ARE CERTAINLY OTHER VALID FORMS
OF IDENTIFICATION? WE SHOULD NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST YOUNG
PEOPLE WHO MAYBE CHOOSE NOT TO
GET THEIR LICENSE OR
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, OR
DON'T HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE,
BUT NEED EMPLOYMENT. AND SO WE
THINK IT IS A PRUDENT STEP. I
WISH IT HAD THE HOUSING
COMPONENT, BUT APPROPRIATIONS
TOOK THAT OUT OF IT, BUT WE'RE
PLEASED TO PRESENT THE
EMPLOYMENT PIECE. AND WITH ME, I
HAVE CHRIS, KIRSTEN BLAD
REPRESENTING STREETS FOR ALL THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. GREAT.
THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON. I
THINK IT'S AFTERNOON NOW, MY
NAME IS KIRSTEN BLAD, AND I'M
THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF STATE
POLICY FOR STREETS. STREETS FOR
ALL, THE PROUD SPONSOR OF SB
1100, IN MOST CASES, POSSESSING
A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR OWNING A
CAR IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO
AN INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO
PERFORM THEIR JOB DUTIES
EFFECTIVELY. AND FOCUSING ON
THIS ASPECT OF A CANDIDATE'S
PERSONAL LIFE IS IRRELEVANT TO
THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AND
CAPABILITIES. BASING HIRING
DECISIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT A
CANDIDATE HAS A DRIVER'S LICENSE
OR OWNS A VEHICLE CAN PERPETUATE
BROADER SYSTEMIC BIASES AND
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHO IS
CONSIDERED A DESIRABLE OR
RELIABLE EMPLOYEE. THIS CAN
CONTRIBUTE TO DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
AND REINFORCE SOCIOECONOMIC
DISPARITIES, WHILE ALSO
PERPETUATING CAR DEPENDENCY. AS
PEOPLE ARE MADE TO FEEL LIKE
THEY MUST OWN A VEHICLE IN ORDER
TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT,
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT DRIVER'S
LICENSES OR VEHICLES
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, PEOPLE
OF COLOR, AND PEOPLE WITH LOW
INCOMES. SUCH DISCRIMINATION
PERPETUATES EXISTING
INEQUALITIES AND FURTHER
DISADVANTAGES. THESE GROUPS IN
THE JOB MARKET PROHIBITING
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
POSSESSION OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE
OR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP WILL
ENCOURAGE EMPLOYERS TO FOCUS ON
RELEVANT JOB QUALIFICATIONS AND
SKILLS WHEN MAKING HIRING
DECISIONS. IT PROMOTES INCLUSIVE
HIRING PRACTICES THAT CONSIDER A
LARGER, MORE DIVERSE POOL OF
CANDIDATES AND VALUES
INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR ABILITIES
RATHER THAN ARBITRARY CRITERIA
UNRELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU
SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1100?
MICHAEL'S NOT HERE, MISTER.
CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
DEBORAH. DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1100?
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR, THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND WHEN WE
HAVE THE WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM
REESTABLISHED, WE'LL GO AHEAD
AND TAKE IT UP FOR A VOTE.
THANK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND
SO I THINK AT THIS TIME, WE WILL
GO INTO RECESS. WE'LL DO A.
COME BACK TO.
THIS IS.
MR. WE'RE JUST GOING TO RECESS
NOW. DO YOU KNOW WHERE SHE IS?
SHE SAID SHE'S WALKING IN HERE.
FOR. SOMEWHERE. BUT HERE SHE IS.
OKAY, HERE WE GO, WE'LL BE
TAKING UP THIS ITEM AND THEN WE
WILL GO INTO RECESS UNTIL 1 P.M.
SO ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE, YOU
KNOW, YOU CAN LET YOUR STAFF OR
STAFF CAN LET THEIR SENATORS
KNOW. THAT WILL BE RE ADJOURNING
AT 1 P.M. AFTER WE HEAR THIS
BILL, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. SO
YOU CAN TAKE A DEEP BREATH. AND
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY GO AHEAD
AND PRESENT I APPRECIATE IT.
THIS IS MY FOURTH ATTEMPT AT
INTRODUCING YOU'VE SEEN ME. I'LL
BE NICE AND SHORT, BECAUSE YOUR
ANALYSIS, BEAUTIFULLY WROTE THAT
, THE LAST REMAINING PROVISIONS
IN THIS BILL ARE THE
NON-CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS IN
FRONT OF YOU. YOU'LL SEE A VERY
REDUCED BILL, A REDUCED, BILL
FROM LAST YEAR. AND IT STEMS
FROM PERHAPS YOU REMEMBER THE
STATE OF THE UNIONS,
PRESENTATION BY PRESIDENT JOE
BIDEN, WHO HIGHLIGHTED THE ISSUE
OF JUNK FEES AND HAS PUSHED FOR
PRICE TRANSPARENCY THROUGH THE
US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN FACT, I HAD
THE HONOR OF REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA IN A BRIEFING TO THE
SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF ON OUR
APPROACH TO TAKE ON JUNK FEES.
SO SB 611 WILL REDUCE THE USE OF
SOME SPECIFIC JUNK OR HIDDEN
FEES, SPECIFICALLY FEES KNOWN AS
STACKING FEES CHARGED FOR
NOTIFYING TENANTS ABOUT OTHER
FEES AND FEES CHARGED WHEN A
TENANT PAYS BY CHECK. SECONDLY,
THIS BILL SEEKS TO ADD
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR
ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBERS WHEN THEY
HAVE BEEN CHARGED AN EXTRA
SECURITY DEPOSIT BASED ON PAST
HISTORY. FOR MANY SERVICE
MEMBERS WHO ARE FORCED TO
RELOCATE, SOMETIMES WITH THEIR
FAMILIES, ON BASE HOUSING IS NOT
ALWAYS AVAILABLE. IT'S VERY
LIMITED. THIS SITUATION FORCES
THEM TO SEEK RENTAL PROPERTIES
WITH LIMITED STIPENDS AND NO
LONGER KEEP PACE WITH CURRENT
RENTAL MARKET RATES. CONSTANT
MOVING CAN IMPACT A SERVICE
MEMBER'S ABILITY TO BUILD CREDIT
, SO SB 611 AIMS TO ADDRESS
THESE CHALLENGES BY MANDATING
THAT SERVICE MEMBERS OFTEN
REQUIRED TO PAY A HIGHER
SECURITY DEPOSIT DUE TO POOR
CREDIT RECEIVE A REFUND OF
ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT OF THE
ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT AFTER SIX
MONTHS IF THEY ARE NOT IN AREAS
AND HAVE UPHELD AT LEAST, TERMS
HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL SO I CAN RELAX, IS ROBERT
WITH THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. ROBERT
HARRELL WITH THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA WERE
THE SPONSORS OF THIS MEASURE.
VERY BRIEFLY, THE PROBLEM THAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE RENTAL HOUSING
MARKET IN THIS STATE AND BEYOND
IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A FAIRLY
MASSIVE COST SHIFT, THINGS THAT
USED TO BE INCLUDED IN RENT,
THAT NUMBER ARE NOW BEING
SHIFTED OVER MANY OF THOSE
COSTS, BEYOND THAT, THAT WAS
COVERED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER,
THE PROPERTY MANAGER, COMMON
AREAS. THOSE COSTS ARE NOW BEING
DRAMATICALLY SHIFTED OVER TO
RENTERS. WHAT THIS MEANS AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER IS THAT WHEN
SOMEONE MOVES INTO A UNIT AND
THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE
$1,500, IT OFTEN WINDS UP BEING,
IN MANY CASES, HUNDREDS OF
DOLLARS MORE. WHEN YOU ADD IN
APPLICATION FEES. SOME PEOPLE
HAVE TO TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT TO
GO LOOK FOR PLACES, IN PERSON.
BEYOND ONLINE. YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE
SOMEONE'S MOVING IN SOMEWHERE
WHERE THEY ACTUALLY CAN'T AFFORD
IT. AND IF THEY'D KNOWN THAT UP
FRONT, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE LIVED
THERE. SO THE WHAT THAT LEADS TO
IS PEOPLE FALLING BEHIND ON
THEIR RENT, WHICH DAMAGES THEIR
CREDIT SCORE, IT LEADS TO
EVICTIONS. SO THIS BILL, SO THAT
PROBLEM ISN'T GOING AWAY, WHAT'S
LEFT IN THIS BILL ARE SOME
MODEST THINGS WHERE YOU SEE,
PEOPLE BEING CHARGED TO GET
NOTIFIED FOR OTHER FEES THAT
THEY HAVE TO PAY, PEOPLE BEING
CHARGED FOR WHEN THEY PAY BY
CHECK AND SERVICE MEMBERS WHO
HAVE TO KICK IN EXTRA ON THE
FRONT END BECAUSE OF HISTORY,
BUT WHO THEN HAVE TO WAIT
FOREVER TO GET SOME OF THAT
MONEY BACK, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE
CHALLENGES IN THE SERVICE
COMMUNITY. SO WE APPRECIATE ALL
THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS
BILL, CFC IS NOT DONE ON THIS
ISSUE, NOR IS THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION, BUT WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. THANK YOU. IS THE AUTHOR IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 611? CHRISTOPHER
SANCHEZ ON BEHALF OF INCLUSIVE
ACTION FOR THE CITY, THE REYES
ECONOMY AND HOUSING, ECONOMIC
ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DESIREE NGUYEN AUTH ON BEHALF OF
EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
611? GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, KAREEM
DRISSI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, CAR HAS WITHDRAWN ITS
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, AS
AMENDED ON JUNE 27TH, AND WISHES
TO SINCERELY THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS AS
WELL AS THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR WORK ON THE BILL. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. DEBORAH
CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION. FIRST, I
WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
RUNNING, TO GET HERE. I
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS ON ON
THIS BILL. AND WE REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. PAT
MORAN WITH THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, AS AMENDED. WE'RE
MORE THAN LIKELY BE REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION ONCE THE BOARD TAKES
THE POSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU,
SENATOR, PARTICULARLY IN WORKING
WITH OPPOSITION, I THINK THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT BILL, AND WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? ABSOLUTELY,
LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS WITH OPPOSITION SO
THAT WE CAN TRY THIS AGAIN NEXT
YEAR. FOR NOW, I THINK THIS IS A
GOOD APPROACH, AT LEAST TO
PROTECT THE SERVICE MEMBERS WHO
HAVE TO CONSTANTLY MOVE AROUND
RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. TAKE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE. OH, ACTUALLY, NO, WE WILL
TAKE THIS UP WHEN WE HAVE MORE
MEMBERS HERE. AND SO WE'LL BE
GOING ON AN APPROXIMATELY 30
MINUTE RECESS, AND WE'LL
RECONVENE IN THIS ROOM AT 1 P.M.
