Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. Welcome to the Judiciary Committee hearing. AB 836 Essayli has been pulled from the hearing. And AB 419 Bauer-Kahan is now off the consent calendar and will be presented today. We have a long agenda today, as we usually do in this Committee. So, including several more controversial items, so we will need to be efficient with our time. As a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses, two minutes each to testify in support or opposition to the bill.

We have a timer, so if you hear it beeping, that means let's wrap it up, and additional witnesses should state their name and organization only. This allows all authors a fair chance to present their bills, all Members of the public an equal chance to have their position reflected in the record. As we proceed with the hearing, I want to make sure everyone understands our committee rules to ensure we maintain order and 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. We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence, even veiled threats. The rules of conduct by members of the public include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and 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 violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement procedures. With that, we will proceed with the agenda. We will begin as a subcommitee. We'll go in number order as we do.

Authors, as you see your name on the agenda, please make sure you're here so we can have your bill heard. With that, we'll start with agenda item number one. AB 81, Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I am presenting AB 81, a bill that deals with the Indian Child Welfare Act. TheIndian Child Welfare Act, established in 1978, is a federal law that establishes minimum federal standards for state court child welfare proceedings and any child custody proceedings involving Indian children. And more on the law, the law was created to reverse assimilation policies inflicted upon Native Americans in the United States and here in the State of California.

So that law is very important to tribal communities, not only here in the State of California, but across the nation. AB 81 would require for California courts to consider that California's early relationship with California tribes was fraught with violence, exploitation, disposition, and the attempted destruction of tribal communities. This bill would strengthen the laws surrounding Indian child custody proceedings, protecting California's first people. Currently, there is a challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act pending in the United States Supreme Court.

Oftentime we find that California laws are stronger than their federal counterparts. This shows California's ongoing commitment to correcting the wrongs of the past and showing that partnership to work with our tribes and tribal governments and to ensure the safety of all children in the State of California. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Chairman of the Morongo tribal government, Chairman Charles Martin and Michelle Castagne, Executive Director of the California Tribal Families Coalition.

Good morning. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for hearing comments on AB 81 today. My name is Charles Martin and I'm the Chairman for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians is a co sponsor of AB 81 along with California Tribal Families Coalition. And we ask that and thank you for-ask for your support for this bill as well this morning.

Morongo is also one of four intervening tribal nations in the U.S. United States Supreme Court case that is currently the biggest threat to Indian child welfare, the Indian Child Welfare act, known as the Brackeen vs Haaland case. The Fetterman's question before the court is whether tribes will continue to have the ability to remain fierce advocates in child welfare cases. Or will tribes go back to the dark days when they did not have a voice in protecting tribal families and tribal children.

Oral arguments in the case were heard before the Supreme Court this fall, and the opinion is expected to be released in spring of 2023. This is why AB 81 is so crucial this year to strengthen California's Indian Child Welfare Act protections. In the event that the Supreme Court weakens the federal protections for tribal kids and families that have been in place for over 40 years. The Indian Child Welfare Act protects the rights of tribal families in tribal communities.

So we have a voice in the care and protection of our youngest and most vulnerable tribal citizens. The Indian Child Welfare Act keeps tribal children connected to their families, their culture and their tribal communities and their heritage. Morongo is proud to take on this fight and honored that 500 tribes across the nation, including 109 federally recognized tribes in California, have come together to support the Indian Child Welfare Act before the Supreme Court.

And we as tribes are joined by 87 members of the United States Congress, 24 attorney generals led by Attorney General Bonta, and dozens of nonnative organization and government in our effort. And that's why I'm here today. I urge you to support for this legislation that will strengthen California law to protect the tribal children and families, regardless of threats to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. Thank you. And I ask that you support AB 81.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing us to express our support for AB 81 today. My name is Michelle Castagne. I'm an attorney and coexecutive Director at California Tribal Families Coalition. Which is a coalition of nearly 50 member tribes around the state, and we are entirely led by tribal officials. We're so honored to join our member tribe, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and Assemblymember Ramos today on AB 81 because this bill is very needed.

As you heard, there's a challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act currently, and there are three primary reasons that CTFC and our member tribes are supporting this legislative effort in California this year. First, this bill is timely. There is a challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act and the California State provisions that mirror ICWA protections for tribal children and families. Currently, tribal children are still entering the child welfare system at rates higher than other children.

Right now, that rate is between two to four times the rate of other children in California. But prior to ICWA, it was closer to 16 times the rate of other children. So this law is desperately needed, and the fix that AB 81 would offer is very timely. Secondly, the bill strengthens provisions in California law that lead to better outcomes for tribal families. When ICWA is properly applied, kids are in care for lesser amounts of time, saving the state dollars and resulting in better outcomes for families.

Lastly, the bill furthers California's interest in and ability to continue mutually beneficial relationships with tribal sovereign nations here in California. So again, we're so honored to be here, and thank you for allowing us the time to share more about the bill.

Thank you. Further witnesses in support, name and organization only.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of The Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with the ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Haney.

I just want to thank you so much for your leadership on this. I know that there's some challenges that are happening, but these laws are so important for our state and for protecting our children, especially considering our history. And so for us to be able to be proactive on this and really strengthen and protect these statutes is critical.

So I'd just like to be added as a co author and thank you for your leadership on this.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes?

I do want to thank you, assembly member. Chairman, welcome to your capitol. It's always great to have you here with us and to provide testimony. I do agree this is timely. We don't know what the decision is going to be, but making sure that we provide, that California provides the protection and gets everything set up so that if the decision should be unfavorable, that California is prepared to protect our children. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee. Mr. Ramos, thank you for bringing this bill, this important bill. It enjoys a do pass recommendation from the chair. We don't yet have a quorum, so we'll take a motion at the appropriate time, and with that, you may close.

Thank you. And thank you, Members, for your comments. And it truly is a chance to stand with California's first people in ensuring that our children continue to retain their culture. A culture that was tried to be stripped of them through an oppressive government. It's a different day and age here today. So with that, I'd like to ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next. Mr. Grayson, your lucky day. You move up from number nine.

That's pretty good. You're welcome. Yeah. There you go. AB 968. Grayson, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. And good morning to the Members. I am pleased to present AB 968. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments. As described in the analysis, AB 968 is a simple but needed measure that will protect homebuyers by ensuring that they are informed of any recent renovation history of their new home. Specifically, this Bill would add additional disclosures to the existing transfer disclosure statement.

These additional disclosures would require the seller of a single family home to disclose renovations done to a home prior to its sale, if the renovations were done by a licensed contractor, and if permits were pulled properly and properly obtained for the renovations. And this Bill would only apply to homes that are being sold within 18 months of its purchase.

While the existing transfer disclosure statement is a very comprehensive document, it may not provide enough information to a homebuyer to protect them from the actions of bad actors, in some cases, self ascribed home flippers. Oftentimes, these bad actors may be concerned, more concerned about making a quick buck or a profit, and as a result, they cut corners when renovating these homes by performing low quality work that may be unpermitted. Currently, there is no mechanism that would inform a potential homebuyer of these issues.

Homebuyers should have the right to know what has been done to their home. Since it is likely the biggest purchase they will ever make. AB 968 will provide greater transparency and accountability, ensuring homebuyers the assurance and information needed when purchasing a home. Thank you. And open for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Grayson. Before we do that, let's ask Clerk to call the role.[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. Any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. My kind of Bill here, Mr. Grayson. That's good. Any questions or comments from the Committee?

I do.

I just want to commend the author for this Bill. I'm also a real estate broker, and I know the disclosure forms are quite lengthy, but I also think this one is important. So thank you.

Okay. Ms. Pacheco.

And, Mr. Grayson, just to confirm, do you take the Committee amendments?

That is correct, yes.

Just a quick question. Would you consider allowing an exception for homeowners who actually live in their home and then have to sell it in less than 18 months? So we're not talking about flippers. We're talking about people who bought the home, lived in it, and made some repairs. I just think that's maybe a class of people that you're not really intending to cover, because I know the intent is to cover the quick flips and the cheap, dirty work. But is that something you'd consider potentially excluding?

Okay. Any further questions or comments from the Committee?Mr. Essayli.

I think I would be totally open to having a conversation with you on this, as the Bill, if it does move out of Committee, would be willing to have a conversation with you on that. But as a General contractor myself, and very familiar with the industry, I think that 18 months is a really good place to land. And I also believe that if you are going to do work on a home, it should be done legally and disclosed as such.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Grayson, you may close.

So any given day, you can turn on a channel that's being televised and witness folks flipping homes. And that has created a movement across our country of folks that are trying to replicate that. But what they don't see on television are the behind the scenes work of working with inspectors, working with General contractors that are licensed, and making sure the quality of work is permitted and inspected and signed off on. And so many folks are trying to replicate that.

They're trying to grab that big profit that they see being made on television. And what it's doing is it's raising the cost of housing without matching it with quality. And folks are buying homes and not getting what they're really paying for. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion from Mr. Haney, second from Mr. Connolly. The motion is do pass as amended. Ask the Clerk to call the roll. [Roll Call] Your Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Holden. As Mr. Holden approaches, do we have a motion on the Ramos Bill? Motion from Ms. Rayes, second from Ms. Pacheco. And the motion is. do pass. Ask Clerk to call a roll. [Roll Call]

Okay. The Ramos Bill, AB 81, is out. Mr. Holden, welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. If I could, I'd like to take up the AJR first because I'm waiting for my witnesses, who are about 10 minutes out. Maybe less than that now.

