Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning and welcome to to today's Judiciary Committee Hearing. We have a long agenda today, so we need to be efficient with our time. As a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses, two minutes each. We have a timer up here, so when you hear it beep, that's the time to wrap it up. Additional witnesses should state their name and organization only.

This allows all authors a fair chance to present their bills and all Members of the public an equal chance to have their position reflected in the record. As we proceed with our hearing, I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee rules and to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient meeting.

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, I ask the clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We do have a quorum. Incredibly, we don't have an author. With all these bills you would assume luck would--so we'd like to have authors come down. We will start with item 13, AB 1414, Mr. Kalra.

Good morning. Morning chair Members. I want to start by thanking the chair and Committee staff for working with my office and I'll accept the Committee amendments. AB 1414 would protect consumers against predatory debt collection lawsuits by requiring debt collectors, debt buyers, and original creditors to produce and sue on a contract for consumer debt cases rather than common counts. The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated financial hardships for low income families, leading to missed bill payments and increased chances of exposure to debt collectors and debt buyers.

Debt buyers are collection agencies who purchase past due debts from creditors, sometimes for pennies on the dollar, who oftentimes attempt to collect the debt under outdated causes of action like open book accounts. These pleadings, also known as common counts, are subject to lesser evident standards and have helped collectors evade modern consumer protection laws in tens of thousands of cases.

According to the Center for Responsible Lending, attorneys represent defendants in only 2% of debt cases, with two thirds of all cases resulting in default judgments that can garnish wages or seize bank accounts. AB 1414 simply ensures the contract that gave rise to the consumer debt claim is produced and sued on in court. If a contract was not entered into, individuals can sue on an open book account so long as they provide records of all debit and credit transactions that make up the alleged balance.

This bill will close an exploitative loophole that has only driven people further into poverty and holds debt collectors, debt buyers, and original creditors to the same evidentiary standards as every other business. I want to see if Elizabeth Gonzalez, supervising Staff Attorney at public counsel, is here. I don't know if we anticipated going this soon, so if not, we'll go ahead and proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Kalra. Any main witnesses in support? Seeing none. Other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Motion from Ms. Reyes, second from Mr. Connolly. Okay. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Kalra, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We're off to a good start. Okay, so, we have a motion which is do pass as amended to banking and finance. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill is out. Thank you, Mr. Kalra. Next up is Ms. Papan, AB 893.

Mr. Chair, thank you so much for the opportunity. So, over the past 15 years, new businesses have emerged as disruptors, forcing change and adaptation. Good morning. In the car rental space, peer-to-peer rental platforms are a new avenue for individuals to rent their private vehicles to consumers. While the transactions are somewhat different than that of a traditional rental car company, the end result is the same. A consumer rents a car. That is, however, where the similarities end.

Unlike traditional car rental services, peer-to-peer rentals do not currently adhere to airport regulation, nor do they support local and state services through fees that traditional enterprises pay. Good morning. And despite the fact that the impacts of peer-to-peer operations are similar to traditional car rental services, they do not contribute to supporting the public and private infrastructure that supports the tourism industry that drives car rental businesses. This bill simply addresses gaps in current law by clarifying that personal vehicle sharing programs must follow existing regulations.

AB 893 ensures that the California Legislature is not picking winners and losers in an industry through applying regulations to one business and not another where the end result is the exact same: a consumer rents a car. We have a broad coalition of support, and with me to testify today in support of this bill is Brian Rothery on behalf of Enterprise. And Jim Lites should be here with the California Airports Council. That's you. Welcome. Good morning. Usually alternate business witnesses there, so welcome. Thank you for being here.

Witnesses in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Brian Rothery from Enterprise Holdings, Vice President in Government Public Affairs. I flew in last night from our headquarters in St. Louis. Happy to be here with you this morning. My experience on this bill relates to having navigated this issue across the country over the past four years, having testified in, I believe, more than 15 states on this issue. We stand in support of this bill.

We believe this bill reflects the general direction that this issue has been resolved in other states. We believe it's reflective of compromise between the parties that reflects the similarities and the differences. We recognize there's differences, but we also highlight significant similarities. At the end of the day, a car is rented, and we think certain rules apply to that here in the State of California.

Of particular importance, just to raise some of the issues that were traipsing back and forth in the letters in support or in opposition to the bill. As to airport access, we certainly agree that not all airport rentals are the same. Some come from an actual physical location on site, where there's a location, but from a traditional car rental company, and that has a different cost associated with that. Others, however, are accessed from an off site and there's a different cost associated with that.

We believe airports have it in their jurisdiction to aside the appropriate level of regulation within the range of rentals that are provided, and that's discretion that the airport has and should have. And I wanted to be clear about something because it's been suggested that car rental companies are saying that peer-to-peer should pay the exact same fee as the most expensive example of a car rental company with a property on site. That's not what we're saying. That's never what we've said.

I've made this clear in testimony across the country throughout the past four years, and we've been consistent on that. Just for a frame of reference--

You can wrap up.

Yeah. So the airport issue is--I'd be happy to provide more clarity on that. And we also believe that the company should be paying their fare to the tourism assessment, which we all benefit from. And a number of their customers are brought here because of that.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jim Lites on behalf of the California Airports Council. We represent the 31 commercial airports in the state. If a company wants to offer goods and services to air travel passengers, you must have an agreement with the airport. And while we do have a handful of airports that have come into agreements with car share companies, we have a number that have not. We have airports that have issued cease and desist letters to car share companies that have not been honored.

And so this bill will provide a framework, a flexible framework, for those companies to work with airports. They may not be in the car rental facility at the airport. There could be other options, such as having spaces in the regular parking garage. And so we do want to maintain that flexibility for airports to ink agreements that make sense for the company and the airport. But we certainly support section three of the bill that creates that framework. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

No, sir. There may be some that come forward.

Seeing no other witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition?

They're going to sit over there.

Yeah, they'll sit right here.

Thank you, Mr. Lites. Musical chairs is part of the game. Good morning. Good morning.

Go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Lou Bertuca. I work for Turo at our San Francisco headquarters in California. We're a proud California company, and we're asking for opposition to this bill. I think everybody's on the same page that the intent of the bill is to talk about a level playing field, and we are in full support of a level playing field. But this bill does not reflect that.

In the state of California, under the personal vehicle sharing code, which we've been regulated under for over a decade, peer-to-peer car sharing has to carry three times the amount of insurance as rental car companies. Three x the amount of insurance. Nothing in this bill speaks to that. That has a high cost to our hosts. Our hosts pay all their registration fees when they buy their cars. They are unable to pass those fees on, like rental car companies, to their customers.

And our hosts pay tax when they buy their cars. They do not elect, like rental car companies, to avoid that tax, which costs $1.0 billion a year. Now, I'm not saying that their model is wrong. What I'm saying is we would like to talk about these things holistically, because our car owners, California citizens who share their cars, these are real people. Veronica's here. She's a TS agent in Sacramento.

We have an airport permit in Sacramento and five other airports that uniquely identify peer-to-peer car sharing and permit us commensurate with our impact on the facility. Our hosts are your constituents. They are teachers. They are people on Social Security. They are people who are students. These are people that use Turo to make money for their families, and this bill would harm them. We have 19,000 hosts in California and 400,000 people who share their cars. This bill does not help them.

For every one car that is shared on our platform, that is 10 cars that do not need to be owned in your community. There is a mobility success story here, a California success story, and we ask to oppose the bill.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Thank you Chairman Maienschein, Assembly Member Papan, and Members of the Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Adrienne Moretz and I manage government partnerships at Getaround, which connects car owners with people who need safe, convenient, and affordable cars to live and work. Getaround works with municipalities across the US to build car share programs to further their sustainability goals and to provide economic opportunity to communities. In California, some of our partnerships include San Francisco, Oakland, BART, and LA Metro.

Our patented technology allows users to contactlessly book the car by the hour on demand 24/7 without standing in line or meeting anyone to pick up keys. The vast majority of our users in California, 80%, are state residents, and the median length of a getaround trip in California is 7 hours while rental car companies typically require one day minimum rental. AB 893 inaccurately treats peer-to-peer car sharing programs as if they are exactly the same as each other and the same as rental car companies.

None of the peer-to-peer car sharing laws enacted around the country, including California's 2010 insurance law, has taken this blanket approach, equating car sharing with car rental. Section two of the bill restricts the types of fees that programs can charge. Getaround discloses a license fee charge to cover the cost of driver record processing. This ensures that every Getaround guest has a valid driver's license.

Section three of the bill mandates that airports require that all peer-to-peer platforms abide by the same or reasonably similar standards or regulations as car rental companies if they share vehicles on airport property. Getaround does not currently operate at airports, but if we did, our operations and use of airport resources would be very different from rental car companies which own their cars, require a rental car counter, car return area, employee parking, and a fueling station.

Section four of the bill would add a burdensome requirement that peer-to-peer platforms obtain an electronic certification that the vehicle owner paid or was exempt from sales and use tax. This information the state already obtains with every vehicle registration and could prevent sharing a car in any situation where the owner themselves did not pay the tax, such as if a car was purchased out of state or was acquired by a family member. For these reasons currently drafted, Getaround opposes AB 893. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization only, please.

Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, respectfully opposed the bill. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments? Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I know the City Council in San Jose. And I know that a lot of the other folks from City Council have to deal with airport issues and they're forever complicated.

I was hoping once I was in the Assembly, I wouldn't have to worry about them anymore, but they follow you everywhere you go. I do think that different airports are differently situated. I know in San Jose or you look at different airports, some have some arrangements with these types of companies and some don't. And I think some uniformity is necessary.

I do think that if facilities are being used and that needs to be accounted for, if public facilities, airports facilities are being used by companies, I think that needs to be accounted for. I'll be supporting the bill. Just encourage the author to continue to work with the opposition to see if there's ways to account for some of their concerns, because I think there is a space for kind of all these different types of models to operate in an airport environment.

And hopefully we can get to some uniformity so that we don't have different rules in different jurisdictions around the state, but rather have some manner in which there's obligations put on these companies that recognize their use of the public facilities, while at the same time recognize that there are some differences between the rental car companies and the way these companies operate. Thank you. I'll move the bill.

Motion from Mr. Kalra. Do we have a second? Second from Ms. Reyes. Ms. Reyes.

I also want to thank the author for bringing this. The uniformity, I think is extremely important. We do know that in Ontario, in my area, there is already an agreement, an existing contract with Turo. So my question, if it's something that can be answered now or can be looked at, is what happens to those existing contracts?

This bill will not affect those existing contracts.

Thank you.

Sure.

Mr. Essayli.

Let me ask on that because it wasn't clear to me reading it. It said that if the airports were to have contracts, they have to have the same terms they have with the rental car companies. Is that not accurate?

No, it is not accurate.

We've been discussing that issue with the author's office, and they've agreed to ensure that that language is clear, that existing contracts with car share companies will not be affected by this bill.

But as currently written, it doesn't say that. So you're committed to changing that part of the language?

Yes, we'd like to see that clarified slightly.

Yes, I understand what you're trying to do, and I think I'm generally supportive of having an equal playing field, but the devil's always in the details.

And what is equal, because your business models are totally different. And for example, you guys don't pay the sales tax, you don't pay the vehicle licensing fee. That's a competitive advantage you have. They don't have to maintain all this physical presence at an airport and pay all these fees. That's an advantage on their end. So the question is just how do we get to that even playing field?

I kind of feel like we're back in the days of Uber versus taxis, and eventually we figured it out. So maybe there's a designated pickup area at the airports for Turo. I don't know what it is, but I really would like the two sides to work more together. I understand, Turo, you are committed to working with the author and reaching a compromise, is that correct?

Of course we are committed to a compromise, Madam Author, and we have compromised in 20 other states. So the language exists. And I think in your testimony, you mentioned the other states. We would love that.

Yeah, I think that was maybe a question for me. What you heard from the Council of Airports is that Turo has not reached agreements at every airport. And the reality of the situation is that public airports, publicly funded airports with shuttles, with light rails, with parking lots, are really the goose that lays the golden egg for folks that want to have customers that rent cars. And so how is it that we make everybody there be parity of some form with those transactions?

Are you willing to work with them on that? Because I do think there are some details, like they shouldn't, but I think.

The difference is, if I may, there must be an agreement. And what we have is airports where they refuse to have agreements and they're using these public facilities. So that's really what the law is trying to get at, is that we mandate agreements. Each airport is free to do as it so desires, including as Assembly Member Reyes has suggested, Ontario already has an agreement and this bill will not interfere.

You just want to make sure the airports have the authority to make those.

That's correct. That's correct.

But there needs to be some flexibility in the form of those agreements. This is a consequence of evolving technology. I think we've seen it in other industries. I think you guys will eventually get there.

No. And I respect the comparison with Uber and Lyft and taxis. And really, should we have favored one industry over another or one company over another? No. So that's what the bill is really after, is to have parity. Likewise with Airbnb and hotels and paying TOT taxes on short term rentals. It's the same thing. And you're right, we will get there. But this is disruptors.

I appreciate it, and I appreciate you guys willing to keep working together. I know probably me and other Members would like to see, hopefully a compromise. So thank you.

Ms. Pacheco.

I've lost my voice, but I'm going to try to speak. So I would also like to see a compromise. But I'm curious to hear if you're aware of, because I hear from my colleague, Assembly Member Reyes, that there are some airports that do have agreements. So is that in the minority? Do we know how many, and maybe we don't, but do we know how many airports that do have agreements?

I believe there are five that have agreements with Turo, and there's about another six or so that are in the works currently.

But there have been cease and desist orders that have been disregarded by Turo. So that's really the genesis of kind of how this law came about, or this bill came about. Hopefully a law.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? I understand there were a couple of Me toos that were just outside the door. So I will allow briefly, just to make sure that we're allowing the public to participate. So if the Me toos could just stand up, come to the microphone rather quickly.

Just a few.

One or two. Didn't realize this was half the audience.

Hi, my name is Samantha Erickson. I live in San Francisco, California, and I oppose AB 893. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Michael Wilkins, resident of Walnut Creek, California, and I oppose AB 893. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Caleb Bulusan. I live in Lincoln, California, and I oppose AB 893. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Michael Lavin. I live in San Francisco and I oppose AB 893. Thank you.

My name is Veronica Trujillo. And I oppose AB 893.

Hi, I'm Estefania Trujillo and I live in Sacramento, California. And I oppose AB 893.

Good morning. My name is Kinsa Malik and I'm a resident of San Francisco and I oppose AB 893.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in either support or opposition, any further questions or comments from the Committee? We have a motion and a second. And to the author, just to clarify, you may have said it, do you accept the amendments from the Committee?

Yes.

Okay. With that, you may close.

Oh, thank you so much. I just respectfully request an aye vote. The bill does four things: mandates disclosure of fees, mandates that cars that are rented at an airport pay a tourism fee, they pay airport fees as so negotiated, and that you report whether or not you did pay the sales tax when you purchased the car.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Ask Clerk to please call the roll. And the motion is do pass is amended to Appropriation Committee.

[Roll Call]

Your bill is out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Next up, Mr. Gabriel.

Mr. Gabriel will present AB 36.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Was told I was supposed to speak very, very close to the microphone, so I'm going to endeavor to do that. Pleased today to present. AB 36 will address the often deadly intersection of gun violence and domestic violence. In particular, this bill will prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals who are subject to domestic violence protection orders for three years after the expiration of that order.

We know that guns too often turn domestic violence into domestic homicide. Studies show that when an abusive partner has access to a gun, a domestic violence victim is five times more likely to be killed. Under existing California law, domestic abusers are able to access deadly firearms as soon as the protective order expires or lapses. This bill would change that so that there would be a three-year continuing prohibition on the purchase or possession of firearms.

And experts have warned that survivors are at a significantly elevated risk when violent and abusive partners regain immediate access to firearms. This is a common sense measure to keep firearms out of the hands of abusive partners and reduce incidents of gun violence and domestic violence in our state. With me today to testify is Erin Niemela, on behalf of our sponsor, Giffords. With that, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Erin Niemela, representing Giffords, the sponsor of AB 36. We want to thank the author for introducing the bill and for his commitment to the issue. AB 36 rests upon the premise that the right to be safe and free from violence and armed intimidation is essential to the free exercise of other rights.

Under current California law, firearm access restrictions expire, as the author said, as soon as the domestic violence or other court protective order expires or lapses. After the protection orders expire, survivors are at a significantly elevated risk when violent and abusive respondents regain immediate access to firearms. Under current law, the onus is effectively on the survivor of violence to initiate the court proceedings that would result in renewing a protective order.

In addition to this posing a burden, some might credibly fear that this process would result in their addresses becoming public or otherwise revealing their whereabouts to the respondent. That's why jurisdictions like Washington, D.C. have opted to prohibit individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders from accessing firearms for a period of at least five years after the expiration of that order.

So this bill would ensure that court orders expires in a more safe and staggered manner, and that people who've been subjected to those orders don't immediately regain firearm access upon the expiration of the order. For that reason, we ask your support for the bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Papan.

Oh, I'd just like to move the bill and would love to join as a coauthor if possible.

So we have a motion. So a motion from Ms. Papan, a second from Mr. Kalra and Ms. Pacheco.

I would also like to be added as a coauthor.

With great pleasure.

It's looking good for your bill. Mr. Gabriel, thank you. I'm feeling more optimistic by the moment. No, thank you, Mr. Gabriel, for bringing this bill, this important bill. As you said, it's a common sense measure, but it gets at protecting people who are in need of that, and so I thank you for not just this bill, but your leadership on this issue during your time in the Assembly. So with that, you may close.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate all the support. Would be honored to add you all as coauthors, and as you noted, Mr. Chair--and I know you've been a leader in this issue as well--there's certain areas where gun violence manifests itself, and domestic violence is certainly one of those. And so this is, I think, an important area for us to push forward and protect some particularly vulnerable folks. And with that, would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Ask the clerk to please call the roll. Oh, and the motion is 'do pass to Public Safety.'

[Roll Call].

Your bill is out.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Gabriel. Mr. Holden. AB 323. Mr. Holden, welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. It's a pleasure to be able to present to you Assembly Bill 323. I'd also like to extend my appreciation to the Committee staff for working with us on amendments to this bill. Working with developers to address their concerns, we have amended the bill to include a 90-day window for qualified buyers to submit applications to developers to purchase newly constructed homes beginning from the date of the final inspection.