AND SO IF FOLKS CAN CLEAR THE
ROOM, SO THAT WE CAN SECURE IT
UNTIL WE RETURN.
I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE SURE THE
MICS ARE MUTED.
OKAY, SO JUST TO UPDATE, FOLKS,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS SENATOR
ASHBY WILL BE HERE MOMENTARILY.
AND WE WILL. SHE HAS TWO BILLS.
WE WILL HEAR THOSE TWO BILLS.
AND THEN AFTER WE HEAR SENATOR
ASHBY'S TWO BILLS, WE WILL MOVE
OVER TO ROOM FOR, FOR, SINCE
THIS ROOM IS ASSIGNED TO HIGHER
EDUCATION, ON TUESDAY
AFTERNOONS. BUT WE'LL WE'RE JUST
DOWN THE HALL, SO IT'LL MAKE IT
EASY FOR EVERYBODY, AND SO
HOPEFULLY WHEN SENATOR ASHBY
GETS HERE, WE CAN BEGIN RIGHT
AWAY AND WE CAN CLEAR THIS ROOM
AFTER HER. TWO HER TWO BILLS TO
ALLOW HIGHER EDUCATION TO START
WITH THEIR MATTERS.
OKAY SERGEANT C¯. YEAH WE'LL GET
SOME MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
. DID YOU ALL HAVE COMMENTS? I
DID, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING
RIGHT NOW. WE'RE STILL. I GOT
THIS SOMEBODY SENT ME A NOTE.
WE'RE STARTING BACK UP.
OKAY.
SO YEAH. 7 TO 5. OKAY YEAH. YEAH
I KNOW. YEAH. NO.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR ASHBY,
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY.
COME ON UP AND PRESENT ITEM
NINE, SB 1000. I HAVE TWO OF
THEM. YEP YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
YEAH. AND, YEAH, WE'LL DO SB
1000 THEN SB 1498 AFTER THAT.
OKAY. GREAT THANKS FOR HAVING
ME. ALL RIGHT. SEE IF I CAN GET
YOU THROUGH TWO QUICK ONES, I'LL
TRY MY BEST. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SB 1000. THIS IS, VICTIMS
DIGITAL SAFETY ACT. THIS BILL
ADDS A CRUCIAL LAYER OF
PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS BY
REQUIRING TECH COMPANIES TO
SWIFTLY CUT OFF AN ABUSER'S
ACCESS TO INTERNET CONNECTED
DEVICES AND SHARED ACCOUNTS, AS
AMENDED IN THE ASSEMBLY PRIVACY
COMMITTEE. THE BILL ALSO
REQUIRES IMMEDIATE SEVERING OF
VEHICLE DATA AND GPS INFORMATION
FROM AN ABUSER. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE EXPERTS NOTE THAT THE
MISUSE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY
SIGNIFICANTLY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO
A RISE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
VICTIMS REPORT ESCALATING ISSUES
OF VIRTUAL ABUSE, INCLUDING LOSS
OF AUTONOMY OVER HOUSEHOLD ITEMS
LIKE DOORS, SPEAKERS, LIGHTS,
CAMERAS, EVEN VEHICLES. I ALWAYS
LIKE TO SAY, THINK OF ALL THE
WAYS THAT YOUR LIFE IS
CONVENIENCED BY APPS. EVERYTHING
FROM YOUR RING DOORBELL TO ALEXA
OR YOUR NEST APP. AND NOW
IMAGINE THAT IN THE HANDS OF
YOUR ABUSER AND HOW YOU WOULD
HANDLE IT, SB 1000 WILL PREVENT
ABUSERS FROM CONTROLLING AND
REMOTELY HARASSING VICTIMS WHEN
INSTANCES OF ABUSE ARE REPORTED
BY THAT VICTIM. BY ENSURING THAT
CALIFORNIA LAW CONTINUES TO
PROTECT VICTIMS EVEN AS OUR
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, THIS BILL
IS AUTHOR SPONSORED. IT ENJOYS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND HAS HAD
NO OPPOSITION. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1498? Þ SB 1000?
SORRY, ONE AT A TIME. YEAH. HI.
MY NAME IS FAITH WHITMORE. I'M
THERE YOU GO. HI. MY NAME IS
FAITH WHITMORE. I'M REPRESENTING
THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY JUSTICE
CENTER NETWORK, A GROUP OF 27
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA THAT WORK
WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
AND ALSO THE ALLIANCE FOR HOPE
INTERNATIONAL. STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. LAURA BENNETT WITH
CALIFORNIA ADVISORS, ON BEHALF
OF SAFE HOUSE SAN FRANCISCO, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1000?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MR. CHAIR. MR. CHAIR, JOHN
MOFFITT HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO
THE BILL, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, I THINK, DID A NICE
JOB DESCRIBING OUR CONCERNS AS,
AS THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE
KNOW, THEY'RE THREE DIFFERENT
BILLS DEALING WITH AUTOMOBILES
AND, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVORS. WE RECOGNIZE OUR ROLE
AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS
SPACE. ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN GET
SOMEWHERE ON THIS, INITIALLY,
THE BILLS ALL KIND OF DID
DIFFERENT THINGS. NOW THEY SEEM
TO BE CLOSING THE GAP HERE A
LITTLE BIT. AND SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THE
TECHNOLOGY AND VEHICLES CAN DO
AND CAN'T DO, WHAT IT SHOULD DO,
AND MAYBE WHAT IT SHOULDN'T DO,
YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR CUSTOMERS
CONNECTION TO THE VEHICLE FOR
MOST OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE
OUT ON THE MARKET, THE
PREDOMINANT NUMBER OF VEHICLES
THAT ARE OUT ON THE MARKET IS
THROUGH THE APP. AND SO WORKING
THROUGH WHAT'S THE DOCUMENTATION
THAT WE NEED TO RECEIVE TO CUT
OFF ACCESS TO THE APP. YOU KNOW,
HOW DOES THAT YOU KNOW WHAT'S
PROVIDED? WHAT ARE THE
TIMELINES, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS TALKS ABOUT LIABILITY
PROTECTION. CERTAINLY WE WANT TO
DO WHAT THE LAW ASKS US TO DO,
WE PRESUME THE LAW WANTS US TO,
TO ON THE SIDE OF PROTECTING
SURVIVORS. AND SO WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE DO THAT,
WE DON'T GET AN ABUSER OR
SOMEONE ELSE WHO COMES AFTER US.
AND SO, AGAIN, WE RECOGNIZE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS SPACE.
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS AND OTHERS OVER THE
SUMMER RECESS TO BRING THESE
THREE BILLS DOWN INTO ONE
CONCEPT. AND THEN THE MAGIC
HAPPENS AFTER THAT. YEAH, I
APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THAT,
IT'S GOOD TO HEAR AND I'M NOT
SURPRISED THAT EVERYONE IS IN
SUPPORT OF THE INTENTIONS AND
THE GOAL HERE. I KNOW IT COULD
BE A LITTLE BIT MORE
COMPLICATED, AND I JUST OPENED
UP MY APP FOR MY CAR AND IT'S
FULLY CHARGED NOW. SO I
APPRECIATE THOSE OF THE SWING
SPACE FOR CHARGING MY CAR, BUT I
COULD TURN IT ON. I COULD DO A
LOT OF THINGS. I CAN SEE WHERE
IT IS. THE LOCATION, GET ALERTS
AND ALL THAT. SO THERE'S NO
DOUBT THAT THE APP IS BEYOND
JUST THE PHYSICAL CAR. BUT THE
APP HAS A LOT GIVES A LOT OF
POWER TO FOLKS THAT HAVE ACCESS
TO IT. AND SO I APPRECIATE
WORKING THROUGH THOSE
COMPLEXITIES. AND I'M VERY
GRATEFUL TO THE SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I THINK
IT'S REALLY A VERY IMPORTANT
BILL FOR PROTECTION OF VICTIMS
AND SURVIVORS, MADAM VICE CHAIR,
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS SO MOVED. I
WILL SECOND IT, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YEAH, I JUST FIRST OF
ALL, I THANK OUR SORT OF TWEENER
HERE. MY BILL IS A LITTLE
BROADER THAN THE OTHER TWO THAT
ARE MAKING THEIR WAY THROUGH.
BUT YOU GUYS KNOW WHEN THE
SAUSAGE GETS MADE, WE NEED TO
KIND OF MAKE THEM ALL LINE UP.
SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER
SB 1000 ON ON A BROADER MERIT.