Sure.

Okay, thanks.

So, we'll be hearing AJR one.

Good morning, Members. And thank you for the opportunity to present AJR one. I want to begin by stating that I accept the clarifying amendments proposed by the Committee and thank the chair and Members for hearing this important resolution today. Ajr one condemns Azerbaijan blockade of the Lachin Corridor and urges the United States government to take immediate action and provide humanitarian assistance to the Armenians in ARSOC.

Azerbaijan has maintained a total blockade of the only road between Armenia and the ethnic Armenian Nagorno Karabak region, which is home to over 120,000 ethnic Armenians since December 122022. The blockade completely severs ARSOC's only humanitarian lifeline to Armenia, preventing the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other vital humanitarian supplies to the region. It has been more than 100 days since this blockade has begun, for over 100 days, where 120,000 Armenians, including women, children, elderly and disabled, have been cut off from essential supplies.

California is home to a large diaspora of Armenian Americans, many whose family and friends are being impacted by the continued blockade. Here with me to testify in support of AJR One is whose family is Jarchafjian whose family directly impacted by the blockade, and Khatchig Tazian a Member of the San Francisco Bay Area Armenian National Committee.

Thank you. First witness.

Good morning. My name is Antranik Jarchafjian. I am a former U. S. Marine and a retired civil servant. I'm here to talk about the situation in Artsakh. As you know, Azerbaijan has been blockading Artsakh for over 100 days. 120,000 Armenians have been blockaded, and the only road that connects Artsakh to Armenia has been closed off with nothing going through food, medicine or anything. No pasta, no bread, no baby food. Nothing is available over there anymore.

I used to think that this kind of thing would not happen in our time. Unfortunately, I am here to tell you that is exactly what is happening. I also want to tell you that my son, who was born and raised in Southern California in 2020, September, early September, he went to Armenia to help with the rural population during COVID Soon after he arrived, Azerbaijan attacked, and there was the war. And he stayed around to help with the refugees and displaced people.

And within short time, he met a local girl, fell in love and got married, and has a 16 month old baby daughter, our granddaughter. And then they went to Artsakh to help with as a part of humanitarian fund to help families who have lost their primary breadwinner. While he was there, the blockade started, and now he, along with his wife and our granddaughter and 120,000 Armenians are part of that blockade. These are real people, real humans, real babies who are being starved.

What Azerbaijan is doing is the first step of genocide, and we have to take their President at his word when he says he wants to finish off the Armenian genocide. So I am here to ask you, how could we be silent? Decent people in the civilized world cannot stand silent to this kind of cruelty.

I ask you as my representatives, my friends and my neighbors, to raise your voice and to say that you will not stand indifferent in the face of this kind of cruelty, whether it happens to Armenians in Artsakh or anyone else. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, my name is Khatchig Tazian. I'm here on behalf of the Armenian National Committee of the Bay Area. On behalf of the Armenian National Committee of San Francisco and the Bay Area, I'd like to voice our overwhelming support for AJR one introduced by assemblymember Chris Holden. This courageous step in condemning Azerbaijan's blockade of Artsaf and reaffirmation of California's commitment to Artsaf's right to self determination speaks to the essence of our values as Americans and as Californians.

Much the same as Hitler's Germany, Ilham Aliyev's despotic-cratic and if unchecked genocidal regime has led a campaign of hate at the highest echelons of government against Armenia and Armenians, a people whose ancestral lands they intend to annex by force, absent all of the rightful historical and territorial claims of indigenous Armenians in the region. Given the above fact, the inalienable rights of the Armenians of Artsaf to become the masters of their own destiny must be supported. Your voice through this resolution today does just that.

The inhumane blockade that Azerbaijan has imposed on the peaceful population of Artsakh with the closure of the only lifeline connecting Artsakh to Armenia has deprived the 120,000 strong Armenian population of food, fuel, medicine, and electricity. The Azeri armed forces, on a regular basis, open fire, killing Armenian villagers while they tend to their crops in the fields. They machine gun Artsakh police officers in their vehicles and block new internal roads to further isolate Artsakh from Armenia. The government of Azerbaijan insists that it represents the population of Artsakh, yet it blockades the civilian population into starvation and medical scarcity, cuts off the gas and electric supplies in the dead of winter, and has gone so far as to have used phosphorus munitions on major population centers,

Artsaf today is the equivalent of the United States in 1776. Let's continue to stand for freedom and democratic values in a region where democracies are scarce and freedom is elusive. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes, thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Oftentimes we hear of things that are happening around the world, and we need to know more. We need to see a face. Oftentimes, of course, we have a colleague like assemblymember Holden or just before that, assemblymember Adrienne Nazarian to tell us more about it. I think it makes a difference.

I know you're very proud of what your son has done, and I'm sure that as he sees the tape of what is happening today, he'll be very proud of the fact that you have come here to support him and your grandchild and your daughter in law.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Holden, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may not be Armenian, but my heart aches alongside the Armenian diaspora community as their homeland continues to be under attack by Azerbaijani forces. We can no longer stand in the face of injustice for a population that has faced an unimaginable pain and suffering. This resolution has bipartisan support, and I'm very grateful to my colleagues who join me in bringing this very important measure before you all. I urge you all to vote Aye for AJR one to request humanitarian assistance to our sisters and our brothers and Artsakh. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Rayes, a second from Ms. Pacheco. And just to confirm, Mr. Holden, that you accept the amendments?

Yes.

Great. So we have a motion that AJR one be adopted as amended. And a second. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll. [Roll Call]

Ajr passes. Thank you. Mr. Holland, are you ready? Is your witness here or do you need time?

Yes.

Okay, so we will proceed with item number two.

AB 647, the Grocery Worker Protection Act. Grocery store employees were among the essential frontline workers helping our communities receive the resources they needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite their continued service, many of these workers have become collateral damage in the wake of mega grocery store chain mergers. Most recently, the well known chains Kroger and Albertsons are gearing up for an unprecedented $25 billion merger.

According to the economic roundtable, we will likely see consequences in the form of large-scale layoffs and food deserts in some of our most vulnerable communities. AB 647 seeks to prevent this by strengthening and expanding statewide grocery worker retention and rehiring laws.

As amended, this bill will expand grocery worker retention law to include warehouse employees, increase the worker retention period from 90 days to 120 days, and remove the incentive to prolong a grocery store from reopening to avoid postmerger retention procedures by expanding the window from six months to 18 months or more. In addition, this bill provides enforcement provisions that allow for the labor commissioner to enforce and grant a private right of action for aggrieved employees.

I've heard the concerns raised by the opposition with regard to the retention increase, the inclusion of warehouse employees, and the consequences for smaller owned stores. Let me begin by saying that the 30-day retention increase allows more time for the newly acquired company to adjust and in return, help workers to maintain security during this transition period. This bill expands on protections to warehouse employees for the simple reason that these mergers are not solely focused on the retail stores, but also include the company's distribution facilities.

Distribution center workers are also at risk for facility closures and mass layoffs and are deserving of the job protections provided in AB 647. Finally, this bill does not limit opportunities for growth for smaller local grocery stores, but rather provides much-needed protection for workers. With that said, with me to testify in support of AB 647 is Jim Araby. I looked past you there. You're not Jim. Okay.

But I will be doing Jim's testimony.

We're doing Jim's testimony. Okay, let's see.

Also not Jim.

And also not Jim. So we have mystery witnesses this morning. In closing, AB 647 will protect workers by preventing mass layoffs and ensuring a consistency in food safety and pharmaceutical knowledge within our communities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. First witness.

Jassy Grewal with UFCW Western States Council. I will be delivering Jim Araby's testimony because he was not able to make it here in time due to the weather and traveling from the Bay Area. So hello, Chair and committee members. I'm giving Jim Araby's testimony on his behalf. He's the director of strategic campaigns at the United Food and Commercial Workers Local Five in the Bay Area in Northern California.

Local Five has 30,000 members that are highly susceptible to the whims of private equity firms and mergers and acquisitions solely undergone because executives decided to pad their pocketbooks. But it's not just my members or the Bay Area that will be affected. All of California feels the effects of mergers and acquisitions. From the hardworking people at your local grocery store to the strawberry farmers in Central California. There have been two major mergers in the grocery industry that have had ripple effects in California's economy for decades.

Albertsons purchased Lucky's in 2006, selling off neighborhood grocery stores and the good jobs therein to nonunion companies like Trader Joe's and Grocery Outlet. Then again in 2015, Albertsons bought Safeway and had to sell over 100 stores in California to a Washington state operator, Hagen. These mergers were disasters in the grocery industry. Good jobs were lost, communities suffered and customers felt the effects in their checkbooks as prices were raised.

After the Albertson Safeway Hagen mess, when he was executive director of the state's council in 2015, UFCW passed a bill requiring any new employer who purchases an existing grocery store to retain the current workers for 90 days. The expertise and commitment of UFCW's union workers provides clear benefits and we must do all we can to retain the knowledge in our community grocery stores. Grocery workers don't just sell us fresh food. They are important health and safety standards they need to follow when they handle food.

When grocery stores change hands, we must ensure that important safety, knowledge and health standards stay in our community stores. The massive changes brought on by the increase of private equity ownership in the grocery industry shows how important it is to provide security for the thousands of people who work in California's grocery stores.