So many homes in California are prohibitively expensive for our lowest income families and residents. In an effort to promote homeownership opportunities for low and moderate-income Californians, the state has established pathways through affordable housing policies like density bonuses and inclusionary zoning programs. However, these pathways can be redirected away from residents they were intended to assist to instead benefit private investors.

Currently, developers may petition a local government to change a unit designation from owner occupancy to rental occupancy, even if qualified residents have applied to buy the home, the practical effect being that states' affordable housing policies end up subsidizing investors instead of providing homeownership opportunities for those who would otherwise be unable to afford it. This exact scenario happened in Southern California. In 2020, two homes in Encinitas built using density bonus programs were redesignated by the city from owner occupancy to rental occupancy at the request of the developer.

The developer then sold the homes to a private investor, even though over 80 very low-income families had applied to buy the homes. After learning that they were passed over for an investor, these families were just devastated because a home for them is security, and it is a nest egg for the future and an opportunity to build generational wealth. So please join me in protecting these homeownership pathways instead of preserving a backdoor for investors to increase their profits. Here with me to testify in support is Jennifer Svec with the California Association of Realtors.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Jennifer Svec, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, extremely proud sponsors of this bill, and we'd like to thank the Member for his leadership in this space. We'd also like to thank the Committee staff and the Committee for their efforts to help us resolve the concerns of those that had concerns with the bill previously. Thank you.

And to be clear, Mr. Holden, you accept the amendments?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Do we have a motion? Motion from Mr. Kalra; second from Ms. Papan. Mr. Holden, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.' Ask the clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Your bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Fong. AB 432.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 432 will create the California Court Interpreter Workforce Pilot Program to expand the pool of court interpreters in our state. We know that equal access is critical to ensuring trust in our justice system. Interacting with courts can be difficult or even impossible for people who are deaf or hard of hearing or people who primarily speak a language other than English.

And in order to ensure equal access, court interpreters must be available to serve those who need them. The demand for interpreters is significant, and we know that stakeholders agree that we need to expand the pool of qualified interpreters. AB 432 will create a training plan for applicants, cover the cost of certification, and provide a guarantee of employment. This will bring our justice system closer to equal access by ensuring that more court interpreters are available for those who need them.

Joining us to testify is Ignacio Hernandez, representing California Federation of Interpreters, and Janet Hudec, the Vice President of the California Federation of Interpreters. I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to come before you. My name is Janet Hudec. I am the Vice President of California Federation of Interpreters. I am also a Spanish interpreter working for the state courts for the County of Madera, and I've been in my profession for about 18 years. Interpreters are very important to the state courts. They are the ones that enable access to justice and it also is a federal civil rights law.

The need for interpreters has been growing and it has been growing for over quite some time, and the need to increase interpreters also has been growing and we need to actually meet that need. It is a profession. Many interpreters have became employees when the Interpreter Act passed in 2003, and they are nearing retirement. Many are interested, many individuals are interested in becoming interpreters, but they don't know how to go about it or what to do or how to even join the profession.

There is no interpreting schools. There's a few universities that provide some courses, like the San Francisco State University, UCLA, and the Monterey Middlebury Language Institute, but many people don't know how to go about that and become interpreters. They also don't know that there are jobs available, and there's quite a bit of jobs available. The state courts have a growing demand with interpreters, and this bill will help meet that growing demand. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Federation for Interpreters. Let me just add that two years ago, the Legislature and the Governor allocated 30 million dollars in the state budget one time to help courts hire interpreters throughout the state, both in courtrooms and for courthouses at public counters. Only a small fraction of that money has been spent, in part because a lot of individuals do not know how to get involved in the profession and how to navigate the process.

What this bill will do will create a pipeline, an important pipeline to ensure that we have interpreters coming in--as you heard, as retirements are going to be coming in the next few years--that we don't fall into a gap where we don't have interpreters available for individuals in our courthouses. So this is a critical bill.

We think it complements the work that the Legislature and the Governor has already done in allocating the money and is consistent with what the Department of Justice has been arguing at the federal level, including just recently entered into an agreement with the State of North Carolina requiring that interpreters be provided in every single case, civil and criminal, at no cost to the individual. So we need to meet that mandate, and this will help with that. Ask for your support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. My name is Carmen Ramos. I have been a court interpreter for the San Joaquin Superior Court for about six years, and I have been a court interpreter in California for approximately 33 years. And I support this bill 100 percent. I love my profession, and I want to see it survive.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this forward. As someone that worked for 11 years as a public defender, I can definitely attest to the fact that interpreters are indispensable, invaluable, and access to interpreters is an access to justice issue. Without interpreters, you're denying access to justice to large portions of our community, and so I'm really appreciative for this bill.

Hopefully it will really help in creating that path and that foundation for ensuring that we're taking all the steps necessary going forward to make sure that we have adequate interpreters for many years to come in both our criminal and civil courts. I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion from Mr. Kalra. Are you seconding, Ms. Pacheco?

I'll go ahead.

We have a second from Ms. Pacheco. Ms. Pacheco, go ahead.

And I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Court interpreters are very important, as my colleague mentioned, in criminal cases, but equally in civil cases. So having court interpreters is vital so that individuals can understand what is going on in the courtroom, but so that way they can express themselves accurately in the courtroom. So I also want to be added as a coauthor on this bill.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? We do have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, Mr. Fong, you may close.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

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

[Roll Call].

You need one more.

Your Bill is on call. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Funk. Mr. Jackson. As Mr. Jackson approaches, can we have a motion on the consent agenda? Motion for Mr. Kalra, second for Ms. Pappen. Consent agenda includes item 16, AB 469 Fong item 17, AB 867 Friedman AB 876 Robert Reevis, AB 1029 Pellerin, AB 1147 Addis, AB 175041757 and 1758. Judiciary Committee bills ask the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent agenda is out. Mr. Jackson, welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Committee Members, I present AB 1079, which would create a hate crimes intervention unit within the California Department of Public Health and establish the California Ad Council within the California Civil Rights Department. Antiblack hate crimes continues to be and has always been the highest of all hate crimes. Every single year since 1991, we are seeing Antiasian hate skyrocket by 177.5%.

We are seeing a rise of antisemitic hate, nearly 50% the idea is this is that California is facing, and will continue to face anti racism, anti xenophobia, anti hate for the foreseeable future. Not only that, it will increase as we head into the next presidential election. And California must be equipped to begin to go on the offense instead of always being on the defense when it comes to this poison that is in our community.

We are transferring a majority of the responsibility of hate crimes to public health. Why? Because hate and racism is a public health crisis. We are also making sure that through the California ad Council, that we begin to educate people on all mediums, whether it be TV, whether it be social media, and to the various groups, to ensure that as hateful rhetoric expands in our community, that California begins to put out more accepting, more loving, and more empathetic messages when it comes to our vulnerable communities.

I have spent in my doctoral studies, I have spent the last three years really studying this subject matter, and I cannot explain to you how serious, how serious this issue is and how dangerous of a time we currently are in. And unfortunately, it's going to get more dangerous as we get into 2024.

So we must begin to make sure that California truly becomes an anti racist state by embedding these things into the very systems and structures of our state, so that for future generations to come, we will always make sure that our society and our most vulnerable populations are protected for times to come. We must halt the growing tide of bigotry, hate, and dogmatic ideology. California must go on the offense, and AB 1079 begins to move us in that direction to truly being an antiracist state.

So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Ms. Papan.

Greg here with the Arc and United Cereal Palsy California collaboration. We very much support the intent of the bill and thank Mr. Jackson for his leadership. We have amendments we're discussing with the author and we hope the bill moves forward today so we can continue the discussions.

you had me at empathy.

We have a motion for Ms. Papan. Do we have a second? Second from Mr. Connolly. Mr. Jackson, you may close.

Thank you very much. And I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The motion is do pass to appropriations. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill needs one more. It's on call. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bennett. AB 560. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. I want to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and want to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their work on this bill. I know some bills require more attention to detail and are more complicated, and this happens to be one of those. AB 560 is very simple in concept. It asks the Water Boards and DWR to review and comment on a water adjudication decision for consistency with the Sigma law before they're made final.

Sigma and the local groundwater sustainability plans have taken incredible amounts of negotiations and collaboration to create. I served on a groundwater agency in Ventura County that was created way before Sigma and then served on it while it was trying to create these. And these are things that lots of negotiations and trying to take care of all of the stakeholders, et cetera. Takes years to do that. Lots of research, scientific research, et cetera, has gone into that.

And coming up with a sustainable yield number is a huge decision and a complicated one. And again with lots of local input. As you try to arrive at that, judges who then approve a higher water allocation than the science and the GSA determines it's sustainable, will not only undo all that hard work, but I think could undermine Sigma completely.

Because if the message goes out that you don't have to participate in all of that, all you have to do is create a lawsuit and adjudicate the basin. You skip that whole local process that the State of California has set up and try to win, and particularly the most powerful try to win with great attorneys. To be clear, this bill does not give the departments power to overrule the judge's decisions. It simply creates an appropriate review of a complicated groundwater situation that we have.

And I want to emphasize that because I know that's really one of the questions. Why should we be doing this at all? This is not like lots of other situations in California. This is a new era where we went from virtually unregulated groundwater pumping and all of the problems that it created to finally coming up with something in 2014. And it has been difficult to implement even that.