RIGHT. THINK ABOUT AN ABUSER WHO
COULD STILL ACCESS YOUR RING
DOORBELL AND KNOW EVERYONE WHO'S
COMING AND GOING FROM YOUR HOME.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
FOLKS WITH THE AUTOMATED
VEHICLES AND THE EV VEHICLES
THAT HAVE CONTINUED ISSUES
THERE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO
ENGAGE TWO OTHER AUTHORS. SO I
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, AND WE CAN ACTUALLY DO A
ROLL CALL VOTE ON SB 1000.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL. I CALL I
DIXON. DIXON. AYE. ALL RIGHT. SO
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU. AND CAN WE JUST DO THIS
ONE. OKAY ONCE. GIVE ME ONE
SECOND. ITEMS 17 SB 1498. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL BE QUICK. HOPEFULLY
THAT HELPS YOU ALONG HERE TO
PRESENT 1498, WHICH PROVIDES THE
NECESSARY ENFORCEMENT TOOL TO
ADDRESS THE ILLEGAL MARKETING OF
CANNABIS AND HEMP PRODUCTS, BOTH
FROM LICENSED AND ILLICIT
BUSINESSES THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE
TO CHILDREN. CURRENT LAW
SPECIFIES RULES THAT LICENSEES
MUST ADHERE TO FOR THE
ADVERTISING OF CANNABIS AND
INDUSTRIAL HEMP, INCLUDING
PROHIBITING ADVERTISING THAT'S
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. WHILE
ILLEGAL, SOME CANNABIS AND HEMP
OPERATORS WILLFULLY VIOLATE
THESE PROHIBITIONS BY CONTINUING
TO ADVERTISE CONTENT THAT IS
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. THIS
LEAVES THE PROMISE OF PROP 64
UNFULFILLED. SB 1498 ALLOWS
ENFORCEMENT FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
COUNTY COUNSEL, OR A CITY
ATTORNEY WHEN A CANNABIS OR HEMP
LICENSE OR AN ILLICIT BUSINESS
IS IN VIOLATION OF CURRENT
ADVERTISING LAWS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT OUR YOUTH. SB 1498 IS A
BILL THAT SEEKS TO KEEP OUR KIDS
SAFE AND ENSURE THAT PROP 64 IS
IMPLEMENTED AS INTENDED. BILL
HAS NO OPPOSITION AND HAS
RECEIVED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. GREAT, IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1498? IS
THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1498? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION. I WILL SECOND THAT
MOTION, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL FOR A CALL. T I. DIXON.
DIXON. AYE ALL RIGHT, THAT IS ON
CALL. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL BE
MOVING TO ROOM FOR RIGHT NOW.
IT'S 127 OR SO UNTIL 130. AS
WE'VE MADE THIS SHIFT OVER HERE.
AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN AT 130.
SIX.
HOLDING YOU UP. OKAY. NO, NO. I
MEAN, WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT I MEAN. YES. ALL RIGHT, ALL
RIGHT. WITH THE RETURN OF OUR
WONDERFUL VICE CHAIR, WE WILL GO
AHEAD AND CALL ITEM 13. SB 1141,
SENATOR NIELLO.
THANK YOU. THIS IS ON. IT SHOULD
BE ON A LITTLE CLOSER. OH, YEAH.
THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MADAM VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. FIRST OF ALL, I
APPRECIATE YOU PRONOUNCING MY
NAME AS IT'S PRONOUNCED IN THE
MOTHER COUNTRY. NOT OFTEN DONE
AROUND HERE. NOT EVEN BY ME,
ACTUALLY. I AM, PRESENTING, SB
1141 FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
CALIFORNIA'S COURTS ARE
CONGESTED IN EACH OF THE LAST
THREE YEARS. THE NUMBER OF
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE FILINGS
WERE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NUMBER
OF CASE DISPOSITIONS. THE TOTAL
CIVIL CASE BACKLOG GREW BY OVER
800,000 CASES, APPROXIMATELY
HALF OF WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE INCREASE IN THE UNLIMITED
CIVIL CASE BACKLOG. CURRENT LAW
ALLOWS A TRIAL COURT JUDGE TO
ORDER A CASE INTO MEDIATION AS
LONG AS THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY DOES NOT EXCEED
$50,000 FOR EACH PLAINTIFF. THE
CURRENT THRESHOLD OF $50,000 WAS
SET 30 YEARS AGO, INFLATION HAS,
CONSIDERABLY DEPRECIATED THAT
AMOUNT. ADDITIONALLY, THE
INCREASE IN THE LIMITED CIVIL
JURISDICTION JURISDICTIONAL
THRESHOLD ENACTED LAST YEAR BY
SENATOR UMBERG SB 71 CREATES THE
EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE,
MANDATORY MEDIATION IS LIMITED
TO CASES WHERE THE AMOUNT OF
CONTROVERSY IS ONLY BETWEEN
35,000 AND $50,000, BECAUSE,
COURT ORDERED MEDIATION IS ONLY
ALLOWED FOR UNLIMITED CIVIL
MATTERS. SB 1141 RAISES THAT
THRESHOLD TO $150,000 TO ACCOUNT
FOR INFLATION AND IT PROBABLY
DOESN'T EVEN DO THAT. AND TO
ADJUST FOR THE INCREASE OF THE
LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
JURISDICTIONAL THRESHOLD ADOPTED
LAST YEAR, SB 1141 ALSO INCLUDES
IMPORTANT SAFEGUARDS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
STAKEHOLDERS. THESE SAFEGUARDS
INCLUDE ENSURING THAT A TRIAL
DATE BE SET AND TO NOT CAUSE A
DELAY IN THAT DATE. THAT A FREE
OPTION TO THE PARTIES BE MADE
AVAILABLE, AND THAT THOSE
ATTENDING THE MEDIATION HAVE THE
LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SETTLE THE
DISPUTE. MANDATORY MEDIATION CAN
BE A HELPFUL TOOL TO THE
ULTIMATE RESOLUTION OF A CASE,
EVEN WHEN THE CASE IS NOT
SETTLED THROUGH MEDIATION. A
PILOT PROGRAM IN SAN DIEGO OF
OVER 5000 CASES ACHIEVED A
RESOLUTION RATE OF 58 TO 76, BUT
EVEN BEYOND THAT, 74% OF
ATTORNEYS WHOSE CASES DID NOT
SETTLE AT MEDIATION INDICATED
THE MEDIATION WAS IMPORTANT TO
THE ULTIMATE SETTLEMENT OF THE
CASE. THE POTENTIAL TIME SAVINGS
FROM REDUCED NUMBERS OF COURT
EVENTS WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 479
JUDGE DAYS PER YEAR IN SAN
DIEGO, WITH AN ESTIMATED
MONETARY VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY
$1.4 MILLION, A REPORT BY THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL EVALUATING
EARLY MEDIATION PILOT PROGRAMS
IN SAN DIEGO, LOS ANGELES, AND
SONOMA COUNTY SUGGEST THAT EARLY
MEDIATION PROGRAMS CAN HELP
COURTS SAVE VALUABLE JUDICIAL
TIME THAT CAN BE DEVOTED TO
OTHER CASES REQUIRING JUDGE'S
ATTENTION. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS.
SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS WERE
ADOPTED IN THE SENATE TO ADDRESS
THE OPPONENT'S STATED CONCERNS.
AND THERE IS A WILLINGNESS TO
ADOPT ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS. I'D
LIKE TO POINT OUT, THOUGH, THAT
TOO MANY GUARDRAILS, GUARDRAILS
CAN ACTUALLY END UP BUILDING A
RESTRICTIVE FENCE, WHICH IS WHY
I HAVE INSISTED THAT IF A SUNSET
IS PUT ON THE BILL, THAT ALL NEW
ADDITIONS TO EXISTING LAW BE
INCLUDED IN THE SUNSET, THAT IS,
TO SAY, IT WOULD REVERT TO
EXISTING LAW. THIS IS BY FAR A
REASONABLE REQUEST, I BELIEVE,
AND COMMON PRACTICE, WHEN
LEGISLATION INCLUDES A SUNSET
CLAUSE. I HAVE WITH ME TODAY.
ELLIE VELANDER ON BEHALF OF THE
CONFERENCE OF CALIFORNIA BAR
ASSOCIATION. SHE'S A MEDIATOR,
ARBITRATOR, A JUDGE PRO TEM AT
THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, AND HAS SERVED AS
CO-CHAIR OF THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION'S EARLY DISPUTE
RESOLUTION COMMITTEE OF THE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SECTION FOR
THE LAST FOUR YEARS, AND ALSO
HEATHER REST RESTS, A TART, TART.