AB 647 will minimize disruptions by allowing workers to be retained for 120 days instead of 90 and ensure that skilled and trained workers can continue to provide our communities with access to safe foods, goods and medicine. By retaining and rehiring skilled, knowledgeable workers, our communities will continue to be healthy and thrive. I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 647 today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair Maienschein, members. Ed Howard, lobbyist and council for USCW. Pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any further witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair, members, Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Chair and members, Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network, in support.

Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Louie Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition to today's Bill. What we've heard in today's Bill is all about a merger or some past mergers. In all reality, the grocery industry in the State of California is over 8000 stores, over 320,000 employees. The merger that we're talking about impacts less than 20% of the stores in the State of California.

Speeding up the proceedings. There we go. You may proceed.

And in fact, if this Bill goes forward, it will have the exact opposite outcome as we've heard today as presented. What we should be focusing on is the incentives to actually have grocers come in. If, in fact, the merger is approved, which this Legislature is not going to have any say over, it's at the Federal Trade Commission.

If the merger is approved, and if part of that federal Trade Commission approval has a divestment plan, what we should be talking about in California is how do we get businesses to come in and actually purchase those stores that will be required to be divested? Kroger's and Albertsons will have no say over that. And so what we're doing is we're actually putting a target on those stores.

We're actually making it more difficult for companies to come in if a store is divested and actually purchase that store. We're calling it a private right of action. If, in fact, all the steps in this Bill are not followed, and they're complicated, we're not only talking about having to hire employees from a list, we're talking about having to actually go back and look at employees that may not be with that store any longer, but have seniority rights.

We're talking about employees that may have a right to refusal for living a certain distance from a store, but then retain seniority rights. These are all elements that if you miss, you now have a private right of action facing you. So any store, any company in the State of California that's going to look at this potential divestment plan is going to look at all of these obstacles and potential liabilities that face them and make a decision based on that.

Any other witnesses in opposition.

And odds are most of them are going to steer away from the opportunity to actually invest in California and grow and keep these stores open. Simply because this Bill creates more liability, it will ultimately result in more food deserts in the State of California, more disadvantages for communities and consumers in the state. We ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, Matt brought on behalf of the teamsters. I'm running a little late. We are in support. Thank you.

I was trying to figure that one out as you were walking up.

Good morning. Ronak Daylami. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Any other witnesses? In opposition. And to be clear, Mr. Holden, you accept the amendments?

Yes.

Great. Any questions or comments from the Committee, Ms. Pacheco? zero, hold on. I'm sorry. I didn't see. Sorry. Go ahead.

Allison Snyder, former grocery store worker, in opposition.

Thank you, Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you. And thank you to the author for being here today and to all of our grocery workers. But I had more of just questions, and maybe the information can be provided to me at a later time, but I'm curious as to why the increase from 90 days to 120 days?

Go ahead.

Good morning. Assembly Member Ed Howard. So the increase is significantly based on the fact that our experience since this law was enacted in 2015 is that the increasing involvement of private equity in the ownership of these stores can be very destabilizing to the market.

And so we felt on the basis of the increasing record of private equity being involved in these transactions, that it makes sense in order to extend the time an additional 30 days to make it clear that our ability to retain these valued workers and treasured workers is not upended by a time period that was written back in 2015.

But is there any data to show the reason? I guess I'm just not understanding the reason. And what's the difference between extending it from 90 days to 140 or 135? Like, I'm just curious, why 120?

So, no, I can't sit here and tell you that 121122123 as with the original 90 days and the underlying law that's current. We're taking our best shot at attempting to balance the interests of the stores, being able to complete a transaction and the interest of the public and making sure that their food is safe. So that's the reason for the additional month of time.

And it's found that 90 days isn't sufficient?

Yes. Our forecast, based on what trends in the market is that with the increasing. So when private equity gets involved in a lot of these transactions, it isn't necessarily to keep a store up and running. It's sometimes they take over businesses in order to sell and divest the assets, drive down the profits in order to sell the remaining assets.

So with the increase of involvement in private equity, Assembly Member we all believe that the extended amount of time, or that the time should be extended if the Assembly Member we all believe there's a different time, of course we'd be willing to, but it should be extended. So an additional 90 days is our best estimate based on our experience as to what offers the right balance.

And has the author been having conversations with opposition?

Well, we certainly stand ready to. I mean, I think that when we've, and we've not had any calls to our office, as I understand it, to sit down, we're clearly always willing to do that. And if that is in the days to come, we certainly stand ready to have those conversations. But it has not happened at this. point.

And I don't know if you would like to chime in and say anything?

Happy to sit down and talk. Deep respect for Mr. Holden. for the years that he served. We have made a request to have a meeting, and that has not been scheduled as of yet. We're still waiting to hear back when it be possible to sit down and meet with the Member.

Okay. Because I would like to see conversations happening. Also any information that can be provided would also be helpful, so that way I can make another informed decision at the very end. And I don't know if this Bill will change in any way, shape or form, but I also appreciate the dialogue and the conversations from both sides. So thank you again, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Thank you. Ms. Dixon, I guess this is kind.

Of a follow up question. Help me understand. Isn't there a state and federal warrant act, which is 60 days?

I believe that's right.

All right, so this would go over beyond the federal law to 90 or 120 days.

Our state law already goes beyond the federal warrant to 90 days. So the extension we're talking about is.

Even further beyond the federal law?

That's correct.

And is there severance paid to terminate it or laid off employees who are dismissed at will?

No, usually not.

I'm curious about your reference. The witnesses reference to private equity. I'm not a defender of private equity. I had nothing to do with private equity. But they're a business. I mean, they're a business to be profitable so they can hire more people. So I don't know why they're that type of business owner. In America, you could operate a business any way you want, as long as you're legal.

Business. and the margins, I'm not in the grocery business either, but my understanding of margins, profit margins in the grocery industry are very slim. And so the purpose for this potential merger, I imagine, is to become more profitable so they can invest in new stores and new employees. So I don't know why we in California continue to make it difficult for businesses to do business more onerous. More onerous. More onerous regulations and requirements.

And as we just heard some witnesses speak that they were immediately hired, those job capabilities are transferable. If you are a worker in a grocery store, they typically do move around, and if they need to, and they get hired fairly quickly. So I guess I question the purpose for the Bill. So thank you.

Any further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. We have a motion from Ms. Rayes, second from Mr. Haney. Mr. Holden, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All I will say is that, one, we, as always, stand committed to work with those who have concerns around the Bill and around any Bill that we may have. And in this one particularly, we're happy to sit down and understand not only in just a presentation before a Committee, but what are some of the practical ways that we can look at that we can openly look to modify the Bill that doesn't injure the intended outcome.

I'll also say that we can say that the Kroger Alberson's merger is a one off, or we can say that that is a sign of things to come. And if we look at it and realize the injury that some workers had during that process, then do we wait for the next one and say, well, maybe that was just an aberration, or that we then see a pattern.

And if we believe that there's a pattern that could take hold, then that means we need to act so that we don't have to experience workers going through difficult times when we already recognize we're in an inflationary period. We talked about gas prices yesterday, and we know that it is hard for some people. They're living paycheck to paycheck.

And so we don't want to have something take place in the marketplace that is very much indication that, by what we've already seen, a potential precursor to further actions. And so we think that this Bill is incredibly necessary, incredibly relevant, and very timely. And again, we have no problem with trying to have conversations on how to continue to modify it, but to say it is not necessary is not correct. And so we respectfully ask for your. I vote in support of AB 647.

Thank you. We have a motion. A second do pass is amended to. Appropriation Committee. Ask the Clerk to call roll. [Roll Call]

Needs one more vote and it's on call. Thank you, Mr. Holden. Mr. Ward..

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll open on AB 1585 by really just honing in on the synopsis from your analysis. It's a straightforward and uncontroversial measure to help reduce the financial burden of changing one's name by increasing the number of free copies of the name change order provided by the court from one to three. This was brought to us by allies in the transgender and gender-nonconforming community.

Obtaining vital records for those members of our community to match their gender identity is key to protecting their privacy and safety. But the process of updating their vital records after successfully obtaining an approved court order can be expensive due to the requirement of obtaining multiple court-verified copies.

So this bill will remove financial barriers for individuals to update their vital records by providing at no cost up to three court-certified copies of the order granting the petition for change of a name at the time of approval. For witnesses in support, I have Jonathan Clay on behalf of TransYouth Liberation, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Reyes. Second for Mr. Haney. Mr. Clay.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of TransFamily Services and TransYouth Liberation. Given the motion, I'll keep this super short. Only thing I'll add to the opening testimony is that TransFamily Services supports families across the country. We have a lot of experience with helping folks navigate this process.

Multiple examples of these documents getting lost in the mail, for being sent in, for trying to get a birth certificate, which then delays the process because you have to go back to the court, get more copies. So just being able to have those multiple copies that are necessary for all these documents--very helpful in this process which can be very stressful for parents as they're trying to navigate that. With that, urge your aye support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions? Witnesses in opposition.

I'm Judith Cahill. I'm a Democrat. Santa Clara County. I oppose this bill.

Allison Snyder, concerned parent, taxpayer, voter. On behalf of parents paying attention to the erosion of parental rights and the state-sanctioned promotion of sterilization and mutilation of children, I say no.