And so we need to make sure that we husband that through the process as carefully as possible, to make sure that this new regulatory environment that we've tried to create doesn't get undermined right off the bat with the very first adjudications. And those adjudications are going forward. This review is sensitive to the hardworking local groundwater agencies that are trying to do this very difficult thing.

And I have accepted an amendment from the Committee to reinforce the point that we do not intend for the Department input to constitute a veto of what the judge says. The judge can still do this, but I think for almost all of us, if you looked at a settlement agreement and you looked at the groundwater sustainability plan, it would not be easy to tell whether they were consistent or not consistent. This is simply shedding a little bit more light on this very important situation.

Adjudications often focus on bringing the parties together. That's the culture of water adjudications in California. What can we get? And, in fact, in the way that the law is written, if you get 75% of the people on board in the adjudication, you can implement that. That's the old way it was done. You could implement that, and people had to object to the implementation.

So the culture of water adjudications is sort of agreement of the powerful people at the table, not necessarily a representation for those that are not at the table. And so that is why I respectfully ask for your. I vote and hope that this action will also help us make sure that we're taking the appropriate step to protect those that aren't powerful enough to have a seat at the table. And those will be the people that will be left out.

If we create an environment where, if you don't like what's happened at the GSA, you just adjudicate it. You get judges that are experienced in the old style and don't necessarily appropriately get this review. At least let's give them this review. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, chair Members. Lily Mackay, on behalf of United Water Conservation District, we had been opposed prior to the amendments. We thank the author and the committee for their work on clarification, and we'll review and notify if this changes our position moving forward. Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with California Chamber of Commerce. And we also have an opposed position on the Bill. But pending these amendments, we need to go back to our membership and see if they've resolved all of our concerns. But thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of various Ag Commodity Groups, Western Plant Health Association, United AG and Western Growers Association with opposed unless amended. Thanks.

Dennis Albiani with California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, California Grain of Feet. We also will be reviewing the amendments that currently opposed unless amended. Thank you.

And good morning. Kyle Jones with Community Water Center and also on behalf of Leadership Council on Justice and Accountability and Clean Water Action. We had submitted a letter of concern. We'll take a look at the amendments and connect with staff. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Papan?

I would like to thank the author from going from what was adjudicated at the court to what has been settled at the court forum, if you will, because that's something that's really been negotiated between both sides. So I'm optimistic about that change.

And the one thing that you may want to consider is just some time frame within which the water folks have to review it because people's lives sort of hang in the balance. So maybe a 90 day, whatever you think might be reasonable could be helpful to the bill, but I will be supporting it. Thank you so much for your hard work.

Thank you.

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

So I also want to thank the author, especially for working with opposition. And I know this is a very complex area. Water is very complex. But I do know that when judges make their decisions, they have experts who testify, would be experts in the water field. So I'm curious to hear why you feel there's a need to create another body to review the decisions. And I know you say they're not vetoing it, but I'm curious as to.

Why there is a need well water experts that are out there oftentimes testify in adjudications. And I'd offer a couple of things. Number one, if adjudications were the way for us to get to sustainable yield, they would have worked in the past, but they haven't been. So we've used adjudications before we had Sigma, and we were still drawing our groundwater down and down and down the whole culture of water experts that give advices to judges.

The judges have been, in the past, primarily focused on what can we get agreement on? zero, we got agreement. Great, because there's so much conflicting information, particularly about groundwater. So having a review coming from the State of California, that is much more I would offer, focused on the benefits for the public at large and from the experts who are reviewing. From the standpoint of, is this consistent with a groundwater sustainability agency?

Is much more appropriate than just a private scientist hired usually by one of the more powerful people in there, because they bring their experts to the table. And those experts generally always agree with what their position is in terms of the science. So I think that that's probably the strongest argument that I can make in terms of this is a review by the representatives of the people of California. That's what we should think about in terms of DWR and the State Water Board.

Those are the representatives of all the people, the disadvantaged people, the farm workers who don't have a hired lawyer at the table, a hired attorney at the table there representing them, because those are high powered conversations that go on amongst the most high powered attorneys out there. That's a different kind of review than you would get if you have an expert scientist come in. That expert scientist is going to try to give just a technical analysis.

And quite frankly, in many of the water adjudications I've seen, you have conflicting experts with that. Just from a scientific standpoint, having a review by a representative of the State of California, representing all the citizens of the State of California seems much more appropriate.

And what happens if they don't agree with the judge?

The judge is free to make whatever decision they want. This is very judge. This doesn't say just because they came up with it, but it should be enlightening for the judge. We hope it would be enlightening for the judge. The judge would take it into consideration, but the judge does not have to go along with the opinion of State Water Board at all. All it is, is a public assessment and a public notification of what the State Water Board thinks of the settlement agreement.

Mr. Connolly?

Yeah, thanks. Also wanted to concur with my colleague on the issue of whether to consider some sort of timeline requirement so that the proceedings are not inordinately prolonged, let alone overburdening courts. What is your current.

Great, thanks. I was going to respond to that. I just didn't know what was the appropriate time in terms of that. But it is an important issue and one of the benefits of the Committee process is, as your bill moves, there are different issues that you focus on, and we are trying to work and come up with what is the appropriate time frame. You don't want to be too late in the process. You don't want to be too early in the process.

And so we're having significant conversations and trying to focus on that as the next step. But there is an issue of how long should we allow State Water Board and DWR to respond so that we don't hold and stretch adjudications out, although adjudications have been stretched out for decades sometimes. Right. So I don't think that that's going to be a serious process if we have a few months in there or whatever.

But we're trying to figure that out when you ask, my own senses, some kind of flexibility in terms of when is the right time. But we've addressed a lot of that by switching from a judgment to a settlement, because by going to a settlement, somebody comes up with a settlement proposal, and this is what doesn't happen right now.

But somebody walks in with a judge and four of the parties, four of the major pumpers come in and say, we all think this should be the settlement, right? Well, a judge could, without opining on that, send that right to DWR and state waterboard for a consistency. How consistent do you think that is?

That seems much more appropriate than for the judge to have already been to the point where the judge has said she or he thinks this is the judgment, and now you send it to the waterboard so it allows the judge to satisfy this by sending the settlement potentially at whatever appropriate time the judge thinks. That's one possibility. But anyway, we're working on that, and we will continue to work on that as we go forward.

Any other questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none. Mr. Bennett, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and again, appreciate the great work by committee staff to help us out with this. And we'll continue to work with committee staff as we try to work on the timing issue that the two of you have brought up.

Great. So the motion is due. Pass is amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call. zero, we need that motion. Ms. Pappen moves it. Do we have a second? Mr. Connolly seconds it. Do you pass, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee? Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your bill needs one more vote. It is on call.

Thank you.

You bet. Next up, Ms. Pacheco will be presenting Item Six on behalf of Ms. Wilson, AB 779.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I am presenting on behalf of Assembly Member Wilson.

I'm not sure why the person without a voice is the substitute, but we're all pulling for you, so we'll see how this goes.

In response to persistent conditions of extreme drought and groundwater depletion, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, SGMA, in 2014. However, as implementation of SGMA has continued to unfold, many have raised concerns that some of the key burdens SGMA places on small and disadvantaged farmers are related to the process of water rights adjudication in groundwater basins where rights are disputed.

Adjudications take place in nonspecialized courts and can be lengthy, expensive, and opaque, factors which exasperate existing disparities and underrepresentation of small farmers in disadvantaged communities. This past fall, the Office of Assembly Member Wilson and students from UCLA Law put together a research project, along with a series of stakeholder interviews, and identified several areas of possible improvements to the adjudication process that promotes transparency, equity, and are intended to benefit all parties involved. Wow, this is long.

Those suggestions came together in AB 779, the bill which is before you today. Since introduction, the office has received several suggestions and areas of improvements from organizations such as the Chamber, Western Growers, the Community Alliance, and Family Farmers. The Groundwater Coalition, Judicial Council, and others very much appreciate the feedback they have sent. As these conversations are still ongoing, the office is in the middle of coordinating a larger stakeholder meeting to review improvements to the legislation and to look forward to working with all these organizations to improve the adjudication process.

I would now like to introduce witness Beth Kent, the Emmett/Frankel Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy at UCLA, who is a coordinator for the students from UCLA Law who have helped to put together this important piece of legislation. I will now take a break.

Thank you.

You may proceed.

Thank you. My name is Beth Kent, and I am an Emmett/Frankel Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy at UCLA Law, where I co-teach the California Environmental Legislation and Policy Clinic. I'm here in support of AB 779. I appreciate Assembly Member Wilson for introducing this bill and Assembly Member Pacheco for presenting it today, especially as you have no voice.

AB 779 is intended to make California's groundwater rights adjudication process equitable, transparent, and fair for all water users. By determining who has groundwater rights and how much water rights holders can use, the adjudication process significantly impacts groundwater use and management throughout the state. Through conversations with stakeholders, including nonprofit and agricultural organizations and water law experts, my colleagues and I learned that the current adjudication process poses substantial barriers for many types of water users.

AB 779 aims to address these barriers, and today I'll focus on the provisions that relate to the three key issues identified in this Committee's analysis. First, the bill requires parties to forward pleadings to the Department of Water Resources for the Department to post online. The adjudication process is complex and opaque, which can make it difficult for impacted water users to engage.