COULD YOU SAY THAT FOR ME? REST
THERE. REST TERRACE. WHO IS WITH
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL? THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THE ASSISTANCE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ELLIE LENDER. FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY USED MANDATORY
MEDIATION TO MANAGE THEIR
DOCKETS FOR DECADES. CALIFORNIA,
WHOSE CIVIL ACTION MEDIATION
STATUTE HAS BEEN STUCK AT
$50,000 FOR OVER 30 YEARS, HAS
THE WORST CIVIL BACKLOG IN THE
COUNTRY FOR COMPARISON, THE
ENTIRE US DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM
IN THE LAST TWO YEARS ADDED
12,000 CASES CIVIL CASES TO
THEIR BACKLOG. BUT IN THE SAME
TIME PERIOD, CALIFORNIA STATE
COURTS HAVE ADDED 600,000. MORE
THAN THAT MORE THAN 50 TIMES AS
MANY, THREATENING LITIGANTS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO A TIMELY
TRIAL. JUST YESTERDAY, THE LA
SUPERIOR COURT ISSUED A PRESS
RELEASE STATING THAT THE FISCAL
YEAR 2425 STATE BUDGET DEFICIT,
RESULTING IN A $97 MILLION
REDUCTION TO TRIAL COURTS
STATEWIDE, WILL NO DOUBT IMPACT
THE COURTS ABILITY TO PROVIDE
TIMELY AND EFFICIENT ACCESS TO
JUSTICE. THIS WILL COMPOUND THE
PROBLEM CAUSED BY THE BACKLOG,
BUT THERE IS A WAY TO MITIGATE
IT. THE EFFICACY OF MANDATORY
MEDIATION IS WELL ESTABLISHED AS
PART OF FIVE CALIFORNIA ANNEX
COURT ANNEX CIVIL MEDIATION
PROGRAMS, MORE THAN 6000
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASES
PARTICIPATED, WITH A MAJORITY OF
THEM SETTLING A 445 PAGE REPORT
CONCLUDED THAT THE PROGRAMS
RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS
TO BOTH LITIGANTS, AND THE
COURTS, INCLUDING INCREASES IN
LITIGANT SATISFACTION WITH THE
COURT SERVICES, AND DECREASES IN
LITIGANT COSTS IN CASES RESOLVED
AT MEDIATION. IN A SEPARATE 2018
STUDY THAT ANALYZED 12 COURT
ANNEXED MEDIATION PROGRAMS IN
SIX DIFFERENT STATES, THE AUTHOR
CONCLUDED DATA FROM MANDATORY
MEDIATION PROGRAMS SHOW HIGH
SUCCESS RATES. SB 1141 ADVANCES
OUR COMMON GOAL OF ENSURING
PARTIES RIGHT TO TIMELY
ADJUDICATION, WHILE SAVING TIME
AND EXPENSE FOR THE COURTS AND
LITIGANTS. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR HEATHER
ASSOCIATES HERE WITH THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IS PLEASED
TO SUPPORT SB 1141 BECAUSE IT
UPDATES THE 30 YEAR OLD COURT
MEDIATION STATUTE. SB 1141 WILL
ALLOW COURTS THE OPTION TO REFER
MORE CASES TO MEDIATION,
POTENTIALLY EASING COURT
WORKLOAD AND PROVIDING
RESOLUTION TO CASES. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, JUDICIAL COUNCIL
IS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1141? THANK
YOU, YOUR HONOR. ON BEHALF OF
CAL CHAMBER IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1141?
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MADAM VICE
CHAIR, MARIKO YOSHIHARA HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
WE HAVE AN OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION AND JUST WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH US ON
SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE. I
JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING WE
ARE STRONG PROPONENTS OF
MEDIATION. WE BELIEVE MEDIATION
IS AN IMPORTANT AND EFFECTIVE
TOOL WHEN THE PARTIES ARE
PREPARED AND WILLING TO RESOLVE
THEIR DISPUTES THROUGH
MEDIATION. VOLUNTARINESS IS, OF
COURSE, A FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTE
OF MEDIATION. SO WHEN IT IS
MANDATED ON THE PARTIES, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THERE ARE
APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE
THAT IT'S NOT DISADVANTAGING ONE
PARTY OVER THE OTHER. AND OF
COURSE, THAT MEDIATION WILL IN
FACT BE EFFECTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL.
THAT IS WHY WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE SAFEGUARDS AND PROTECTIONS
THAT WERE ADDED TO THE BILL. WE
STILL REMAIN OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED, BECAUSE WE DID ASK FOR
A SUNSET, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THE SAFEGUARDS REMAIN IN
PLACE. WE THINK THOSE ARE
IMPORTANT AND REASONABLE
SAFEGUARDS. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING
FOR AN AMENDMENT JUST TO ENSURE
THAT THERE ARE NO ONGOING
DISCOVERY. DISPUTES WHILE BEFORE
THE PARTIES ARE SENT TO
MEDIATION. SO FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS DAVINA TUCKER
WITH THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WE ALIGN
OURSELVES WITH THE CLA, AND WE
WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THESE
PROTECTIONS THAT WERE PUT IN
PLACE ARE EVEN MORE CRUCIAL FOR
CASES THAT ARE 50,000 OR LESS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF A CASE IS
MANDATORY, PUT INTO MEDIATION,
THE PROTECTIONS SAY THAT IT HAS
TO BE WITHOUT COST. SO TO TAKE
THAT PROTECTION OUT OF THE BILL
FOR CASES THAT ARE OF LOWER
VALUE, THAT IS MORE DETRIMENTAL
TO THOSE PARTIES, IS GOING TO BE
MORE COST ON THEIR CASE, WHEN
THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO
SAVE THE RESOURCES THE MOST.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1141?
OKAY, WELL, BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBER. CAN I MOVE?
YEAH. OKAY. WE'LL WAIT UNTIL WE
HAVE OTHER MEMBERS HERE AND
THEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
APOLOGIZE, WE JUST. I THINK WE
HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERS IN CAUCUS
STILL AND SO ON, BUT I WANTED TO
MAKE SURE, OUT OF RESPECT OF
TIME, THAT WE, CONTINUED WITH
OUR HEARINGS. I UNDERSTAND, AND
I HOPE FOR YOUR SAKE THAT YOUR
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LIST OF
BILLS IS NOT AS LONG AS OUR
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LIST OF
BILLS TODAY. I'LL BE HERE QUITE
LATE, JUST TO CLOSE, I WOULD SAY
THAT, SINCE IN THE 30 YEARS THAT
THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN $50,000, A
$50,000 CASE, 30 YEARS AGO, IS
WORTH ABOUT $150,000 CASE TODAY.
SO IT'S JUST EQUALIZING THINGS
TO BEST UTILIZE THIS METHOD THAT
MAKES THE COURTS MORE EFFICIENT.
AND IN MANY CASES, MEDIATION
WHEN IT'S NOT SUCCESSFUL. AS I
STATED IN THE, STUDY IN SAN
DIEGO, ENDS UP MAKING THE
ADJUDICATED CASE EASIER ALSO. SO
I WOULD, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR ALL
RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP
WHEN WE HAVE, OUR OTHER FRIENDS
HERE.
EVERYBODY YEAH. GOT IT. YEAH.
I DON'T KNOW.
TO ME, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S
LIVE STREAM. WE'RE TRYING TO
WORK. YEAH, THEY. OKAY? I KNOW
PLACES TO STOP AND. OKAY. WE'RE
JUST CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE'S A FEED OF THIS MEETING
STREAMING. CINDY SAYS IT'S ON,
IT'S 91 FOR THE CAPITAL M LOBBY
FOR THE SWING SPACE, CHANNEL
103. OKAY, SO I BELIEVE IT'S ON
THE 90 CHANNEL 91, THE CAPITAL
CHANNEL 103. IN THE SWING SPACE
STREAM. SO WE CAN GO AHEAD. THEN.
ON IT'S NOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT
STILL SAYS ADJOURN HERE, BUT
IT'S OKAY THAT WE'RE NOT
LIVESTREAMING. OKAY. THAT'S YEAH,
WE'RE NOT YET, BUT IT'S ON THE
TV. JUST TV. YEAH, BUT THAT'S
OKAY.
WE HAVE. LDC LDC AND.
SO. I KNOW I'M BEHIND STAFF.
SORRY I CAN DEFER. I'M SORRY FOR
MISSING YOU AT THE LAST. IT'S UP
TO THE TWO OF YOU. SENATOR, WHY
DON'T YOU TAKE A SEAT? WE'RE
JUST CONFIRMING WHETHER THE LIVE
STREAM IS UP OR NOT. WE DID
CHANGE ROOMS. THAT MIGHT HAVE
CAUSED SOME CONFUSION, BUT OUR
TECHNICIANS ARE WORKING ON IT,
AND WE JUST NEED CONFIRMATION.
SO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SEAT. AND
THE SECOND WE GET THAT
CONFIRMATION, WE'LL WE'LL
PROCEED. WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT.
QUICK WORK BY OUR TECHS. SO
WE'LL GO AHEAD TO ITEM 14 SB
1286. GO AHEAD SENATOR WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
I'D LIKE TO START BY NOTING THAT
WE ARE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
YOUR HELP ON THIS BILL, SB 1286
WOULD EXTEND PROTECTIONS UNDER
THE ROSENTHAL ACT TO INDIVIDUALS
WHO PERSONALLY SIGNED FOR THEIR
SMALL BUSINESS DEBT, PROTECTING
THEM FROM UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE, AND
ABUSIVE DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES, SINCE THE 2008
ECONOMIC CRASH, WE'VE SEEN MANY
TRADITIONAL AND NONTRADITIONAL
LENDERS. INCREASINGLY REQUIRE
INDIVIDUALS TO PERSONALLY
GUARANTEE THEIR BUSINESS DEBT,
AND THAT, OF COURSE, OPENS THE
DOOR FOR INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS
OWNERS TO BE SUBJECTED TO
ABUSIVE AND PREDATORY DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES, INCLUDING
THREATS, CONTENT CONTACTING
BORROWERS AT INCONVENIENT HOURS,
USING FALSE STATEMENTS, AND
ADDING UNAUTHORIZED INTEREST OR
FEES TO THE AMOUNT OWED. UNDER
SB 1286. THESE BORROWERS WOULD
BE STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PAYING THEIR DEBTS, BUT WOULD BE
PROTECTED FROM, UNFAIR,
DECEPTIVE OR ABUSIVE COLLECTION
PRACTICES. UNDER THE FRAMEWORK
LAID OUT BY THE ROSENTHAL ACT,
MANY LENDERS AND COLLECTORS
ALREADY ABIDE BY THE ROSENTHAL
ACT FOR CONSUMER DEBT, AND THIS
BILL SIMPLY EXTENDS THOSE
PROTECTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE A GUARANTEE ON SOME FORMS
OF COMMERCIAL DEBT. HERE, TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
WITH ME ARE DESIREE NGUYEN
NORTH, DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER
JUSTICE UNIT AT EAST BAY
COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, LECTURER
AT UC BERKELEY, LAW AND BOARD
MEMBER OF THE DEBT COLLECTION
ADVISORY BOARD TO DFP.