Lisa Mullins, mother of a kid who changes her name like she changes her hair color. No.

Renee Yasumura, parent of a teenage D transitioner, opposing bill.

Beth Bourne, Democrat, Yolo County. I oppose.

Lavonne Urbanu, Placer County Democrat. I oppose. I'm a parent of a child who is changing names.

Lynley Hogan, Santa Clara County. I'm the parent of a daughter who was told she could be a boy, and so she thinks she is. I oppose

Yvette Corkrean, mother, registered nurse, San Francisco County. I oppose this.

Stan Helton, Democrat, Contra Costa County, opposed.

Erin Friday, a mother of a formerly trans-identified child. I oppose.

Pamela Garfield-Jaeger, licensed clinical social worker. I oppose.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council, in opposition.

Emma Griffis, student Democrat, opposed.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli.

Mr. Ward, I just want to clarify, even though this was sponsored by the group with you today, the TransFamily Support Services, does this apply to anybody who changes their name?

Of course. So when you change your name because of marriage or you're adopting a child, anytime you need to have a name change, you can have additional copies through this bill from the courts.

And this doesn't change the process to change your name?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Ward, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is 'do pass to the Appropriation Committee.' Ask the clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Motion passes. Thank you. Ms. Petrie-Norris, AB 818.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I am here this morning to present AB 818, which will strengthen gun and domestic violence restraining orders. Before I jump in, I'd like to thank your committee staff for all of their excellent work on this, and I'm happy to accept the proposed committee amendments. In California, one in three women and nearly as many men will experience some form of domestic violence during their lifetimes. When a gun is present, the risk of homicide during a domestic violence incident increases by 500%.

Current law requires that a person who is subject to a domestic violence or gun violence restraining order be prohibited from having firearms or ammunition. Unfortunately, victims' advocates report that when a victim requests that a law enforcement agency serve this protective order and confiscate firearms, law enforcement agencies sometimes refer victims to another agency elsewhere. Victims then have to locate and drive to another agency to have this order served.

This is concerning because it undermines our goal of quickly getting guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from having them and from protecting individuals who are experiencing domestic violence. This bill strengthens our current law to ensure that any law enforcement agency shall remove firearms from a prohibitive person when requested and enter that information into the Department of Justice's statewide database. This will protect victims and make all of our communities safer. I'm now pleased to introduce Julia Webber from Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization led by former congresswoman and gun violence survivor Gabby Giffords.

Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Good morning. As was mentioned, I'm here on behalf of Giffords in support of this bill, AB 818, which we view as a life-saving measure to address a serious gap currently in our state. I also teach domestic violence law at Golden Gate University School of Law and have worked with the Judicial Council where I served as co-counsel to the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee for 17 years, working on domestic violence policy and specifically in the area of firearms policy, as well as implementation of the gun violence restraining order.

So this is an area that I have deep experience with and I'm very pleased about AB 818 going into the details, the weeds, so to speak, of how we make these orders as effective as possible. So of course, I have on my mind so many different cases, people I've worked with, lives that have been shattered by gun violence, including the kind of gun violence that the country witnessed yesterday in Nashville. We need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening.

And when our courts issue orders that are firearm prohibiting, which is what happens in domestic violence restraining order cases and gun violence restraining order matters, the only way to make that effective is if the person who becomes prohibited is actually served and then given the opportunity to comply. And the opportunity to com1ply happens when a law enforcement officer serves the order and under law requests those firearms that they currently own. So we have 24,000 people in the armed prohibited person system, or APPS right now.

Those are folks who at one time were allowed to have firearms and appropriately legally registered them, then became prohibited. If we reduce that time between when they become prohibited and we actually have them relinquish the firearms, we can decrease the number of people in APPS. We are continuing to add people to that system despite some really concerted efforts to reduce that 24,000 number. And the only reason they're in there is because they haven't eliminated the firearms that they currently own. So, again, we see this as a life-saving measure. And I also want to commend the staff, the committee staff did an excellent job on the analysis for this bill and would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the committee? Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. I really want to thank you for bringing this bill. As a former prosecutor who's dealt with domestic violence cases, they're often the most difficult. They're messy. There's a cycle of violence that's there, and people in the system get frustrated sometimes with the victims. But I come from a district where we had a deputy that was shot and killed responding to a domestic violence call. Deputy Calhoun, the Riverside Sheriff's Office. They're the most dangerous calls for law enforcement to respond to. And in this case, when a judge has made an order, there's been due process. Those orders do need to be enforced to the letter. And the more resources I think that's put in the front end to disarm them is good.

It's good for law enforcement, keeps them safe for future calls. And obviously, the intent is to keep the victim safe as well. So I really commend this, and I will be strongly supporting it. And I just think we need to keep in mind the importance of law enforcement. I mean, we need them to be proactive and do their jobs.

And I just hope we keep that in mind as we consider other bills that are coming to the floor that seek to make it harder for them to do their job. We need police officers. We need them to keep victims safe. We need to keep domestic violence victims safe, as well as others. So thank you for bringing this.

Ms. Dixon.

Thank you. Yes, and thank you from the side. Appreciate it. Since I've been in Sacramento, I've become aware of the Armed Prohibited Persons System, which, of course, I wouldn't have known about until I got here. And I think you said 24,000 people are on that list and anything we can do to reduce that list and get those guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns because of their criminal history. So I very much support this bill and appreciate you bringing it forward and appreciate your good work. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments.

I'm sorry, any other questions or comments from the committee? Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Ms. Pacheco. Ms. Petrie-Norris may close.

Thank you to committee members for your comments and for your support. In California, we've worked really hard to keep our residents safe from gun violence but we've got to recognize that our laws are only as effective as their enforcement. And so this is, I think, an important measure to ensure that we're closing a gap in current law and keeping hands out of the guns of people that are a danger to themselves and to our communities. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is do pass is amended to public safety. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill is out.

Thank you. Ms. Bauer-Kahan, AB 419.

No. I wish it was always that. Kumbaya. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. You ready?

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, really appreciate the work of this incredible committee, as always, and happy to accept the committee amendments. This is an incredibly important bill that focuses on the way survivors of sexual assault are treated in our courtrooms.

We've seen example after example of survivors being retraumatized on the stand because the person who is charged with ensuring that a courtroom runs in a way that is respectful of everyone's rights, doesn't understand how to treat a sexual assault survivor in that moment, to ensure they are safe and can tell their story and seek justice. So with me today in support of the bill is the incredible former DA of Alameda County, Nancy O'Malley.

Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank you very much for hearing the bill and thank you to Assembly member for bringing it forward. This is not unprecedented to require judges to be trained in the impact of sexual assault crimes. Several years back, under the Violence Against Women Act, California Judicial Council created a commission. I was on the commission and we heard from many victims about domestic violence, victims about their experience as a victim of domestic violence.

And judges were then required to go through training to understand the trauma and the impact of domestic violence and that kind of interpersonal violence. And so it's now the case where judges are trained every three years. As an incentive, they get the form of a malpractice insurance for participating in the training. But it's very clear that what we see now in the courtroom are judges who are not advised, are not knowledgeable about the trauma, and especially the lifelong trauma of sexual assault crimes. I recently witnessed in my county a judge allow a defense attorney to cross-examine a nine-year-old sexual assault victim for two days. She had no clue what the impact of that was on that child.

And I spoke to the judge after the case was over, and she didn't understand that as the judge of the courtroom, she controlled the tenor, but she allowed that child to be retraumatized. That will stay with her for her lifetime. Hopefully, it won't stay and cause such great negativity to her, but it will stay with her for sure. So for those reasons, I urge you all an aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion?

Second.

We have a motion from Mr. Essayli, second from Ms. Pacheco. Ms. Bauer-Kahan, you may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a motion and a second. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Ask Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

So now we'll hear from item seven. AB 853. Assemblyman Maienschein.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. In October 2022, Kroger and Albertsons, the first and second largest grocery chains in the nation, announced an unprecedented $25 billion merger for what would be the largest grocery store merger in American history.

Your motion is out or the Bill is out. Thank you. No other authors here. I will present my Bill, Mr. Essayli.

The combination of these two large grocery chains will create a combined market share and control of 36% of the US grocery supermarket operations. When mergers like these take place, it's common to see staffing decline and prices increase, resulting in a direct impact to the quantity, quality, and cost of goods available to the public. Last year, Californians saw record inflation in the grocery industry, hitting Low income families the hardest and pushing them towards food insecurity.

AB 853 seeks to ensure necessary information is provided for future mergers that can help evaluate the proposed transaction and illuminate any potential consequences of consolidation. The Bill would require grocery or drug retail companies to file a notice to the Attorney General 180 days in advance of finalizing a proposed merger or acquisition in the grocery or drug retail industries.

The notice will provide information on the impact of the merger on communities and workers, including information on the finances of the grocery or drug retail companies and any plans to sell, merge, or consolidate assets. The competitive effects of the merger on pricing, supply, and access to food or medicine, as well as impacts to workers such as wages, benefits and unemployment. Californians deserve transparency and must have the right to know about proposed mergers that affect the supply and affordability of food and medicine.

Thank you. And Mr. Manchein, do you accept the amendments?

I do. Witness and support. You may proceed.