Some water users, such as tenant farmers, may not be notified that an adjudication has commenced in their basin, even though the judgment may impact their ability to access water and maintain their livelihoods. Making these materials accessible can also help water users, policymakers, and the public prepare for and improve future adjudications. These materials can be difficult to find or may be behind a paywall which frustrates public access.

AB 779 would make information easily accessible by posting on a website that could be found even with a simple Internet search. Second, the bill would require the court to invite a representative from the Department. This can help reduce the battle of the experts and reduce costs in the length of the adjudication, and bringing DWR, the Water Board in, could help provide objective, science-based information. We appreciate your consideration and I'm happy to help the Assembly Member with questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Thank you. Good morning. Kyle Jones with Community Water Center and also on behalf of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and Clean Water Action. We sent in a support if amended letter, just seeing how we can look at making sure that the state agencies providing technical assistance can consider the range of state interests beyond just Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Thank you.

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

Good morning again. This is Brenda Bass with California Chamber of Commerce. We are in an oppose unless amended position on this bill currently, but we are looking forward to continuing productive discussions with the author to help resolve our concerns.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of various Ag commodity groups: Western Plant Health Association, UnitedAg, and Western Growers Association. We echo the comments of Ms. Bass. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Mr. Haney moves the bill; Ms. Papan seconds. Ms. Pacheco, you may close.

Assembly Member Wilson wishes she could be here and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call].

Your bill needs one more vote. It is on call. Mr. Haney, you have two items: Item--we'll start with Item Number One: AB 12, and then next will be AB 1339.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 12 will increase housing access and housing affordability in our state by limiting the amount that can be charged for a security deposit for a rental unit to one month's rent, making California the 12th state in the country to lower these barriers to housing. California has the third lowest homeownership rate in the country with nearly half of our state's households, 17 million families and individuals renting in cities, suburbs and rural areas. California's housing shortage has caused rents to skyrocket.

According to the Committee's analysis, the median rent in California has increased by 35% since 2000, while median rent, or household income has only increased by 6%. Higher rents result in higher security deposits, which further limits housing access and places greater burdens on working families. Under current California law, every renter can be required to pay up to three months rent for their security deposit. This is a law that was put in place in 1977 and hasn't been changed substantially since then.

Because of these high security deposits, it can cost over $8,000 upfront to move into an average one bedroom apartment in San Francisco or Los Angeles when you add the security deposit and first month's rent. Few people have such large sums saved and as a result, are often forced to go into debt or forego other necessities.

In a recent study, 53% of California renters indicated that they are able to afford their rent, but they are unable to get an apartment simply because they cannot afford a security deposit. This pushes many families, including those with individuals making minimum wage, to either forego necessities such as food and utilities, or acquire more debt in order to be approved for housing.

It can lead to many working families staying in unsafe, inadequate or overcrowded living situations, unable to afford the cost to move into an apartment fit for their family, or closer to work. I also want to be clear that AB 12 does not take away a landlord's ability to hold their tenants accountable.

One month's rent will cover the large majority of damages, and in the event that they don't, and similar to other practices under law, the landlord can still take the tenant to court to be reimbursed for any damages that exceed that amount. Tenants are still fully liable for any damages. This bill also doesn't create a one size fits all approach for different parts of our state. Landlords still have full autonomy to decide on their rent based on the market they live in.

Other states have already tackled this issue. Alabama, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island prohibit landlords from charging more than one month's rent. Despite changes in other state law, California continues to fall behind. I'm very grateful to have two witnesses here with direct experience around this issue. This bill has received a wide set of support from working families from across the state who are experiencing the challenges of these high security deposits.

And I first want to start with witness Judy Ramey, a paraeducator from Roseville City School District.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good morning. My name is Judy Ramey and I do work for Roseville City School District as a Paraeducator, working with children who are on Independent Educational Plans. They're called IEPs. And what I do is I get the kids from regular classrooms, and then if they need extra support, I work with them, whether it be in speech, reading and comprehension, or math. The pandemic has brought many changes for all of us.

Unfortunately, it also brought the cost of living to skyrocket, including prices of gas, food, utilities and rent. So what happens when a family has to move? One example is me. I rent a house in Roseville and have rented the house in Roseville for the past 20 years. This past year, my landlady passed away at the young age of 101. This house is now in probate.

If I have to move, and if I have to come up with three different things, rent and security deposit, first, last, and security, then I'm going to have to leave California because I can't afford that. And I've lived in California all of my life. And for me to have to move would cause me stress and cause stress to my family. Unfortunately, I'm in the same position as many families who live in California. Many people have no option available but to move in with relatives.

In these cases, children often share a bed with three or more children. Sometimes they end up sleeping on the floor. As an educator, I find this very detrimental to children in many ways. They lose sleep, they're sick more often. They miss school for other things, emotional things. And when they do come to school, they're tired and they're emotional and they're stressed because they haven't got the sleep and the security they need with their own bed. These children depend on us.

They tend to be more confrontational with peers. We need to provide a way for families to be able to rent homes of their own. Not passing AB 12 will severely hurt parents, children, their education, and the individuals who educate them. Children are our future. And if California wants educated citizens, something must be done being said. I encourage you to support AB 12. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, my name is Jamie Gibson and I've worked in retail and as a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union for the last 12 years. And I've been a renter for the last 14 just down the street here in Davis. The amount I've paid for rent between then and now has varied a lot, but in the last five years, it has increased so much that it's impossible to move back closer to where I work.

In 2018, the rent I paid for a two bedroom apartment in Davis increased from $1300 to $1600, and the deposit increased from $400 to $600. So the upfront cost to continue in the same unit that I had been renting for three years would have increased to $4,000. And during the pandemic about four years ago, I moved to Fairfield to be closer to my family.

And now for the last four years, I've commuted about 30 miles each way to work, which puts excessive wear and tear in my car. In order to move back to Davis, the same one bedroom apartment in the same complex cost about in a range of $2000 to $2,400 to rent, while a two bedroom unit in the same complex now costs upwards of $2,500 to $2,800. And that's not including a $600 deposit.

So I would need almost $6,000 to pay for the upfront cost to move back to where I work. Just this month, my coworker has been deferring her retirement for about five years to help her daughter, a mother and a family of five save up for a duplex in South Natomas. They had to pay almost $9,000 to secure that unit. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, and getting an apartment should not be saving for a down payment for a house. I'm in support of Bill AB 12.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Good morning, Chair Maienschein, Members. James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees AFSCME, we're in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Jovana Fajardo with ACCE the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment with 17,000 members statewide in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Deb Roth, Disability Rights California, support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Good morning. Dan Okenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, representing people with disabilities, in support.

Good morning. Anya Lawler, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the National Housing Law Project, in support.

Good morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, we're in support.

Good morning. Daniel Schoorl with SEIU Local 1000 in support.

Jassy Grewal with UFCW Western States Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tina Rosales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the ACLU California Action, in support.

Good morning. Matt Lege, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Good morning. Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco, and also here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, both in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Devon Gray, President of End Poverty in California in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Andrew Shane, End Child Poverty California GRACE Institute, in support.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Debra Carlton with The California Apartment Association. We represent about 50,000 rental property owners and managers who own and operate affordable and market rate housing. Unfortunately, we are in opposition to this bill. We will argue, of course, that even the current amount isn't enough. But if a tenant fails to live up to their obligations today, a rental property owner is obviously required to go to court through the eviction process, which can take months.

All the while they're paying attorneys fees and court costs and not getting the rent. They are also having to pay their own bills, especially if they have a mortgage on the home or the apartment building. Security deposits are refundable. So as the witness in support testified, she's been in her place for many years. That security deposit should be coming back to her. Given the way in which we've written our current statute, she would receive her security deposit.

I think the unfortunate downside to this legislation is that you will see higher rents that's not refundable, and you will see it harder to access housing because of potential either lower credit or any other types of obligations that are required up front. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote today.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors here today in opposition to AB 12. Which fails to take a thoughtful approach to the issue of security deposits, certainly we do believe that there are more thoughtful approaches out there. For example, the County of San Diego in the fall of 2021 did implement a security deposit assistance program which specifically targets individuals and families at or below 120% of area median income.

In sharp contrast, AB 12 does not specifically target those in need, nor does it take into account the plight of small housing providers who are often seniors. Rather, the bill, in our estimation, takes a one size fits all approach, which we believe is misguided. We will respectfully note the one thing that has not been mentioned yet in this conversation is AB 1482, the statewide rent cap bill, as well as other recent legislative successes which have addressed issues in this space.

We would like to specifically note AB 1482 because that law does contain a provision that requires the Legislative Analyst Office to submit a report to the Legislature on the efficacy of those rent cap provisions as they relate to housing affordability. Unfortunately, AB 12 does not either A, wait for this report to be submitted to the Legislature so we can see what it says, or B at least advance a thoughtful proposal. We do believe that it does take a one size fits all approach.

Unfortunately, and for those reasons, we are opposed to the bill and respectfully request a no vote is drafted. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kate Bell, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and the Apartment Association Of Greater Los Angeles. In opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members Patrick Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, in opposition. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair, and really appreciate the thought of where the bill is coming from. I think we're hearing in all of our districts that residents are increasingly rent burdened. We heard that again through testimony this morning. When you have the reality of two months rent, ie. first and last month, let alone three months being put forward as security deposits, that eliminates a lot of folks from being able to secure vital rental housing.