PREVIOUSLY AN ATTORNEY FOR SMALL
FEMALE OWNED BUSINESSES AND
HAVING, ALSO WITH ME, HEIDI
PICKMAN, WHO WILL TESTIFY FIRST
VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGAGEMENT AND
EXTERNAL RELATIONS WITH CAMEO
NETWORK. THANK YOU. HI, I'M
HEIDI PICKMAN FOR THE CAMEO
NETWORK, A STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION
OF MISSION DRIVEN COACHING
ORGANIZATIONS AND LENDERS FROM
SAN DIEGO TO SAN JOSE TO SAN
RAFAEL TO EUREKA, IT'S NOT
UNCOMMON FOR THEM TO REPORT
STORIES ABOUT THEIR CLIENTS WHO
HAVE GOTTEN THEMSELVES INTO
PREDATORY FINANCING
ARRANGEMENTS, PROMISING FAST,
EASY MONEY BUT COME WITH HIGH
FEES AND APR'S THAT ARE
OTHERWISE OBSCURED. MANY GO INTO
DEBT COLLECTION AND ARE SUBJECT
TO HARASSMENT, YELLING DOZENS OF
CALLS A DAY OR WORSE. TAKE
JAMES. HE TOOK OUT A MERCHANT
CASH ADVANCE THAT SNOWBALLED
INTO FOUR MKAS DUE TO PREDATORY
BUSINESS MODEL OF THOSE MKAS
MERCHANT CASH ADVANCE, HE
STRUGGLED TO MANAGE HIS BUSINESS
DEBT DURING THE DEBT COLLECTION.
THE LENDER SENT PEOPLE NOT TO
HIS OFFICE BUT TO HIS HOUSE TO
HAVE A CHAT TO TRY AND SCARE HIM
AND HIS FAMILY. HE STATED,
SENDING TO MY SENDING PEOPLE TO
MY HOUSE IS OUT OF LINE. TOM.
ANOTHER VICTIM OF A MERCHANT
CASH ADVANCE, EXPERIENCED WHAT
HE CALLS A TON OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
WARFARE. HE GOT LATE NIGHT CALLS
TO LECTURE HIM ON HIS BUSINESS
WHILE BEING OFFERED MORE
PREDATORY LOANS. DAVE, A TRAINER
FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, DECIDED TO
OPEN A NEW GYM, TOOK OUT
FINANCING FOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT
NEEDED TO BE MADE ON THE SPACE.
THEN COVID HIT AND HIS BUSINESS
RAN INTO TROUBLE AS A GYM. THE
FINANCING COMPANY LEFT
THREATENING MESSAGES NOT ON HIS
PHONE BUT HIS WIFE'S PHONE, AND
THEN THEY TRACKED DOWN HIS
CLIENTS AND THREATENED TO PURSUE
THEM TO GET MONEY THEY WERE OWED.
JAMES, TOM AND DAVE ARE THE
TYPES OF SMALL BUSINESSES WHO
ARE CONSUMERS OF FINANCIAL
PRODUCTS AND SUBJECT TO
HARASSMENT AND DEBT COLLECTION.
SB 1286 IS NECESSARILY AND
SIMPLY ASKED THAT THE DEBT
COLLECTORS BE NICE WHEN
COLLECTING DEBT FROM SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS WHO SECURE
BUSINESS DEBT WITH A PERSONAL
GUARANTEE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBER
OF THE COMMITTEE. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. SB 1286 IS AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE THAT WILL
REQUIRE LONG ACCEPTED PRACTICES
OF DECENCY AND DEBT COLLECTION
TO BE APPLIED TO DEBT COLLECTION
FOR INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OWNERS,
AS OF 2023, CALIFORNIA HAS 3.35
MILLION SMALL BUSINESSES THAT DO
NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES. THAT'S 3.35
MILLION PEOPLE DOING THEIR OWN
ADVERTISING. MARKETING TAXES,
ACCOUNTING, WEB DESIGN, AND
MORE. ON TOP OF THE SERVICES AND
GOODS THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO
SELL. MODERN BUSINESS IS MORE
INTERWOVEN WITH OUR NORMAL DAILY
LIVES THAN EVER BEFORE. MANY
PEOPLE CO-MINGLE PERSONAL AND
BUSINESS ASSETS, LIKE USING
THEIR CELL PHONE AND HOME OFFICE
TO DO BUSINESS. BASED ON MY
EXPERIENCE WITH THESE BUSINESS
OWNERS, IT IS CLEAR THAT MANY DO
NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL BUSINESS
ACUMEN OR EQUAL BARGAINING POWER
TO NEGOTIATE FAVORABLE OR FAIR
TERMS OF FINANCING. AS SUCH, THE
LEAST SOPHISTICATED CONSUMER
STANDARD OF ROSENTHAL IS VERY
MUCH APPROPRIATE. HERE IS WHAT
1286 WILL DO. IT WILL ENSURE
THAT PERSONAL GUARANTEES AND
LOANS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS ARE
COLLECTED FAIRLY, WITHOUT DECEIT
OR HARASSMENT. IT IS A NARROW
APPLICATION OF THE LAW, WITH A
SCOPE LIMITED TO ONLY NATURAL
PERSONS. IT IS A LAW THAT
ALREADY APPLIES TO A LARGE SWATH
OF THE EXISTING LENDERS AND
COLLECTORS, INCLUDING THOSE IN
THE OPPOSITION, WITHOUT ADDING
ANY NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR
LICENSING, AND IT EXPANDS THE
VENUE PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL
EFFICIENCY. MORE IMPORTANTLY,
HERE IS WHAT SB 1286 WILL NOT
DO. IT WILL NOT, AND HAS NEVER
BEEN AWAY FOR ANYONE TO GET OUT
OF PAYING THEIR DEBTS. IT WILL
NOT AFFECT THE CURRENT DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES FOR THE
DEBT OF AN INCORPORATED
BUSINESS, INCLUDING THE MISUSE
OF THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU
FOR PUBLIC SHAMING. AND IT IS
NOT A WAY FOR DUBIOUS BUSINESS
OWNERS TO MISLEAD FINANCERS BY
OPENING AND CLOSING NEW
BUSINESSES FOR LOANS, BECAUSE A
PERSONAL LOAN, REGARDLESS OF THE
END USE, IS STILL REPORTED ON A
PERSON'S CREDIT REPORT. I THANK
YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS BILL,
WHICH WILL BENEFIT A LARGE,
UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITY THAT
COMPRISES A VAST PORTION OF THE
ECONOMIC FABRIC OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1286? CHAIR I HAVE
SOME METOOS FROM RESPONSIBLE
BUSINESS LENDING COALITION AND
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT. THANK YOU.
ROBERT HARRELL WITH THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THIS
MEASURE. URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. BRIAN WHALEN FROM SAN
FRANCISCO IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1286?
I KNOW IT IS COLD IN HERE.
RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MELANIE
CUEVAS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BANKERS ASSOCIATION. APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK ON THIS
BILL. AND AGAIN, APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT
AMENDMENTS, I'LL START BY SAYING
AT A HIGH LEVEL, I THINK WE
AGREE THAT BULLYING OR
HARASSMENT IS ABUSIVE AND AN
UNSCRUPULOUS PRACTICE. HOWEVER,
ROSENTHAL ITSELF IS MUCH MORE
THAN THAT, ROSENTHAL IS CROSS
REFERENCED IN MANY OTHER AREAS
OF LAW, SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE
CLEANEST WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS
POLICY WOULD BE TO START AN
ENTIRELY NEW CODE SECTION
SPECIFIC TO COMMERCIAL BORROWING
TO AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
ABSENT OF THAT ROUTE, I'LL ALSO
NOTE THAT ROSENTHAL IS MODELED
AFTER THE FEDERAL FAIR DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT. BOTH
OF WHICH ADDRESS THE STANDARD
REFERRED TO AS THE LEAST
SOPHISTICATED CONSUMER, WHICH
MEANS THAT THE DEBTOR MUST BE
CONSIDERED BOTH UNINFORMED AND
NAIVE. THIS CREATES A STANDARD
IN APPLYING THE MEANING OF THE
ACT THROUGH CASE LAW, AND THIS
IS CONTRASTED FOR EXAMPLE, WITH
A REASONABLE CONSUMER STANDARD.
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS,
INCLUDING THOSE IMPACTED BY SB
1286, TEND TO BE MORE COMPLEX,
AND THESE BORROWERS ARE NOT
UNINFORMED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
BUSINESS OWNERS MUST PRESENT A
VERY THOROUGH BUSINESS PLAN IN
ORDER TO SECURE FINANCIAL
SERVICES OR PRODUCTS, ESPECIALLY
WITH A $500,000 THRESHOLD THAT'S
IN THE BILL CURRENTLY. SO AS
SUCH, WE BELIEVE IT'S IMPERATIVE
THAT THE DEFINITION OF A COVERED
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION IN 1780
8.2 N BE CLARIFIED TO APPLY TO
THE TOTALITY OF THE COVERED
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SPIRIT OF
ROSENTHAL, AND TO ENSURE THAT WE
ARE PROTECTING THOSE LEAST
SOPHISTICATED CONSUMERS. I'LL
ALSO NOTE THAT INTERNALLY WITHIN
THE BANK EXPERIENCED LOAN
RELATIONSHIP MANAGERS WORK
DIRECTLY WITH BUSINESS BORROWERS
IN DEALING WITH DIFFERENT
SOLUTIONS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A
BORROWER IS DISTRESSED, THIS
MIGHT MEAN A 10 P.M. PHONE CALL
WITH A BORROWER AND THE BANK'S
RELATIONSHIP MANAGER BECAUSE
THAT BORROWER HAS REQUESTED A
LATE NIGHT CALL BECAUSE MAYBE
THEY'RE AT A CONFERENCE ON EAST
COAST TIME. WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT SB 1286 WOULD NEGATIVELY
IMPACT THAT TYPE OF PERSONALIZED
RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT THAT
HAPPENS IN THE COMMERCIAL
LENDING SPACE. LET'S STOP RIGHT
THERE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. SCOTT, GOVERNOR, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FINANCIAL
SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL SERVICES
ASSOCIATION, I CAME IN LATE. I
MENTIONED IT TO THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE THE OTHER DAY. THEY WERE
RECEPTIVE TO CONTINUE TALKING.