AB 853 provides an informed basis for the Legislature, the public, and public enforcers to ensure reliable, convenient and safe access to these essential goods. With me today in support are Beth Smoker, from the California Food and Farming Network and Ed Howard, on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Members. I am Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. We're a 50 Member organizations across diverse food system sectors, anti hunger, sustainable agriculture, farm workers, environmental justice, public health and local economies. We're accountable to a steering council of grassroots leaders at the front line of Food System Injustices. I am here today to testify in support of AB 853. I don't often find myself in the Judiciary Committee, although I see some familiar faces.

The fact that our issues are here is notable. A thriving food system is one where communities can feed themselves with affordable, sustainable, accessible, and culturally appropriate food. The fact we're asking for intervention by the Department of Justice illuminates how far we are from this reality. Today's unprecedented set of crises: fire, flooding, inflation, pandemics, have revealed the shortcomings in our seemingly robust multi $1.0 trillion globalized food system, which has proven ill equipped to handle disruption.

USDA Secretary Vilsak affirmed that the pandemic quote exposed a food system that was rigid, consolidated and fragile that rewards size over all else. End quote. Corporate control is achieved by exploitation of BIPOC workers and communities. We experience corporate monopolies across the entire food system, from seeds to farmland, ownership to food companies. And the reason we're here today: Grocery stores. The public should have advanced notice on grocery mergers with an impact assessment on communities. We see three devastating impacts. The first is hunger.

Mergers create food deserts and increased food prices, which is especially concerning knowing that two days ago on March 26, Calfresh recipients received their last federal emergency allotment, creating a severe hunger cliff. Second is boxing out small regional farmers. Mergers lead to consolidation in the food supply chain, creating fragility and dependency on a small handful of large corporate also consolidated growers. Thirdly, a decrease in regional economic returns, loss of small businesses, including coops and ethnic markets where dollars spent return more dollars back in the community.

In conclusion, this Bill gives us a new tool, an upstream solution, creating transparency about hidden impacts on hidden communities. It's a tool to move us toward a state that's food security is rooted in regional food systems where everyone has dignity to determine the food they eat. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members, good morning. Ed Howard, on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, pleased to sponsor this important Bill and respectfully ask for your high vote and please to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support in the audience? Please come to the mic. State your name, organization and position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no others, are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill?

Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support,

Mr. Chair. Jim Araby, UFCW local 5 representatives of 30,000 gross workers in the Bay Area. We're in strong support also for pesticide action network as well.

Mr. Chair Members. Matt Brown on half of the Teamsters in support.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown, back up before you today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition to AB 5853. Again, we're talking about a piece of legislation dealing with a merger and that impact an entire industry. We're over 8000 stores in the State of California, 320,000 employees. This Bill, while it does talk about transparency, also impacts nearly all transactions that would take place. We're not talking about just the controlling interest.

And in fact, the analysis is wrong when it shows and it talks about the Bill only comes into effect when the controlling interest is at stake. The Bill says any interest in the transaction or acquisition with stores of 300 employees or more. So now we're talking about transactions that would include the transition of two or three stores. So we're not talking about major mergers going forward. And now the Attorney General would have the opportunity to develop regulations outside of the APA process.

So we, interested stakeholders would have no opportunity to testify or provide any type of input during the regulation, and they would be able to delay the transaction. We give them six months notice and the Attorney General's Office could then delay the transaction even longer. So this is a Bill that's going to impact the entire industry. It's going to stifle investment. It's actually going to create more food deserts. I would say that mergers don't create food deserts. Laws and regulations do.

And that's what we've seen happen in this industry. According to economists, the California grocery industry has actually had a steady pace of growth for the last five years. We are one of the bright segments in the California economy. And yet bills like this want to stifle investment, and they want to create additional obstacles that are actually going to have a negative impact on communities. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Mancho, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. And the opposition claims the Bill would impact independent grocers who wish to purchase a single store. That's certainly not the intent of the Bill. We'll continue to work on that issue as necessary. And with that would respectfully request an I vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Okay. Motion by Ms. Pacheco, second by Ms. Pappin, and we'll call the vote.

It's 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' [Roll Call]

Needs three more votes. The bill's on call. Thank you. Next, Mr. Bryan.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Today I come before you to present AB 920, which aims to end the flagrant discrimination of some of our most vulnerable neighbors: people who are experiencing homelessness. AB 920 adds housing status to the list of protected characteristics under our state's anti-discrimination code. This code was created and intended so that state agencies and programs and programs funded by the state could not be used to discriminate against folks in our population.

It's been amended many times to protect folks so they're not discriminated based on how you identify, who you love, how you wear your hair, and with the passage of this bill, where you sleep at night. People experiencing homelessness endure routine and undue discrimination purely because they are unhoused. They are targets of bias-motivated violence and are disproportionately victims of assault and harassment.

Adding housing status as a protected characteristics, we will be protecting unhoused people from being targeted, persecuted, or denied access to programs and benefits by the state, oftentimes the very programs and benefits that are intended to help and uplift them. This bill reflects federal regulations which prohibit federally-funded programs such as SNAP from denying a person benefits simply because they are unhoused. Federal law recognizes that we cannot exclude the most impoverished people from programs designed to alleviate poverty. California should do the same.

AB 920 has a racial and social justice component to it as well. It will ensure that our state's solution framework for homelessness is centered on care, compassion, supportive services, and accessibility for our most vulnerable populations. Joining me today to provide testimony and support are Gregory Cramer with Disability Rights California, and Brandon Greene with the ACLU of Northern California.

First witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Gregory Cramer, and I'm a Senior Legislative Advocate for Disability Rights California. We're proud to cosponsor Assembly Bill 920. It's a bill that would provide equal protection to unhoused individuals when accessing state-funded services or programs. Many state and local governments harass and displace and segregate unhoused Californians instead of providing them with a safe and permanent and affordable housing, disproportionately harming people with disabilities and people of color.

Assembly Bill 920 will protect the health, the well-being, and dignity of unhoused people throughout the state-funded programs. The state provides a number of homeless programs to assist unhoused people. One major program is the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Grant Program, which offers funding to all counties in the 13 largest cities. This program is designed to meet the needs of the unhoused, including providing access to secure shelter, housing, and assistance. But unfortunately, these programs may deny access to their intended participants because they've experienced homelessness.

Assembly Bill 920 acknowledges that unhoused people require safeguards in order to access these critical programs and will assist the state in reducing the total homelessness rate in the state. Assembly Bill 920 affirms California's commitment to equal protection of the law and to the right of all people to full and equal protection in society. Homelessness puts a person at risk of criminalization or denial of intended services or benefits on the basis of their disability.

It could lead to stigmatization and criminalization, discrimination resulting in unequal treatment and inadequate access to services. Equal protection ensures that unhoused individuals are not subject to unfair treatment, to harassment, or exclusion from housing, employment, education, or health care. Finally, Assembly Bill 920 shifts priorities towards real solutions, including safe, affordable, and permanent housing. We believe that this bill will spur collaboration among government agencies, nonprofits, and the private sector to address homelessness more effectively. So for those reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Brandon Greene, Director of the Racial and Economic Justice Program with ACLU of Northern California, here on behalf of ACLU California Action. Thank you all. AB 920 would make concrete the proposition that unhoused people are our neighbors and are entitled to live their lives with dignity. Though existing law protects identified populations and identities, that protection does not go far enough. We know that Black Californians in particular are impacted disproportionately by homelessness.

However, these Californians at the intersection of race and housing status are discriminated against daily. Passing AB 920 will send a strong signal that we cannot demonize or criminalize or discriminate our way out of the housing crisis, but that we must instead invest in the solutions we know work. Thank you.

Thank you. Further witnesses in support, name and organization only, please.

Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg, speaking on behalf of Oakland Privacy, in support of AB 920.

Good morning. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud cosponsor as well as supporter; also here in support for Housing California, Public Advocates, YIMBY Action, California Housing Partnership Corporation, All Home, and Venice Justice Committee. Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. I would like to categorize ourselves as tweeners. We don't necessarily support or oppose. We do represent--I work with the California Strategic Advisors. We represent the Apartment Association of Orange County, East Bay Rental Housing Association, and the Affordable Housing Management Association, Pacific Southwest. First, I'd like to thank the Assembly Member, Bryan Isaac, and notably his staff Amy, for working with our office to clarify the intent and purpose.

However, we do respectfully oppose unless amended for the same reasons as noted within the Committee analysis. As written, the bill creates a protected characteristic, but does not create a civil right based on the housing status, definition, and term. So we agree with the intent and purpose. We just believe that it needs to be amended. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli.

So the homeless, they're being discriminated from SNAP. Is that the concern or what? Can you explain some of the discrimination? Because I've never heard of this.

Sure. SNAP is a federal program, and the federal government was finding that it was becoming unaccessible for people who are unhoused to benefit from SNAP, and so they created their own definition of housing status to ensure that federal dollars reach their intended populations and that the way the programs are structured and administered don't discriminate against any particular population, in particular the one that it's most designed to serve. An example would be, in many instances, you are required to have a home address to receive a benefit.

Unhoused folks do not have a home address, and so poverty alleviation programs and mechanisms that are designed to alleviate poverty that can't be accessed by people who are unhoused, there has to be protections in that case.

Yeah, if that's happening, I agree with you. I mean, they should have alternatives for addresses and things like that. I'm a little concerned about creating a whole protected class around homeless. It's such a broad term and involves a lot of people. You have people that are down on their luck and trying really hard, and they need assistance, and you have some people that are suffering from untreated behavioral or drug alcohol issues, and there may be reasons to treat some of them differently than others. So I have concerns about how broad this is, but thank you for answering my question.