That being said, a couple of questions have emerged and just thought the author may be able to flag some of these issues. What recourses do landlords have to recover the cost of damages, let's say if they go over the stated security deposit amount? And secondly, is there a concern that this bill is going to reduce the supply of rental housing available, ie. will smaller mom and pop landlords think twice about either staying in the rental market or entering the rental market, if they're capped at security deposits, they can do? Thanks.

Thank you for those questions. Much appreciated. So on the question of recourse, again, this bill doesn't change at all the liability that tenants have if they do damage. Currently, if a tenant does damage or is liable for additional amount beyond what a security deposit is charged, whatever amount that is, they can be taken to court and they still owe those funds.

And certainly the landlord knows who that person is and how to reach them as their tenant. Similar applies for tenants who may have a security deposit kept from them unfairly. They also have to go to court. So that's something that exists under current law. They will continue to have that opportunity. As somebody who used to practice in this area of law, the security deposit of one month will cover the large majority of cases.

It's the rare cases when it would be beyond that and the recourse would still be there. The problem that we are addressing here is that the security deposit up front is creating a burden for many families and individuals who want to access housing to begin with. They are staying in unsafe, insufficient housing situations very far from where they work in some cases.

In some cases, there are children who are multiple children in a bedroom, and the reason why they can't move to another place is because the security deposit is the barrier. And so this is about access to housing. Again, there are over 10 states who already have one month. We had actually just a few years ago, Mr. Glazer passed a bill unanimously moving the amount to one month for service members. And we haven't seen any negative impacts of that. So this is about access to housing.

There's no evidence at all that it will lead to less housing being on the market. Folks can still choose how much they want to charge in rent and who their tenants are. They still can look at credit scores or any other thing that we allow under the law to determine who they want to be their tenant. We simply want to ensure that upfront there's that access to housing that currently is, I think, being undermined by those set of folks who are charging very high security deposits.

Mr. Rivas.

I just have some brief comments. I appreciate the author for this thoughtful approach and this meaningful bill. It is very meaningful to many of the families in my district. As we have all read in the papers, the town of Pajaro, it was recently flooded. It was reported that about 2,500 families or residents were displaced because of the flooding.

As we learned, local officials told us that number is closer to 5,000 residents because of the humanitarian crisis that residents in my district face when it comes to housing. Critical overcrowded housing, mass exploitation when it comes to housing, and families, especially almost vulnerable families, farm working families that help feed every single person in this room, they endure these conditions because they have no other choice.

When I look at the situation that so many residents of the state face when it comes to housing, they're just trapped in this unending and this generational cycle of poverty. This bill won't solve the problem, but it's going to help. And it's a meaningful approach. As we know, this is now the start of my fifth year in this legislation. There's no silver bullet when it comes to addressing our housing problems and solving this housing crisis. But this is something that will help. And so I appreciate the author for this very thoughtful bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Reeves. Any other questions or comments? Ms. Pacheco?

I just want to thank the author. I know we've had conversations about this bill and I can actually see both sides. I've represented small mom and pop landlords before. So, I can see how this could be a burden, especially when you have a tenant and they destroy the property, and sometimes the one months security deposit, or the security deposit doesn't cover it.

Yes, there were some conversations between my staff and some of the opposition. We didn't receive, I believe, any suggested amendments, but we're continued to be in conversation and happy to work together on some of those issues, particularly as it relates to the impact on mom and pop landlords and some of those questions. We're fully willing to continue the conversation there.

And to the opposition. Are you willing to have dialogue with the author?

Yes, always. Through the Chair, if I might? Yes, always willing to come to the table and have conversations with the author? Most definitely.

I just say same here. I think some of the other concepts that have been suggested are their bond programs, their insurance programs, that could be alternatives if somebody has bad credit to encourage the landlord to accept them. So there could be different solutions.

Ms. Papan.

Coming out of local government, we've tangled a lot with this issue, wrestled with this issue, and I agree there is no magic bullet. Likewise with Senator Pacheco I've been on both sides of the equation as an attorney and I too have that sensitivity to the mom and pop. Especially coming after or just following along the heels of where we are-Covid there's been, as you well know, a moratorium on evictions and what do you say when you come in and you're that mom and pop landlord hanging on by your knuckles and you share the ownership with the mortgage company and you are on that line.

So I too would welcome if there was some discussion on that because I've just long had this sensitivity. I've also seen very unscrupulous landlords, both in the residential context and in the commercial context, quite frankly, and even during COVID which is shocking to me.

But I've also seen properties that are- most recently I've been dealing with one that is just beyond measure and I don't know how the owner is really going to come up with what she needs to come up with and she's also being asked for relocation expenses and it's really heartbreaking. And it was her mother's home. Long story. Anyway, so I've seen both sides of it. So if you all could continue the discussion, boy, I would be really appreciative of it. So that's where I come in on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Haney, I think you heard from the Committee. Thank you for this bill. At the same time, I think there's a consensus. Hope you'll continue to work with the opposition on these issues. It's complicated and certainly want to get to a good solution. So with that, you may close.

Absolutely, and I hear that from the Committee, and there are those extreme situations where we have someone who has had a lot of damage, and I think there's a lot that we have to do in that space to make sure that when there are landlord tenants issues, that they're able to resolve those more quickly, whether it's because the landlord has a file against the tenant or the tenant in some cases might also have to get their security deposit that they feel may be unjustly kept from them.

With all of that said, I am fully committed to working together, and I hear the concerns and questions that have been raised as well as by the Chair, and I hope we can move this bill forward. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion for Mr. Rivas. You have a second? Second for Mr. Connolly. The motion is due pass. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call].

Your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is--Mr. Haney is AB 1339.

Thank you and good morning, Chair Maienschein and Members. I'm here to present on AB 1339, the preventing housing discrimination bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendments today, and thank you to you and your staff for working with me and my staff on this bill.

AB 1339 revises the definition of disability to include people receiving medication-assisted treatment, commonly referred to as MAT. This bill would prohibit housing providers who accept state funding from discriminating against individuals on medication-assisted treatment. Some quick background on what MAT is. MAT is the use of FDA-approved medications like buprenorphine or methadone to treat individuals suffering from opioid use disorder.

MAT has proven to be a safe and effective way to treat opioid use disorder because it works by restoring dopamine levels to a normal range, which increases productivity and decreases opioid cravings. What we are trying to solve for with this bill is to make California law consistent with federal law. Right now, existing federal law protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination. People in recovery from drug addiction, including those on MAT, generally are protected from discrimination by the ADA Rehabilitation Act and Fair Housing Act.

However, California law is not clear that MAT treatment falls under these federal protections. Because of this discrepancy in California law, people on MAT are being denied housing services solely because of their decision to pursue treatment for their opioid use disorder. To ensure California is aligned with federal law, AB 1339 will clarify that providers accepting state funding cannot discriminate against individuals on MAT treatment because it is directly tied to a protected disability.

For contractors that violate the law, it requires contract administrators to place contractors in breach, including canceling their contracts. This bill is so critical because, simply put, the current law is confusing and unclear. As California works to combat homelessness and opioid use disorders, the time for setting this clear and unambiguous standard is now. I just want to be clear that this does not apply to private housing.

This is state-funded housing, and make sure that people who are accessing treatment that can get them off of opioids and get them healthy and stable do not face discrimination in housing. With me here to testify in support of AB 1339 is Vitka Eisen from HealthRIGHT 360, and Robb Layne from California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives.

First witness, please.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Committee Members, and thank you, Assembly Member Haney, for this bill. My name is Vitka Eisen. I am the CEO for HealthRIGHT 360. We're a treatment provider in 11 different counties. We're probably the largest nonprofit substance use treatment provider in the state. I'm also the Vice President of the provider association, on the board of CAADPE. And finally, I'm a person with lived experience, a former heroin user from a million years ago.

So California lost, tragically, 7,175 of its residents to opioid overdoses in 2021. Those numbers continue to rise. MAT, medication for addiction treatment, as Assembly Member Haney described, MAT for opioid use disorder is the most heavily studied, most effective intervention we have for opioid use disorder. It prevents cravings, it stops cravings, and it helps people not use street drugs.

And it has been studied again and again, over and over again, very effective at improving health. Fortunately, we live in a state that really supports MAT. Our Health Department, our health care services support it. There's been a lot of investment in helping people access MAT.

Through that investment from the Department of Health Care Services, over 140,000 people have been enrolled in MAT. We have 16,000 people in the state prisons currently--California is probably one of the most progressive in terms of its availability of MAT for people incarcerated--16,000 people on MAT in the state prisons, and we have 35 jails that offer MAT. So it's a big impact on criminal justice population. Treatment programs that are licensed by the State of California, substance use treatments, cannot discriminate against people on MAT.

And in fact, they're incentivized as lots of training to be able to make sure that they offer it or link people to that care. But recovery bridge housing or transitional housing for people in reentry is not similarly regulated. These housing often prohibit people entering from using MAT. One way to make sure that we prevent this is to cut funding from public entities. Probation, parole are often seeking housing for people coming out of prisons, and they are using those dollars to pay for that housing.