MINE IS A VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE
RELATED TO OPEN ENDED LINES OF
CREDIT VERSUS CLOSED END, OPEN
ENDED ARE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
BEAST. OFTENTIMES IN THE AUTO
SPACE, IN PARTICULAR, THOSE WE
LEND MONEY TO ARE LENDERS
THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO TÊ LÀ. SO
WE ARE LOOKING FOR A CARVE OUT
OR SOME KIND OF ACCOMMODATION
FOR OPEN ENDED LINES OF CREDIT.
AND AGAIN, WE'LL CONTINUE
TALKING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1286? GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
NAOMI PIDGEON, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
INDIRA MCDONALD, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE BANKERS
ASSOCIATION. ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. CLIFF COSTA, TODAY, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDITORS BAR ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE, UNLESS
AMENDED, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
OR MOTIONS? ANYONE. ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, I,
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. IMPORTANT CONSUMER
PROTECTION BILL. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YES WE ARE COMMITTED
TO CONTINUING TO MAKE THIS AS
STRONG A BILL AS POSSIBLE. IT'S
BEEN AMENDED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE
ITS ORIGINAL DRAFT, AND I THINK
THE GOAL OF IT IS OBVIOUSLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
FOR A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON DIXON.
NØ BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE. MACKINNON PACHECO. PACHECO.
AYE. PATTERSON REYES. REYES. AYE
SANCHEZ. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PLACE
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
ALL RIGHT, SO AND WE HAVE THE
FINAL ITEM, ITEM 18 SB 1504.
SENATOR STERN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, FOR THIS COOL
ENVIRONMENT. I WILL TELL YOU,
SENATE JUDICIARY IS A LITTLE
HOTTER. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THAT SAYS ABOUT THIS BODY, BUT
AS YOU'RE KEEPING IT COOL, BRING
TO YOU, IMPORTANT BILL, THAT I
KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE,
EXPERIENCE WITH, CYBER BULLYING
IS PERVASIVE ONLINE, IT CAN
OFTEN BE QUITE SEVERE. AND WE
THINK THAT THE PLATFORMS THAT
HAVE THE MEANS TO REPORT THESE
INCIDENTS OUGHT TO HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO MAKE THOSE BUTTONS
OR THOSE REPORTING MECHANISMS
WORK. THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT
CONTENT MODERATION, IT DOESN'T
TELL PLATFORMS WHAT THEY CAN AND
CAN'T REMOVE OR WHAT THEY OUGHT
TO REMOVE, IT MERELY SAYS THAT
WHEN AN INCIDENT OF CYBER
BULLYING IS REPORTED, THAT THAT
THEY RESPOND IN, IN SOME
MEANINGFUL WAY, SO AT A HIGH
LEVEL, THAT'S THE SIMPLE SUMMARY
OF THE BILL. BUT HAPPY TO GET
INTO DETAILS. AND I KNOW WE'RE
AT THE END OF A LONG HEARING, SO
I'LL DEFER TO MY LEAD WITNESSES
AND HUMBLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE AYE
VOTE HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU, SO I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER WE WANT TO GO AT HOWARD.
OKAY JEFF. I'LL GO FIRST. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I'M JEFF WIENER. I'M
FROM JEWISH FAMILY AND
CHILDREN'S SERVICES IN THE BAY
AREA. AND I WANT TO READ FOR YOU
A TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN
EARLIER IN CONSUMER PRIVACY
PROTECTION COMMITTEE BY A YOUNG
CYBERBULLYING SURVIVOR NAMED
EMILY SARANG. SO THESE ARE HER
WORDS. MY MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
EMILY SARANG. I'M A FRESHMAN AT
RUTH ASAWA HIGH SCHOOL IN SAN
FRANCISCO, AND AS SOMEONE WHO
HAS DEALT WITH BEING CYBER
BULLIED AND AS SOMEONE WHO HAS
TRIED TO HELP MANY OF MY FRIENDS
WITH CYBERBULLYING, I STRONGLY
SUPPORT SB 1504. IN 2021, WHEN I
WAS 11, A GROUP OF BOYS WHO HAD
KNOWN ME IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BEGAN HARASSING ME THROUGH A
SOCIAL MEDIA APP CALLED DISCORD.
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY GAVE ME A NAME
IN THE SERVER, WHICH WAS I NEED
TO SUCK A BLANK AND I WON'T SAY
IT HERE, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW
WHAT THEY SAID. THEY ALSO SAID
THAT NO ONE COULD EVER LOVE ME
IN A ROMANTIC WAY, SAID THAT I
WAS WEAK, BUTTHURT, AND URGED ME
TO COMMIT SUICIDE. THEY WERE
JUST PICKING ON EVERY DETAIL
THEY COULD FOR A REASON, PURELY
TO HARM MY SELF-ESTEEM. THAT I
ALREADY POINTED OUT, WASN'T IN A
GOOD PLACE. THEY MADE FUN OF MY
HEIGHT, AND WHEN AN OLDER FRIEND
OF MINE JOINED THE SERVER TO
DEFEND ME IN A RESPECTFUL
MANNER, THEY JUST WENT ON
TARGETING THAT PERSON TOO. IT
WAS HARD TO FIND WHERE IN
DISCORD TO REPORT WHAT WAS
HAPPENING TO ME. IT ISN'T ON ITS
HOME PAGE. WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE
SAFETY CENTER, HOME PAGE LINK,
IT ISN'T ON THERE EITHER. AND
WHEN YOU CLICK THE SAFETY
LIBRARY TAB, IT STILL ISN'T
THERE. YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON
TOPICS. GO LOOK FOR HOW TO
REPORT CONTENT TO DISCORD, WHICH
APPEARS ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF
THE NEXT PAGE. FINALLY, WHEN I
WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND I
REPORTED THE USERS HARASSING ME,
I GOT NO RESPONSE. I STILL HAVE
NOT. I'VE ALSO ENCOUNTERED THE
WAY OTHER PLATFORMS HANDLE
REPORTS WHEN I'VE TRIED TO HELP
OTHERS TAKE INSTAGRAM. COUNTLESS
TIMES, I'VE COME ACROSS COMMENTS
PEOPLE WILL MAKE ON OTHER'S
BODIES, MENTAL HEALTH, OR LIVES
IN GENERAL. WHEN I SENT REPORTS
FOR COMMENTS LIKE GO KILL
YOURSELF AND STOP EATING WHILE
YOU'RE AT IT, I WOULD GET A
RESPONSE OF WE FOUND THAT
CONTENT REPORTED DOESN'T GO
AGAINST OUR COMMUNITY
GUIDELINES, BUT THANK YOU FOR
HELPING TO KEEP THE INSTAGRAM
COMMUNITY SAFE. I'LL CLOSE VERY
QUICKLY WHEN, OF COURSE, THE
CONTENT I REPORTED CLEARLY
VIOLATES ITS COMMUNITY
GUIDELINES. THIS BILL IS JUST A
CUSTOMER SERVICE BILL BENEFITING
CHILDREN. THE RISK THAT NOT
HAVING AN ACCESSIBLE, TIMELY AND
EFFECTIVE CYBERBULLYING
REPORTING PROCESS POSES TO
MINORS IS EXTREME. IF I WAS IN
AN EVEN WORSE PLACE THAN WHEN I
WAS WHEN I WAS TOLD TO KILL
MYSELF, I MAY HAVE LISTENED TO
THEM AND I MAY HAVE DONE IT. AND
THAT SCARES ME. ON BEHALF OF
TEENS EVERYWHERE, PLEASE HELP
US. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS ED HOWARD,
SENIOR COUNSEL AT THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL
OF LAW, I CAN'T REALLY. I HAVE
SOME OTHER STATEMENTS FROM SOME
OTHER CHILDREN. BUT, THOSE OF
YOU WHO ARE IN THE ASSEMBLY
PRIVACY COMMITTEE AND I SEE SOME
MEMBERS WHO WERE THERE, REMEMBER
HOW MOVING THAT TESTIMONY WAS.