Ms. Dixon.

I come from local government, so I'm trying to understand. We have a homeless problem in California. We have a homeless problem right outside the doors here. I know that at the local level, social workers, police, law enforcement are working night and day to help homeless people get the services and the shelter that they need. I see it. I'm aware of it, at least in the city that I represent.

I know Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and other cities in Orange County are funding and building centers for mental illness and hospitals. I'm not aware from talking with law enforcement that a homeless person has been denied their rights. If anything--and I'm very supportive of your intent--if anything, people say, 'well, what about my rights in terms of residency? I can't do this, but a homeless person can do that.' And everybody needs to realize we have to help the homeless people.

And I feel that cities in particular are certainly complying with the Ninth Circuit decision, the Boise decision, and that if you want to sleep on the beach, you can sleep on the beach if you are homeless. Cities are spending millions and millions of dollars, hundreds of millions, tens of millions of dollars to build shelters and support all the ancillary programs. Totally agree that this is important.

I wish there was something to do about the homeless in Sacramento as we're sitting here talking about homeless, and it is an epidemic in Sacramento, which is shocking to all of us. Anyway, I just don't know what services over and above what's currently being provided. I see this all the time from housing and housing vouchers and getting people into a shelter, then into a permanent supportive housing. What is not being done?

That's what I don't understand because I see it every day, people moving in--and criminal action is not the solution. I totally agree, unless there is a criminal act committed with drugs, et cetera, but because the criminal justice system just--they go in and they come out. I see it with my own eyes. So that's not the solution. So the mental illness and other addiction-related programs are being worked. Just help me understand, what are we not doing?

Yeah. No, I think more broadly, there's a huge discussion that we as a body and as colleagues need to have on our approach to getting people housing and the supportive services and preventing people from falling into homelessness, right, because we know for every handful we get off the street, more people fall into the street. So there's a lot of work to do, and I agree with you that criminalizing poverty and being unhoused is not the solution because it's a cycle that exacerbates the root causes.

I think what we're trying to do in this bill is to prevent the continuation of trying things we know don't work, needing court decisions to correct our course, and going back and forth in that process, and instead saying, 'if it requires state money and you are trying to get people off the streets, you cannot discriminate them for being unhoused.'

We have to root our solutions in dignity and affirmation, in housing and in care, and that if we are using taxpayer dollars in a discriminatory fashion, that's only making the problem worse.

Is that happening?

It is happening.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, do we have a motion? We have a motion from Ms. Papan; second from Mr. Connolly. Mr. Bryan, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. The motion is 'do pass to Approps.' Ask clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill is on call. Needs two more votes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, almost two out of three debt cases in California are default judgments in favor of the debt collectors. Too often in consumer cases, this happens because defendants never receive a notice from the court or they have work or childcare commitments they can't skip or they have difficulty navigating the court system and are simply unaware that they must take action.

As proposed to be amended, AB 1119 reforms the debt collector collection process to make it less likely a bench warrant will be issued for a defendant's arrest. The Bill provides alternative ways for a defendant to share information about their assets, particularly when they are indigent or not subject to collection, and if a defendant is unable to submit this information.

AB 1119 requires a court to issue an order to show cause, giving the person a final chance to provide a reasonable explanation for any failure to appear before the court issues a bench warrant. AB 1119 does not end the responsibility consumers have to settle debts they owe.

It instead provides an alternative way for Low income and indigenous Californians, especially to report a court to report to a court and debt collectors about their assets, while still reserving the right of a court to issue a bench warrant when it is truly necessary. I want to thank the Committee for working with my office and stakeholders on amendments providing greater clarity to the collection reforms this Bill proposes.

I am pleased that in the last few days we were able to come to a resolution with the California Apartment Association, which plans to go neutral once we adopt language outlined in the analysis that exempts rental debt from this bill's provision. My door, of course, always remains open, and I'm hopeful we can resolve concerns from any opponents that come before us in the coming weeks.

Today, I ask the chair Members to move this legislation forward to give me an opportunity to strike a better balance so more californian consumers can resolve their debt cases without facing the threat of arrest or jail. With me to testify on behalf of the bill's co sponsors is Danielle Kando-Kaiser.

Sorry, just to clarify before we go, you took the author. Thank you very much. First witness.

Good morning. Danielle Kando-Kaiser I'm here on behalf of the sponsors of AB 1119, the California Low Income Consumer Coalition and the National Consumer Law center. While it deals with a complicated area of law, the goals of AB 1119 are simple, to make clear that no one should be arrested or threatened with arrest over a consumer debt.

This Bill does not take away any collection tools, but simply gives Low income people the ability to show that they are judgment proof without having to go to court, and by having them sign a complete financial statement under penalty of perjury, courts can still ultimately compel attendance if a consumer fails to file a statement or if the creditor provides evidence that something on the consumer's financial statement is missing or incorrect.

AB 1119 would simply pump the brakes on issuing warrants in consumer debt matters by requiring the court to further examine whether a warrant is necessary and to give Low income consumers another chance to file a statement as brief background once a debt collector has obtained a judgment against a consumer, the debt collector may seek to examine the consumer to determine their assets.

If the defendant fails to appear for the debtor's exam, which involves going to court, the judge may order a bench or arrest warrant to be issued for a defendant. Whether or not the warrant actually results in jail time, its existence may pose a problem for low income individuals who are at risk of future arrest. There's growing recognition that no consumer should face jail time over a debt being owed, period. These actions disproportionately harm families of color due to systemic racism in the criminal legal system.

And because communities of color are almost twice as likely to face collection actions. While most people think debtors prisons are a vestige of the past, this Bill will help to make that a reality while preserving debt collection tools and court powers. The author and sponsors are in active discussion with the remaining opposition to find compromise language that would address their concerns while ensuring this Bill still achieves its goals. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We had listed a letter in opposition, but we thank the author who has taken our amendments, and we remove our opposition. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cliff Berg, Governmental Advocates here on behalf of the California Association of Collectors. First, let me make it clear. We support the provision in the Bill that's received the most attention which, to eliminate the bench warrant, no person should go to jail for not paying a debt. So we support the provision that has been most discussed by the author, the sponsors, and the Committee analysis.

However, this Bill contains other provisions that really have not been drilled down upon, which are of concern to us, because, in essence, the idea that you can exempt someone's income and assets from an examination post judgment after a prevailing party has secured a victory in court, which is the party known as the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor, which is the losing party in court. We hear a lot about, well, there are default actions, there are Low income people.

My clients tell me that we would not incur the costs of hiring an attorney and going to court. Debt collectors are assignees. They're third party assignees. They're not allowed in small claims court. They have to go to regular court. They have to hire an attorney. They have to go through all the expenses of filing a case in order to get a judgment. They only do that when they believe that the debtor can pay and has the assets and income to pay.

The examination, which has not really been discussed here, is merely a tool, post judgment, to examine the debtor's ability to pay and uncover assets that they may be concealing. A judgment creditor can be anybody from you. Leave this building, drive home tonight, get t boned in an intersection, and sue the person who t boned you. You've become a judgment creditor. Consumers are judgment creditors.

This Bill, as introduced, created a very simple process, ripe for abuse and fraud, to allow someone simply to say, my income and assets are exempt from the judgment. We appreciate the author working with us and the Committee staff working with us, the statement, and that's now required to step in the right direction. But the decision about whose income and assets are exempt is a complex legal and factual decision.

The Bill basically says that if the court gets the statement, the request for the examination is automatically dismissed, the way that we read the Bill. There should be judicial review. We have suggested amendments to the author that would say that the court needs to review the statement and the creditor should have the opportunity to contest the statement, which is not in the Bill. So for those reasons, we still remain opposed.

But we do want to thank the author, the sponsors, and the Committee for working with us on the amendments and the analysis and look forward to continue to work with them. Thank you.

Thank you any other witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Yeah. Ms. Pacheco?

I just want to thank the author for answering my questions this morning. As you know, I used to represent small mom-and-pop landlords and so that was my major concern. But I appreciate the dialogue and I know you have an open-door policy, so I know you'll continue to work with the opposition. But my major concern was small mom-and-pop landlords for me. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Of course. Thank you. And I appreciate the input that you gave. Yeah.

Ms. Papan.

I do have a question about the last thing with having some review of what is exactly exempt. I can see that you really tried to narrowly tailor the Bill, and I do appreciate that having somewhat of a similar background, but is there anything we can do on that exempt part of it?

We're meeting with them later today, actually, so we're going to continue conversations and our hope is to get folks off of opposition and continue to work with the opposition.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Papan. Second from Ms. Pacheco. Ms. Wicks, you may close.

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do pass as amended to Appropriations. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call].

You need one more vote. Your bill is on call. As Ms. Carrillo approaches, I'd ask for a motion on the consent agenda. Ms. Papan makes a motion on the consent agenda. Mr. Connolly seconds for the record. The consent agenda includes AB 48, Aguiar-Curry, AB 448, Carrillo, AB 1043, Essayli, AB 1166 Baines, AB 1179 Pacheco, AB 1280 Maienschein. Ask clerk to call the roll.

[Roll call].