Organizations like HealthRIGHT 360 case manage many people coming out of these services and can't find--we can find housing for people, but not if they're on medications for addiction treatment. And so what we're asking for is that those organizations that are receiving those folks have to attest that they will not discriminate against people on MAT. They have to sign an attestation. That way, all people coming out of criminal justice situation, criminal justice, will be able to access housing. So I thank you for this, for your consideration.

Thank you. Next witness.

Robb Layne, California Executive Director of California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives. Like Assembly Member Haney said, this bill will do two significant things: it'll stop discrimination for people on MAT, but it also is part of the larger statewide solution for homelessness. Just in California in 2021, a record high of 10,900 people died from a drug overdose, not just opioid, but a drug overdose. That's up from 75 percent prior to the pandemic.

MAT, as Vitka and Assembly Member Haney was saying, is one of the most effective treatments for substance use disorders. It's so successful that DHCS supports it, and it's actually provided by CDCR during the reentry process. These replacement options help address the harmful effects of detoxification and more importantly, prevent overdoses. Nevertheless, some of the most effective treatment options is also the most significant barrier to finding and keeping a place to live for individuals that are part of the reentry population.

Many consumers face housing discrimination because some programs, like we were talking about, don't accept clients on MAT. But California's FEHA protects people because they have a medical diagnosis. We do know that transitional housing program in sober living communities are denying admission based on someone's MAT status because they're not clean and sober. Many who face this discrimination were actually prescribed--as we were talking about--MAT during the last part of their sentence and MAT as part of their prerelease program.

It is clear that this bias not only could force clients back into withdrawal symptoms, but it also puts people at risk of becoming one more of the 115,000 unhoused individuals here in California. Yes, they could sue because, as we talked about, they have a qualified medical reason, but it's highly unlikely. They're more concerned about finding housing than they are about combating discrimination. So AB 1339 will fix this problem by prohibiting discrimination within publicly-funded programs. We're grateful to Assembly Member Haney for authoring this bill, and we're happy to answer questions.

Thank you. And Mr. Haney, you accept the Committee amendments?

Yes.

Okay. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Wesley Saver with HealthRIGHT 360 and San Francisco Treatment on Demand Coalition, in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Darby Kernan, representing Amity Foundation and WestCare.

Deb Roth, Disability Rights California, in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Okay. Ms. Papan moves the bill; Mr. Rivas seconds. Mr. Haney, you may close.

I know we're all concerned about the fentanyl and opioid addiction epidemic. This is a solution. Let's get people into treatment, let's get them help, and let's make sure they can access housing. That's the way we can confront this epidemic. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion: 'do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.' Ask the clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Your bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. McKinnor, you have two bills. We'll start with AB 937 and then AB 1418.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair and Members, I would like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thanking the Committee chair and consultants for their work on this important issue and helping to improve the Bill and help this vulnerable population. Thank you, Chair. When a child is removed from the custody of their parents, parents are typically entitled to reunification services in order to stabilize and regain custody.

During this reunification period, a social worker must provide reasonable services to a parent that are tailored to resolve the issue that led to the family separation. Currently, if a county fails to provide services within 18 month window for parents to utilize services, there is no guarantee that the courts will extend the timeline to give parents a fair chance to reunify.

An example of this issue was decided in the Supreme Court this past week in the case of Michael G. Where a family was denied additional reunification after not receiving appropriate services until the end of the 18 month window. This resulted in the permanent separation of a family that had shown positive improvements and engagement in stabilizing and favored a reunification outcome.

Currently, there is an exception to extend services for parents if they are incarcerated in the custody of eyes or seeking substance abuse counseling and cannot adequately receive or utilize services. AB 937 will apply this exception for all families seeking reunification services as long as the courts determine that it is not detrimental to the child to reunify with the family. My witnesses in Committee with me today are Julia Hannigan with Legal Dependent Services and Jodi Rogers. Thank you, first witness.

Good morning, Members of the Committee and thank you. My name is Julia Hannigan and I am Policy Director for Dependency Legal Services, which represents parents and children in child welfare proceedings in six northern and Central California counties. I also work as an attorney and I have spent a little over 10 years directly representing parents in dependency court. During this time, I have seen many clients make astonishing life changes through supportive services. I typically meet parents about 48 hours after their children have been removed.

For most of these families, this is the worst moment of their lives. I meet parents that are deep in their addiction or in the midst of a prolonged cycle of domestic violence after a successful period of reunification. I have clients that lead lives that are unrecognizable to the ones that led them to child welfare intervention. I have clients that work so hard to make changes that are necessary to create a safe home for their children and to make sure they are never separated again.

However, I have also seen the opposite. Failure to provide proper referrals to housing support, consistent visitation or proper therapeutic services can stop a parent's progress in their tracks. I have seen families forever separated because of insufficient visitation or parents who were referred to services hundreds of miles from where they lived, parents who are desperately trying to reunite. But the social worker never read the court ordered psyche Val or provided those recommended services.

AB 937 ensures that if a court does find that a social service agency has not provided reasonable services, the parents shall, in most instances, be entitled to more time to put their families back together. This will ensure that there are consequences to the agency's failure and their obligation to work towards reuniting families. And it will ensure that families that have the capacity to reunite will be given a fair opportunity to do so. Thank you for your time, and we respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you for your testimony. If we'll go to the next witness, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to be heard today. My name is Jodi Rogers. I am a mother who has navigated reunification services with my own children. If it weren't for the services that I received when my children were removed, I would not be standing here today to tell you why this support is so important to families.

I would likely still be homeless, addicted to drugs and in an abusive relationship, mentally and emotionally broken, and living without my children. My children would not have had the opportunity to watch their mother heal and grow and show them that with support we can come back stronger and better, that we can heal from our trauma and live a healthy and productive life.

With that said, I cannot begin to tell you how important support services are for parents trying to reunify with their children while facing the challenges of the child welfare system. Families heal and overcome these challenges when support is wrapped around them. Today I have the privilege of mentoring many parents in the reunification process. When support and timely services are given to these families, I see so many great changes. I see parents recover from homelessness and drug and alcohol addiction.

I see them learn to manage their mental health as well as their physical well being. I see them break the cycle of domestic violence and I see them reunite with their children and living a life that they never imagined possible. Very much like myself, I have also seen parents who have not received services that they should in the same way that I did. Without services like visitation, housing supports, drug rehab, and therapy, families won't succeed.

These supports give us the tools that we need that we didn't have before to become strong parents to our children. If reasonable services are not offered, then nothing changes. Thank you for your time and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

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

Robin Robbins, foster parent in Sonoma County, California for 20 years in support of the AB 937.

Julie McCormick, Children's Law Center of California, a proud co-sponsor of this Bill, in strong support.

Gail Yen with Root and Rebound, another proud co-sponsor in support.

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

What a common sense thing to do to make sure that if somebody needs more time, it's provided, but here, even more so to say you will provide it, unless it's counterproductive, but you will provide it. I really appreciate the language of the Bill and thank you for sharing your story. I don't know if the Bill has been moved. I've moved the Bill.

We have a motion from Ms. Reyes, second from Ms. Dixon. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. Mckinnor, you may close.

Thank you, Members and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to Human Services. As Clerk, call a roll.

[Roll Call]

Your Bill is out. Thank you. And next Bill, Ms. Mckinnor is AB 1418.

Thank you, Chair and Members. First, I would like to accept the Committee amendments and would like to thank the Chair and his staff for all of their work on this Bill as well.

AB 1418 addresses local ordinances that are touted as a response to rising crime and encourage and oftentimes require landlords to evict tenants based on allegations of criminal activity, even if those allegations do not lead to a conviction or even an arrest. The US Department has recognized that these policies perpetuate residential segregation. These ordinance are often adopted in communities that have seen a recent increase in the black and Latinx population, even while crime rates have decreased.

These ordinances also often penalize people seeking help from the police or other emergency services. A call for help for a domestic dispute or a mental health crisis can trigger a requirement that a landlord evict someone. Often police are called out to a disturbance and just the act of the police answering a call is enough under some of these local policies to be considered a nuisance and a landlord is required to evict on that basis alone.

Black residents are four times more likely to be evicted under these policies and Latinx people are 30% more likely to face eviction. 80% of these eviction under these so-called crime free housing policies are nonwhite. In California, one quarter of local governments have enacted a crime free housing ordinance. AB 1418 would prohibit a local government from enforcing or implementing an ordinance that would impose a penalty on a resident or require a landlord to evict due to contact with a law enforcement agency.

I also want to note that this bill does not prohibit a landlord from evicting a tenant due to criminal activity. This bill just clarifies that the landlord cannot be penalized for not evicting that tenant. I have here with me, Terrance Stewart with #TimeDone, who is going to speak about how these ordinance have impacted his family, and Marcos Segura, who is an attorney with the National Housing Law Project. Thank you.

Thank you. First witness.

Hello. My name is Terrance Stewart. I'm honored today to be here, to be a voice for the community. But I'm a father, I'm a husband, I'm a community member. Some people even consider me a humanitarian. And another title that I don't feel like I should have for the rest of my life is I'm a person living with a past eviction. And what I want more than anything in this world is to be safe. And that's what housing do. Housing provides safety for people.