SO I'LL BE SUBMITTING ON THE
BASIS OF THAT TESTIMONY AND
PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE AND WITH GRATITUDE
TO YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR HARD WORK ANALYZING AND
WORKING WITH THIS BILL. THANK
YOU, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1504? CHARLIE
DONLON, WITH STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF RETHINK AND HAVE THE
STORY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIR
MEMBERS. SAM NASH ON BEHALF OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION, IN SUPPORT AS WELL AS
AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI. ANTHONY LIU, ON
BEHALF OF THE AG, ROB BONTA'S
OFFICE, I APOLOGIZE WE DON'T
HAVE OUR LETTER IN BEFORE THE
DEADLINE, BUT WE ARE IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1504. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1504? OH THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
JASON SCHMELTZER HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF TECHNET, I WANT TO SAY
AT THE OUTSET THAT WE ABSOLUTELY
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS ISSUE. AND FRANKLY, WE
AGREE WITH THE INTENT, THAT'S
SORT OF PUSHING THIS BILL
FORWARD, OUR COMPANIES HAVE A
PROUD HISTORY OF ESTABLISHING
INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES AND
CREATING NEW FEATURES AND TOOLS
TO PROVIDE PARENTS WITH GREATER
CONTROL OVER CHILD'S SOCIAL
MEDIA EXPERIENCE. BUT THERE'S
MORE TO BE DONE. AND WE
UNDERSTAND THAT, WE ARE OPPOSED
TO SB 1504 IN ITS CURRENT, FORM
IN PRINT. I JUST WANT TO SPEND A
MINUTE OUTLINING A FEW SPECIFIC
CONCERNS, AND THEN I'LL PIVOT TO
A DIFFERENT TYPE OF
CONVERSATION, FIRST, THE BILL
LIMITS THE METHOD OF CONTACT
WITH THE REPORTER. THE BILL
ALLOWS THE REPORTER TO CHOOSE
THE METHOD OF CONTACT, WHICH IS
FINE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT
IT ALSO PROHIBITS THE USE OF A
METHOD THAT'S WITHIN THE CONTROL
OF THE PLATFORM. WE THINK THE
ANALYSIS DOES A GOOD JOB OF
DISCUSSING THE POTENTIAL
DRAWBACKS OF THIS LIMITATION,
SECOND, THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION IS PROBLEMATIC. THE
ANALYSIS ALSO DOES A GOOD JOB OF
OUTLINING POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
WITH, SAY, HAVING TEACHERS FILE
SUIT, WE WOULD NOTE THAT MANY
BILLS IN THIS SPACE HAVE BEEN
LIMITED TO PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.
WE THINK THAT WOULD BE A MOVE IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION, THIRD, WE
THINK THE PENALTY AMOUNT BEING
$75,000 IS PRETTY EXCESSIVE.
PENALTIES SHOULD HAVE SOME
CORRELATION TO THE CONDUCT IN
QUESTION. AND WE THINK THAT THE
PENALTY HERE SORT OF MISSES THAT
MARK. AND FINALLY, THE TIME
FRAMES IN THE BILL NEED WORK.
THE BILL CURRENTLY REQUIRES
PLATFORMS TO MAKE A FINAL
DETERMINATION WITHIN TEN DAYS.
THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED A 30 DAY
STANDARD FOR MAKING THE SAME
DETERMINATION ON CSAM AND AB
1394 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS
LAST YEAR, IF THE LEGISLATURE
WANTS TO ELEVATE CYBERBULLYING
TO THE LEVEL OF CSAM, THAT'S
CERTAINLY A POLICY DECISION THAT
COULD BE RATIONALLY MADE. WE
WOULD FLAG, HOWEVER, THAT WE
WOULD EXPECT A SUBSTANTIALLY
HIGHER VOLUME OF CYBERBULLYING
COMPLAINTS. AND IT'S ALSO A FAR
MORE SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION.
SO WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT
TAKES MORE TIME THAN, FOR
EXAMPLE, CSAM DOES. I WANT TO BE
VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT
OPPOSED TO CAREFULLY DRAFTED
LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT THAT
CAN BE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED
AND AVOIDS FEDERAL PREEMPTION
AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. TO
THAT END, WE HAVE OFFERED
SENATOR STERN A VERSION OF THIS
BILL THAT WOULD CREATE A
STANDARDIZED REPORTING MECHANISM
FOR ALL POTENTIALLY VIOLATIVE
CONTENT, AND WE APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN
HAVING WITH YOU AND YOUR
SPONSORS IN THAT DIRECTION.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1504?
LARA BENNETT WITH CALIFORNIA
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH THOSE OF
TECHNET AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
NAOMI PIGEON, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, WOULD ECHO
WHAT'S BEEN SAID. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. RUTH DAWSON WITH ACLU,
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS. MADAM VICE CHAIR.
THEY'VE BEEN MOVED. MY
APOLOGIES. YEAH, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, THANK YOU, SENATOR, JUST
TO CLARIFY THE BECAUSE I'VE
HEARD SIMILAR BILLS IN THIS
COMMITTEE, EXCUSE ME, IN THE
PRIVACY COMMITTEE AS WELL AS
HERE. AND SO I'M TRYING TO
RECONCILE THEM. SO I'M SURE
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE OTHER
BILLS. COULD YOU COMMENT ON ARE
THEY SIMILAR OR THE FINES ARE
DIFFERENT? I KNOW THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION, JUST IF YOU
COULD CLARIFY MAYBE SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCES. I WILL TAKE A SHOT.
I CAN'T CLAIM TO BE EXHAUSTIVE.
I KNOW WE JUST HEARD AN ASSEMBLY
BILL IN SENATE JUDICIARY THAT
DEALT WITH, THE ACTUAL REPORTING
PROCESS AND WHO WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE TO FILE CERTAIN KINDS
OF REPORTS, NOT JUST LIMITED TO
CYBERBULLYING, AND THAT, THAT
THAT WAS NARROWED IN SENATE
PRIVATE, SENATE JUDICIARY. TO
EXCLUDE CERTAIN I THINK MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELORS AND CERTAIN
FOLKS WHO ARE NOT CURRENT THAT
WERE ALSO NARROWED OUT OF OUR
BILL. OUR BILL, THE SORT OF
REPORTING AGENTS, IF YOU WILL,
THAT HAVE THIS RIGHT TO FILE THE
REPORTS AND HAVE RECOURSE IF
THEY'RE NOT RESPONDED TO OR
LIMITED TO JUST, SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, TEACHERS, AND
THEN THE PARENT LEGAL GUARDIAN,
WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS
RAISED ABOUT HOW, PENALTIES
WOULD BE RECOVERED BY BULLIED
PUPILS IN THE EVENT OF THOSE
KINDS OF FILINGS AND TO MAKE
SURE THAT SOME OF THAT VALUE
COMES BACK TO THE VICTIM. SO
THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WE'RE OPEN
TO WORKING ON, I'M TRYING TO
THINK, ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOWENTHAL,
THAT WAS THAT'S THE LOWENTHAL
BILL I WAS REFERRING TO. ALL
RIGHT. SO IDEALLY THEY COULD
WORK IN CONCERT. OKAY Þ. ALL
RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT THEY ARE
COMPLEMENTARY. YES. THAT'S THE
INTENT. AND I JUST SIGNED ON AS
A COAUTHOR OF THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS BILL, AND MAYBE
THE SPONSOR HAS A FURTHER
THOUGHT ON THAT OR OR THE CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THROUGH
THE CHAIR. THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE TAKEN IN THE IN THE, EXCUSE
ME, IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE TO THE LOWENTHAL BILL
HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT BOTH
BILLS ARE REINFORCING AND
COMPLEMENTARY AND NOT
DUPLICATIVE. VERY GOOD. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENT OR
QUESTION? SENATOR STERN, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS SPACE, INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT. THE TESTIMONY WAS
INCREDIBLY MOVING, AND, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT IT CAN BE
FRUSTRATING WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU
GET THIS KIND OF FORM THAT'LL
MESSAGE BACK THAT. OH, YOU'RE
YOUR COMPLAINT WAS REJECTED OR
IT COMPLIES, AND YOU REALLY
DON'T GET ANY OTHER FEEDBACK. I
THINK WE NEED TO DO BETTER THAN
THAT. AND I TRUST YOUR, YOUR
WORK AND COLLABORATION TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN. SO WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YEAH I APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS, AND WE'RE
COMMITTED TO KEEP WORKING
THROUGH THOSE ISSUES AND MEETING
WITH THIS UNLIKELY GROUP OF
OPPOSITION WHERE YOU HAVE THE
ACLU AND THE TECH INDUSTRY, BOTH
WITH CONCERNS. I THINK I THINK
WE CAN WORK THROUGH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT CONCERNS OUTLINED. AND
I ALSO THINK THERE IS A WAY TO
GET TO YES, WITH THE TECHNOLOGY
PARTNERS, I, I, I'VE ALREADY
HEARD A CHANGE IN TONE SINCE THE
LAST COMMITTEE, WE HAVE TO MAKE
THESE BUTTONS NOT JUST DEAD
ENDS. AND KIDS IN THESE MOMENTS
OF NEED, NOT JUST SENDING THEIR
COMPLAINTS AND FALLING ON DEAF
EARS. AND I TRULY BELIEVE THAT
EMPOWERING THOSE WHO ARE LEGALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR GUARDING THEM.
RIGHT. THE ABILITY TO STAND UP
FOR THEM, SO THAT THE KIND OF
STORIES YOU HEARD, STOP
HAPPENING. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL KEEP THE COMMITTEE.
INFORMED, ENGAGED, AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MADAM
SECRETARY HAD A ROLL CALL. VOTE
ON SB 1504. MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHOLERA, A
CHOLERA I DIXON. DIXON I BAUER.
KHN BAUER. KHN I BRIAN.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
PACHECO I. PACHECO. I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I REYES. REYES I
SANCHEZ. ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS
OUT. THANK YOU. THE FIRST BILL
OUT TODAY. ALL RIGHT, IF WE CAN
GO ON TO A MOTION AND CONSENT
CALENDAR, HOW ABOUT THAT? GOT A
MOTION AND A SECOND. MADAM
SECRETARY, COULD YOU TAKE A ROLL
CALL, VOTE ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THOSE ITEMS INCLUDE SB
1168, LIMÓN TO APPROPRIATIONS
AND SB 1399 STERN CHOLERA, A
CHOLERA I DIXON DIXON I BAUER,
KHN BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN I MAIENSCHEIN I
MCKENNA. PACHECO I, PACHECO I,
PATTERSON I. PATTERSON I REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ. OKAY. THE
CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT. WE'LL
GO ON TO. WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH ORDER HERE. NOW ITEM ONE
SB 42 UMBERG. WE'LL MOVE THE
CALL. DIXON. DIXON, I BRIAN
HANEY, MAINCHAIN I MAINCHAIN I
MCKENNA PACHECO I PACHECO I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ IS OUT.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM TWO WILL
MOVE THE CALL SB 393. GLASER
DIXON. DIXON I BAUER. KHN
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN MAINCHAIN.