Consent agenda is out. Next up, is Ms. Carrillo, AB 665. Ms. Carrillo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair and Members, I am proud to present AB 665, which would expand access to mental health care for young people using MediCal. Across the countries, our communities are facing a youth mental health crisis, and the numbers are shocking.

From mass shootings in public spaces and in particular in schools, school shootings, as well as fentanyl overdoses and social media bullying, young people are experiencing a new reality, very different from the reality that we may have had growing up. A new report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that two in five teens felt persistent sadness or loneliness. Among teenage girls is three out of five. That's 60%.

13 years ago, there was a bipartisan agreement that we needed to empower young people to address their mental health needs as early and as quickly as possible. But we closed the door on young people that are MediCal recipients. Only about 20% of young people receiving MediCal get screened for depression, but we know that the need is much higher. We all deserve a life with pride and dignity.

In our Latino community, we are shifting the stigma around mental health, and we're making it okay to say that you need help and you need someone to talk to. It starts with ourselves, our parents, our grandparents, to acknowledge the trauma of our families, what they have lived through, and recognize that there is a big difference between surviving and living.

Here to testify and talk more about the need for this Bill, in particular, the need for mental health access for mental health recipients, as well as to answer any technical questions, are Rachel Valkovaltz, Director of the mental health, Director of Mental Health for the National Center for Youth Law, and Fiona Lu, a high school student, and a Chief Policy and Legislative Director for Generation Up.

Thank you, first witness.

Good morning. Thank you, Chairperson Maienschein and Members of the Judiciary Committee, for your consideration of Assembly Bill 665, authored by Assembly Member Carrillo. My name is Rachel Volkov Holtz. I'm an attorney and Director of Mental Health at the National Center for Youth Law, a co-sponsor and strong supporter of AB 665. This Bill addresses a deeply inequitable policy that creates added barriers for youth on MediCal to access mental health counseling.

We all want California's young people to live healthy, safe, and thriving lives to ensure that they need access to quality health care, including mental health support from trusted providers. California lawmakers have long recognized this. Two years ago, the Legislature offered enthusiastic support for the historic investment in the Children Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. And more than four decades ago, the Legislature passed a law allowing young people ages 12 and older to access outpatient mental health care based on their own consent in some circumstances.

This long-standing right has been a critical pathway to care, but due to an inconsistency between parallel sections of Family Code Section 6924 and Health and Safety Code Section 124260, youth who rely on medical must beat significantly higher levels of acuity before insurance will cover their care. In practice, this means that youth on private insurance can access needed care at an earlier stage, while youth on MediCal must effectively be in crisis before insurance will pay for their care.

Youth on MediCal are predominantly youth of color and youth experiencing poverty and the stricter standard compounds the already heightened risk factors they face. AB 665 would address this inequity by aligning the standards in the family code with long-established law in the health and safety code so that all youth can access the support they need without respect to which insurance they have.

Removing this barrier is more important than ever given the mental health crisis that our youth are facing right now, particularly those youth of color with the fewest resources who rely on MediCal. CDC data shows that rates of persistent sadness and hopelessness and of attempted suicide have increased, and that girls, students of color, and students who identify as LGBTQ plus experience heightened risk. Tragically, suicide rates of younger youth have also risen, making it even more important to open every door to care.

I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Fiona Lu and I'm a high school senior in Orange County. I'm here today to represent Generation Up, a youth-led organization working on equity for youth, in strong support of AB 665. AB 665 would align standards for MediCal youth to be able to consent to mental health services, holding them to the same standards as youth on private insurers.

Currently, youth like me on MediCal are subject to higher standards, such as having to present serious danger to ourselves or to others in order to receive the mental health care that we need. As a student from a low-income family who uses MediCal, these services, granted by California, offer great assistance to my family by providing essential care access, even when we struggle with the costs of other necessities.

However, as a student in high school and as a young person from a more traditional family, I can attest to the mental health stigma that causes youth like me to be afraid to talk to our own parents about our mental health struggles. In my freshman year of high school, when I struggled with depression and missed school often because of mental exhaustion, I only felt comfortable speaking with my friends and school counselor about what I was going through.

My experiences are similarly reflected in surveys that show how teenagers report that having to get parental or guardian permission has been a barrier to getting the care that they wanted and they need. Additionally, since my mom works long hours to support my family on top of taking care of me, my little brother, and my grandma, her schedule makes it nearly impossible for her to accompany me to any potential treatment sessions.

Also, similar to many other low-income youth, we often feel guilty that asking our parents or guardians to be involved with our mental health experiences would be putting an unnecessary burden on them. AB 665 does not create new policy to expand minor rights, but only ensures that youth who are on medical, who are often already system-impacted youth receive the same access to treatment when it comes to mental health. For these reasons, I urge your Aye vote on AB 665. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Witnesses in support name and organization, please.

Good morning. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Andrea Rivera on behalf of the California Panethnic Health Network, in support.

Kim Lewis, representing Aspiranet and the California Coalition for Youth. in support.

Adrienne Shilton with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud co-sponsor, in support.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter and support.

Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and California State Association of Psychiatrists, in strong support.

Nora Lynn with Children Now and also in support.

Also on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, Cal Voices Generation Up, National Center for Youth Law, National Health Law Program, The Children's Partnership, the California Children's Trust, API Equality L.A., Aspirinet, California Coalition for Youth, California High School Democrats, California School-Based Health Alliance, Casa Pacifica Centers for Children and Families, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, sorry, Community Health Councils, County Behavioral Health Directors Association, County Welfare Directors Association, Haywood Burns Institute, Healthnet and its affiliated companies, John Burton Advocates for Youth, National Association of Social Workers, Pacific Clinics, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, Steinberg Institute, Sycamore's Thai Community Development Center, the Los Angeles Trust for Children's Health and The Western center on Law and Poverty. Thank you.

I'm not sure there's two more organizations, but you two can go ahead and go anyway.

Kelly Beam on behalf of Healthnet of California, serving over 3 million MediCal members, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, witnesses in opposition.

Hi, good morning. My name is Erin Friday, the co-lead of Our Duty and I'm an attorney. The analysis is wrong.

This Bill does not merely along align two existing statutes, Family Code 6924 and Health and Safety 124260 such that minors covered by MediCal can obtain mental health care without parental consent. What it does is greatly expand the power of a counselor relative to residential facilities. This Bill permits a counselor to decide if a child 12 or older is mature enough to be placed in a facility away from his parents without any claim of abuse or indication that the child is in danger.

124260 does not address residential facilities, but 6924 does. This Bill is state-sanctioned kidnapping, as existing 6924 requires an allegation of abuse or a risk of serious harm before a counselor can unilaterally send a child to a residential facility. The intent was to prevent suicide, specifically LGBTQ youth. Per the CDC, the year that 6924 was amended, 408 10 to 14-year-olds committed suicide. By 2020 it increased to 581 or 581.

So the intent of 6924 failed. Suicides for the 14 to 24-year-olds grew to 55,355 over that time frame. Instead of repealing the failed law, the response is to place even more power in the hands of counselors to remove children from their loving families. An example of the caliber of counselors who decide if a 12-year-old comes home from school is Kenna Cook, who has access to the kids at Davis Unified. She held a BDSM group called Slaps Giving.

She authored blogs, How to be a Better Butt Slut. 12 is the age that California can steal the rights of parents and hand over mental health decisions to a child or worse, a pervert.

Next witness.

Hello. My name is Pamela Garfield-Jaeger. I'm a California State licensed clinical social worker who's trained at New York University. I was a practicing school counselor and supervisor for 10 years. In addition to working at multiple residential facilities, AB 665 is harmful to minors.

School counselors are being trained to keep secrets from parents and take on an antitherapeutic activist role. Instead of working with families, counselors are now dividing families, deliberately turning children against loving parents. Separating children from parents is one of the most traumatic things you can do to a child, and should only be done as a last resort. The job of a therapist is to repair the family unit, not destroy it.

It is apparent that one result of this Bill would be the removal of trans-identified children from the home. In this dystopian nightmare we're living in, if a parent doesn't use a child's chosen pronoun or name, they're labeled dangerous. This is absurd, and all based on the statistical lie about suicide. Completed suicides for trans-identified children are similar to kids with autism, depression, and other serious mental health issues. And I've worked in group homes. I know what they're really like, and they're far from ideal.

Residential facilities lead kids to adopt new harmful habits such as drug use, self-harm, and violent behavior. Youth residential facilities are usually unlocked, and many kids run away into the hands of sex traffickers. Counselors are mandated to report genuine and neglect, genuine neglect and abuse, but this Bill will remove this needed threshold requirement and cause more havoc on families.

My 20 years of experience with families and children have taught me that conducting therapy without parental input is ineffective, just like the other Bill where we're working with kids without their parents, and I've had many years doing that. It does not work.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization, if any.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council, in opposition. Thank you.

Lindley Hogan, Santa Clara County, mother of a daughter who thinks she's a boy I oppose this.

Allison Snyder, registered voter, taxpayer, mother on behalf of Parents Paying Attention to the Erosion of Parental Rights and State-sanctioned Promotion of Sterilization and Mutilation of Children. I oppose this Bill.

Judith Cahill, registered Democrat, Santa Clara County. I oppose this Bill.

Lisa Mullins, mother of a daughter I don't allow into the wellness center because it's so incredibly dangerous. I can't trust these therapists. No.

Yvette Corcoran, mother and registered nurse, San Francisco County. I oppose this Bill.

Renee Yasumura, mother of teenage de-transitioner. I oppose this Bill.

Stan Helton, Contra Costa County, Democrat. I oppose this Bill.

Susan Craigle, Democrat, parent. I oppose this Bill.

Lavonne Urbanu, Placer County, parent, and I had a therapist tell us that our child is not gonna be okay until she has a hysterectomy, top surgery, and hormones.

Emma Griffis, student, democrat, and I oppose this Bill.

Beth Bourne, mother, Yolo County. I'm a Democrat and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Any witnesses? Further witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. Ms. Carrillo, thank you for bringing the concerns of mental health. I agree. I'm also concerned about the mental health of kids, and we had another school shooting yesterday. I mean, we have to have a big conversation of mental health, and I welcome that conversation. I hope that could be bipartisan. We need to look at social media and what effect that's having on kids. But unfortunately, I can't support this particular Bill.

I am concerned about a bigger issue that's happening in California, which is the erosion of parental rights. And I have this concern that children are being empowered to make adult decisions, whether that's seeking counseling in a particular way or other, or making medical decisions. And parents are being pushed to the side and treated as spectators of their kids instead of parents to raise them. And I think it's creating a wedge between parents and children, and I'm concerned about that. Kids need their parents. They need that nurturing.

They need that support. And I don't think the state should be making policy that tries to separate them. We should be working together. And I do understand the concerns that some family dynamics have. They may not be welcoming to all forms of mental health treatment, but we need to have that conversation with parents and figure out how to overcome it. I'm also concerned about the constitutionality of this.

The Supreme Court has ruled that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children and be involved in making their medical decisions. So I do have some constitutional concerns with it. But I agree with the premise, and I welcome a conversation. Hopefully, we can work on the bigger issue. Just respectfully, I cannot support this Bill, but I thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Reyes, second from Mr. Rivas. Ms. Carrillo, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Members. And also respectfully disagree with the opposition, but always welcome parent involvement in any conversation related to the future of children across the State of California. This Bill makes equitable mental health available for children on MediCal. The original Bill passed in 2010. It was bipartisan. It had no registered opposition. It was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As California really began conversations related to mental health and young people, this only creates parity. So if you're on private insurance, you have all the access you can get. If you're a MediCal recipient, you don't have any access at all. This creates parity across the State of California, and I respectfully request an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Do pass. As the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll call].

Motion is out. Thank you. We have one Bill remaining. While we've been told he's on his way. If he's not here in a few minutes, maybe I'd ask Ms. Reyes, Mr. Rivas, if one of the two of you would present it. In the meantime, let's go ahead and do add-ons for everyone. We'll start with the consent agenda. Open the roll.

Ask the Clerk to call the absent voters.

[Roll call].

Item one, AB 81.

[Roll call].

Item one, AB 81.

Not voting.

Item two, AB 647. Lift the call. Ask the Clerk to call roll.

[Roll call].

That Bill is out. One. Ask the Clerk to lift the call on item five, AB 818.

[Roll call].

That Bill is out.

We'll lift the call on item number seven, AB 853. Ask Clerk to call the absent voters.

[Roll call].

That Bill is out. We'll lift the call on item eight, AB 920.

[Roll call].

That Bill is out. Add-ons for item number nine, AB 968.

[Roll call].

We'll lift the call on item 10, AB 1119.

[Roll call].

That Bill is out. Add-on for item 11, AB 1585.

[Roll call].

And we'll add on add-ons for item 12, AJR 1.

[Roll call].

We'll do add-ons to item 14, which was pulled from consent, AB 419. Ask Clerk to call the absent voters.

[Roll call].

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Haney, AB 816, which would allow a minor who is 16 years old or older to consent to replacement narcotics abuse treatment that uses buprenophrene without parental consent.

That's item 5647 is item two. Holden? Yes. We have you as an Aye. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Rayes, would you. Mr. Haney, I think, is stuck presenting a Bill and we'll ask Ms. Reyes to step in for Mr. Haney. Ms. Rayes, you may proceed. AB 816.

Thank you. Witnesses in support.

Hi, I'm Dr. Lee Trope. I'm a pediatrician who treats youth with opiate addiction and I'm speaking on behalf of Bill sponsor. American Academy of Pediatrics represents more than 3000 pediatricians, primary care and subspecialty pediatricians in California. Thank you for having me today. I think everybody here knows that we're in the midst of a serious public health crisis in our state and really across the whole country with a record number of youth living with opioid addiction and dying from opioid overdose, particularly fentanyl overdose. And this emergency, I think calls for a very swift response from our state government.

AB 816 would require that the medical professional administering this plan should seek to include the parents of the minor in the treatment plan if appropriate. The Bill has support from the American Academy of Pediatrics, California Bridge, California Coalition for Youth, California Medical Association, National Association of Social Workers and the Steinberg Institute. And no opposition noted on file.

This medication, buprenorphine, some of you may know it as suboxone, is considered the most effective way for youth to move into State of recovery. And it's also very safe. Unlike methadone, it's essentially impossible to overdose on it unless you are taking it incorrectly. It is the safest and most effective medication. But when they've done research, less than 5% of youth across the United States have access to this medication. Youth with opiate addiction don't have access. And just one of these barriers is parental consent.

I just want to emphasize, I know parental consent has come up before today. As a pediatrician, my goal is always to engage families for treatment. This is especially true with addiction because family engagement has been shown to improve outcomes. But parental consent really is not always possible, particularly in this patient population. People with opiate addiction, some youth don't have a parent who is available to consent because of addiction on their own. That's very common.

And other times youth are unwilling to kind of disclose to their families the seriousness of their addiction. In these situations, I strongly believe that parental consent should not be a barrier to life saving treatment. One patient, I just want to give an example of a patient where this happened to very recently in my care, it was a 17 year old. For privacy reasons, I'm going to call her Jasmine. And she came into my hospital seeking opioid treatment with buprenorphine.

Her mother came with her and consented to the medication of buprenorphine. She did very well and we sent her out to the outpatient world. In the outpatient setting, there needs to be, according to California law right now, there needs to be consent from families, from parents in order to get buprenorphine and so she went to the outpatient appointment. In the interim, her mom relapsed from her own opioid addiction and did not show up to her outpatient appointment with her.

So the patient was not able to be continued on the medication. But it was okay. We said, okay, we'll give it another chance. We'll get an appointment the next day. Mom again, didn't need you to wrap up. Okay. Mom again, didn't show. And the punchline is that the mother who was suffering from her own addiction did not show. The patient ultimately could not get the medication and relapsed.

Nora Lynn, with Children Now in support.

Any other witnesses in support saying none. Witnesses in opposition.

Hi. Good morning. Aaron Friday, licensed attorney, parent. Once again, California is making parents to be pariahs and that we shouldn't have any kind of responsibility for our children and be in the know and secrets should be kept.

Thank you. Ms. Reyes did an admiral job. Mr. Haney, any other witnesses in support? Name and organization.

Good morning. Taylor Chambers with the National Center for Youth Law. In support.

Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth. In support.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Brandon Marchy, with the California Medical Association in support.

This Bill would allow youth like her, who are unable to obtain parental consent, access to this life saving treatment if they're 16 or older. So I strongly want you considered to vote. Aye. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support.

I have absolute empathy for children who are addicted to opioids, other drugs or alcoholics, but to carve out the parents as part of recovery is just not going to work. I think California really needs to look at, go back in time, go back 10 years. When these bills were first proposed, 6924-6929 did they do what they said that they were going to do? Are children better off in this state or are they worse off? You're going to find that they are worse off.

Stan Helton, Democrat, Contra Costa County. I'm opposed.

Judith Cahill, Democrat, Santa Clara County, opposed. When you cut the parents out of the recovery for a child, you are cutting out their lifeline. So for those reasons, I oppose this Bill.

Pamela Garfield- Jeager, licensed clinical social worker, opposed.

Lisa Mullins, Contra Costa County. I oppose.

Lindley Hogan, Santa Clara County, mother of a girl who thinks.

Renee Yasumura, opposed.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition, name and organization only.

Yvette Corcoran, mother nurse they're my children.I parent them, not the state.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion from Mr. Reevis. Second from Ms. Reyes. The motion is due. Pass. Mr. Haney, you may close.

Lavonne Urbano, Democrat, Placer County. I absolutely oppose. Don't erode our rights. Allison Snyder, mother, parent, registered voter, Member of parents paying attention to the erosion of our rights and state sanctioned mutilizing and sterilization of children. I oppose Emma Griffiths, student Democrat. I oppose Beth Bourne, Yellow County. I'm a Democrat and I oppose.

First of all, I apologize to the Committee. I got stuck in BMP, which is in the other building. And I really appreciate Ms. Reyes for stepping in and Dr. Trope for being here. We want to get these young people help. This is a deadly drug. If people are seeking assistance, if they're seeking treatment, we should not stand in the way.

Thank you, Mr. Haney. The motion is due. Pass. Ask the Clerk to call the roll. [Roll Call] The Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. So we will do. I believe it's just Mr. Haney that needs to do and Dixon that needs to do add ons. Let's do add ons for Mr. Haney. Ask the Clerk to do add ons for the consent agenda. Please call the roll.[Roll Call] That should be today's Committee. Judiciary Committee. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much. Please tip.

Most folks will be able to speak with their parents, but those who can't are often the most vulnerable. This will absolutely save lives. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.