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA. PACHECO I
PACHECO I REYES I REYES I
SANCHEZ. THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM
THREE SB 827. GLASER. MOVE THE
CALL. FOR IS WELL, I'M SORRY I
MISSED A PAGE HERE. I MISSED A
PAGE, ITEM THREE IS WAHAB MOVED
THE CALL. DIXON, IS THIS THIS SB
402? MY APOLOGIES. YEAH. OKAY
DIXON, I BAUER KHN. BAUER. KHN
I BRIAN MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN. I
MCKENNA. PACHECO I PACHECO I
REYES. SANCHEZ IS OUT AND THAT
BILL IS OUT ON ITEM FOUR SB 611.
MENGIBAR. WE NEED A MOTION.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE.
MOTIONS DO PASS. KALRA. I KALRA
I DIXON. DIXON. NÓ. BAUER KHN.
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN. CONNOLLY.
CONLEY I HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA. PACHECO I
PACHECO I PATTERSON. PATTERSON I
REYES. REYES I SANCHEZ. OKAY.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM FIVE SB
697. HURTADO MOVE THE CALL.
DIXON NØ DIXON NØ BAUER. KHN
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. I HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN
MCKENNA. PACHECO I. PACHECO. I
PATTERSON. NØ. PATTERSON. NÓ.
REYES REYES I. SANCHEZ IS ON
CALL, SO WE'LL PLACE THAT BACK
ON CALL. ITEM SIX 827. GLAZER
WILL MOVE THE CALL. DIXON I
DIXON I BAUER KHN BAUER KHN.
HI BRIAN. MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I
MCKENNA. PACHECO I PACHECO I
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ I BILL IS
OUT. ITEM SEVEN, SB 942. BECKER
WILL MOVE THE CALL. DIXON BAUER
Þ BRIAN HANEY MAINCHAIN
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA PACHECO I
PACHECO I REYES I REYES I
SANCHEZ. THAT BILL IS OUT. OH, I
APOLOGIZE PLACE IT BACK ON CALL.
OKAY ALL RIGHT. ITEM EIGHT SB
966. WIENER WILL MOVE THE CALL.
DIXON Ã DIXON I BAUER KHN
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN. BRIAN I
CONNOLLY I CONNOLLY I HANEY.
MAINCHAIN I MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. I PACHECO I PACHECO. I
REYES I REYES I SANCHEZ. I'M
SORRY. THIS IS SB 966 WIENER.
THE PHARMACY BENEFITS BILL.
OKAY, SO NOT VOTING FOR MCKENNA.
NOT VOTING. OKAY. I BELIEVE IT'S
STILL OUT THOUGH. SO THAT BILL
IS OUT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM
NINE SB 1000. ASHBY, MOVE TO
CALL BAUER KHN BAUER KHN I
BRIAN I BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I HANEY. MAINCHAIN I
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA IS SB 1000
FILE ITEM NINE, I MCKENNA I
PACHECO I PACHECO I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I REYES REYES I
SANCHEZ I BILL IS OUT. MOVE ON
TO ITEM TEN SB 1047 WIENER MOVE
TO CALL DIXON. DIXON. NØ BRIAN.
THIS ONE AGAIN. SB 1047 WIENER.
BRIAN. I HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I MCKENNA. MCKENNA I
PACHECO. I PACHECO. I REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM 11 SB 1089. SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. MOVE THE CALL. HANEY
MAINCHAIN I MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I PACHECO I PACHECO I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. NÓ REYES I
REYES I AND. CALL ON HANEY AGAIN
FOR ITEM 11 SB 1089. SMALLWOOD,
CUEVAS, HANEY I HANEY I OKAY
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM WE NEED A
MOTION ON ITEM FILE ITEM 12 SB
1100 PORTANTINO. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND ROLL CALL.
VOTE, PLEASE. MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA I, KALRA I
DIXON. DIXON. NÓ BAUER. KHN
BAUER. KHN I BRIAN. BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY. I
HANEY. I MAINCHAIN. MAIENSCHEIN.
I MCKENNA. MCKENNA. I PACHECO I
PACHECO. I PATTERSON. I
PATTERSON. I REYES. REYES I
SANCHEZ. THAT GOES OUT FOR ITEM
13. WE NEED A MOTION. I'LL NOTE
THIS IS A RECOMMEND AND OPPOSED
RECOMMENDATION, FROM THE CHAIR.
SO MOVED. I NEED A SECOND IS
YELLOW SB 1141 OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND WE HAD A WE
DIDN'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON THE
AMENDMENTS. AND SO IT'S AN
OPPOSED RECOMMENDATION. MOTION
IS DUE PASS KALRA. NO. KALRA.
NO. DIXON. YES DIXON I BAUER.
KAHAN RYAN. NO. BRIAN. NO
CONNOLLY. CONLEY. NO. HANEY NO.
HANEY. NO. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
NO. MCKINNON. NO PACHECO.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. I REYES.
NO. REYES NO. SANCHEZ OKAY. SO
THAT THAT BILL FAILS. ON TO ITEM
14. SB 1286. MEN WILL MOVE THE
CALL BAUER-KAHAN BAUER KHN I
BRIAN I, BRIAN I HANEY, I HANEY
I MCKENNA. MCKENNA I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON NO. SANCHEZ IS OUT.
THE BILL IS OUT. ITEM 15 SB
1287. GLAZER DIXON. YES. DIXON I
BRIAN I BRIAN I MAINCHAIN
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA. MCKENNA I
PACHECO. ITEM 15 1287. GLAZER OH
I PACHECO I PATTERSON I
PATTERSON I SANCHEZ. RIGHT, THE
BILL IS OUT. ITEM 16 SB 1340 40.
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS MOVE THE CALL
MAIENSCHEIN I MAIENSCHEIN I
MCKENNA. I MCKENNA I PACHECO.
REYES REYES I OKAY THAT BILL IS
OUT ITEM 17 SB 1498. ASHBY. MOVE
THE CALL. BAUER KHN BAUER KHN
I BRIAN. BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I HANEY I HANEY I
MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA. I
MCKENNA. I PACHECO I PACHECO I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON I REYES I
REYES I SANCHEZ OKAY THAT BILL
IS OUT. SO FOR THOSE THAT WERE
HERE FOR THE STERN BILL, I THINK
YOU'RE ALL CAUGHT UP. BUT WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING THROUGH.
SO FILE ITEM 18 STERN FOR ADD
ONS BRIAN BRIAN I HANEY. HANEY I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I SANCHEZ.
RIGHT. AND THEN WE'LL DO ADD ONS
FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR. BRIAN
BRIAN I HANEY. HANEY I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I SANCHEZ. COMING BACK
OR NO I DON'T KNOW OKAY. YEAH
ITEM ONE UMBERG ADD ONS. BRIAN.
BRIAN I HANEY I HANEY I MCKENNA
I MCKENNA I SANCHEZ. ALL RIGHT.
ADD ON FOR ADD ONS FOR ITEM TWO
SB 393. GLAZER BRIAN. BRIAN I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I SANCHEZ. ADD
ONS FOR ITEM THREE SB 402.
WAHAB, BRIAN I BRIAN I MCKENNA.
NOT VOTING. SANCHEZ CAN I CHANGE
THE NUMBER? I'M ON THREE. THIS
IS THREE. YES I DID YES, I I'M
SORRY. OKAY SO MCKENNA IS AN I
REYES IS AN I AND PATTERSON. YES
YES. I DID NOT VOTE AYE TO NOT
VOTING ON PATTERSON. YES. YES
OKAY. SO ITEM FOUR SB 611 ADD
ONS FOR MENGIBAR BILL. BRIAN I,
BRIAN I HANEY. HANEY I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I SANCHEZ. ITEM FIVE SB
697. HURTADO IS ON CALL, SO MOVE
THE CALL. BRIAN. BRIAN I HANEY I
HANEY I MCKENNA. MCKENNA I
SANCHEZ I BILL IS OUT ADD ONS
FOR ITEM SIX SB 27. GLAZER BRIAN
BRIAN I MCKENNA. SANCHEZ I
MCKENNA I OKAY THEN SANCHEZ
OKAY. ITEM SEVEN SB 942. BECKER
WILL MOVE THE CALL. BRIAN I
BRIAN I HANEY. HANEY I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I SANCHEZ I BILL IS OUT
ITEM EIGHT SB 966 WIENER HANEY.
HANEY I SANCHEZ. ALL RIGHT I ADD
ONS FOR ITEM NINE SB 1000. ASHBY
HANEY. HANEY I SANCHEZ OUT OF
ADD ONS FOR ITEM TEN SB 1047
WIENER HANEY. HANEY I SANCHEZ I
THINK THAT'S IT, RIGHT? I THINK
I THINK EVERYONE'S CAUGHT UP
EXCEPT FOR THE SUMMER. SANCHEZ.
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE HAD THEIR
CHANCE TO VOTE. THANK YOU KNOW
THANK YOU ALL. I KNOW WE DID.
1287. BEFORE YOU GET ME IN
TROUBLE, I THINK I DOUBLE CHECK
ON THAT 1287. YEAH, YEAH.
EVERYBODY IS IN LINE EXCEPT
SANCHEZ. OKAY OR YOU DON'T.
DON'T OFFER ME TWICE. OKAY THANK
YOU. CHAIR ARE WE DONE FOR THE
YEAR, WELL, WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF ANYTHING THAT MIGHT COME BACK
LATER ON, BUT LET'S PUBLICLY
THANK THE STAFF. WHAT AN
INCREDIBLE WORK. OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF WEEKS. UNBELIEVABLE.
SO THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. OKAY
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.
FOR CHEN. YEAH YEAH. WELL WE DID
IT.