It provides a shelter, protection, a place of security mentally. Some apartments even have gyms and recreational centers, dog parks. And that's safety to me. But because of my record and these crime free housing policies, me and my family, what we have faced is homelessness. And not just me, but my wife, my child, and who had never committed a crime in their life. And then on top of that, we can't even feel safe because if we call the police, we're at risk of being evicted.

So overarchingly, I just want to be safe. And by ridding ourselves of these ordinates, it increases my safety.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, esteemed Committee Members. My name is Marcos Segura, Staff Attorney with the National Housing Law Project. The policies that Assembly Member McKinnor and Mr. Stewart talked about accomplish the discriminatory and displacing effect through sweeping provisions that go well beyond addressing actual crime and nuisance activity.

For example, Fresno's crime-free nuisance ordinance defines nuisance in incredibly broad terms, including causing annoyance or discomfort to an ordinary person of normal sensitivities and the disruption of the character of the community. So these terms are capable of interpretations that may well include perfectly lawful activities that are neither a crime or a nuisance. Riverside's nuisance ordinance prohibits loud and unruly behavior, which defines to include domestic violence without distinguishing between a perpetrator and a victim for purposes of liability.

Riverside's ordinance also makes landlord and or tenants liable for the cost of what they call extraordinary police service, which may include a single response by multiple officers, no matter the underlying reason for the call.

Fremont and Murrieta have what they call 'crime-free programs', and those programs require or encourage the use of a crime-free lease addendum that requires a person's eviction that occurs either on or off the property, whether there's a conviction or even where there is no conviction, where there is no arrest or even a formal charge.

So these types of policies are the types of policies this bill will eliminate, policies that are sweeping, untethered from their stated purpose of fighting crime and nuisance behavior, and that are designed to displace communities deemed undesirable for arbitrary and discriminatory reasons. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee may have for me.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Deborah Roth, Disability Rights California. Also here on behalf of ACLU, California Action CRC is a proud co sponsor of the Bill and ACLU is in support of the Bill. Thank you.

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

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read & Associates, representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association in support. Thank you.

Gail Yen with Root & Rebound, a proud co-sponsor of this bill, in support.

Tina Rosales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud co-sponsor, in support.

Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, a proud co-sponsor, in support. Also in support for the Centro Legal De La Raza, the Coalition for Economic Survival, the Inner City Law Center, Legal Aid of Marin, Legal Aid of Sonoma County, PolicyLink, Project Sentinel, the Public Law Center, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, the Public Interest Law Project, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, Public Counsel, Legal Aid of Marin, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes.

I want to begin first by welcoming my dear friend Terrance Stewart. It's so good to have Riverside in the house. Thank you for sharing who you are. I think other titles that would be given to you would be leader and mentor and protector. So many other titles. So I appreciate so much that you provided your testimony here today, being able to, and I appreciate that the Apartment Owners Association is also voicing their support for the bill.

They don't want to have to evict, but when you have ordinances that give a path for eviction, that becomes a problem. So with that, I would move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Mr. Haney. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. McKinnor, you may close.

Yes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I would like to thank you also, Terrance, for being a protector of your family.

So we have a motion, due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Ms. Petrie-Norris. Ms. Petrie Norris is presenting AB 1027.

Hello. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members, happy to be here today to present AB 1027.

I think everyone goes without saying that everyone in this room recognizes the urgency of the fentanyl crisis. We all want to do something about it. And the bill before you today, AB 1027 aims to be part of the solution. AB 1027 will be part of the solution by enacting storage requirements for social media companies. And I want to thank the Chair and your Committee staff for working with my team on this bill and happy to accept the Committee's recommended amendments.

And I guess, before I jump in, let me just take a minute to kind of frame the problem statement and then provide some context around why we think that the solution proposed in the bill is an important step forward. So, fentanyl. The fentanyl crisis has become the most deadly and dangerous drug in the world. Just two milligrams of fentanyl is enough to kill. So that's two grains of sand. And in 2020, almost 4,000 Californians died because of fentanyl poisoning.

That is a 1,551% increase in a four year period. And we're really seeing two disturbing trends that have dramatically escalated the dangers of the fentanyl crisis. So the first is the deceptive use of fentanyl in counterfeit pills. So people think that they are buying an OxyContin or a Percocet or you name it, and it's laced with fentanyl. In some cases, it's pure fentanyl. And then the second trend that we're seeing is the use of social media to traffic these pills to our kids.

And so we have just heard, I think all of us have heard heartbreaking stories in our own communities of parents whose kids thought they were buying a Percocet and ended up buying a fentanyl pill, and tragically lost their lives. So we've seen that dealers have capitalized on the easy communication anonymity. My God, that's a hard word. Of social media sites target preteens, teens, and unhoused views.

Some social media platforms have chat settings that are designed to erase history after just a few hours, which makes it difficult and actually kind of impossible for law enforcement to actually investigate crimes, investigate deaths, and prosecute online fentanyl traffickers. So AB 1027 simply would require social media companies to keep a record of communications for a minimum of seven days. And this really will provide law enforcement with critical information that can help with their investigations.

We're asking social media companies to step up to do a little bit more and be our partners as we all engage in this fight and continue to work to combat the functional crisis. So pleased to be joined today by Chris Didier, who is the Executive Director of VOID, and Carl Dosland, the narcotics investigator with the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Thank you. First witness.

Thank you again. My name is Carl Dosland. I am a narcotics investigator with the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

I'm here on behalf of Sheriff Don Barnes, who is in support of this bill and expresses his gratitude for the introduction of it. And the sheriff has said many times in the past that he believes the fentanyl epidemic is one of our nation's most significant health and safety concerns. And I fully agree with that.

I have seen firsthand and worked in the field and witnessed the rise of fentanyl, from merely not existing at all to having become one of the most common and deadly drugs out there today. Fentanyl has completely, almost completely replaced heroin, and it's involved in almost every investigation we have in our caseload right now. Just in the last few years, the lethality of fentanyl has really opened our eyes.

In 2016, the Orange County coroner reported, I believe, 37 fentanyl related deaths, and in 2021, that number was up to 717. Also for the year of 2021, unfortunately, fentanyl related overdose was the number one cause of death reported by the Orange County coroner in those 17 and younger. And unfortunately, the truth is that social media is so prevalent with ease of access and availability of modern technologies such as smartphones, and if I can do it, guarantee any high schooler can do it as well.

I've personally worked several investigations involving social media. Specifically, the DEA has investigated just last year, between the months of May and September, about 390 drug related overdose cases, and found that about a third of those were directly tied to social media. And again, the investigations that I have personally been a part of or conducted involve simply identifying accounts and ordering narcotics to assisting homicide details with overdose death cases.

The problem that we are coming across is the retention of records and availability of records by these companies. Companies such as Snap incorporated only retain 24 hours worth, but that's just simply not enough. Usually that 24 hours has come and gone before an investigator is even able to submit any legal process to those companies. So again, thank you for your time. I'm here on behalf of Sheriff Barnes, who asked for your support.

Next witness.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Chris Didier. I'm a Member of Void and I'm grateful to speak to you today. Two days after Christmas, I found my youngest son, Zach, appearing to be asleep in his bedroom but not breathing. Losing a child from a danger we had not heard of before is an unspeakable loss. Zach was sold a fake prescription pill through Snapchat. Despite having no history of drug use, Zach died from fentanyl poisoning at the age 17. Zach and others were sold deadly fake pills advertised as harmless Percocet.

Many social media platforms give the appearance of a safe veneer of a trustworthy app that's entertaining. However, features like screenshot protection, self destruction messages, and encryption make social media activity both ephemeral and protected. These features have helped build a patchwork drug cartel, making cell phones a superhighway for illicit drug trafficking. These unregulated designs make it rife for dangerous content that only bolsters nefarious activity. The safe harbor of Section 230 C of the Communications Decency Act disincentivizes the adoption of safe features.

The hubris of Big Tech, believing that they are shielded from liability, prevents companies from implementing appropriate safeguards. Car making companies wouldn't invest in seatbelts or airbags unless NHTSA imposes crash test requirements or food retailers wouldn't invest in stores processing or proper labeling unless the FDA imposes handling codes and regulations. Current law is never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully facilitate harmful content. Public Law 115-164 is a clear example that prohibits online sex trafficking.

In conclusion, a person died seven minutes ago from illicit fentanyl in our country. Clearly, there is a needed inflection point with social media that levy accountability for both harmful content and not complying with court authorized subpoenas. Please support AB 1027. Thank you for your consideration and your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. We're all very sorry for your loss. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

We use pretty sophisticated automated systems in order to detect it and pick up on traffickers' activities as well. So that we're not just relying on user reports, although we do allow users the ability to report unlawful activity on our platforms and then follow up on it. So we are very much looking forward to being partners in this conversation and trying to make progress on this issue.

And so to that end, we greatly appreciate the recent amendments that remove the strict liability provisions and to limit enforcement on the retention section to public prosecutors. So we think this Bill is trending in the right direction, that'll enable a more productive conversation, not just between social media platforms, but between our law enforcement partners, civil society and this Legislature. So again, we can continue making progress on this issue. I will just quickly highlight a couple of concerns that we still have with the retention issue.

And I think when we're talking about these things, there are a few values that are somewhat intention. So when we're talking about increasing security and safety on platforms, we may be talking about reducing privacy. And so one thing that our platforms have tried to do in response to privacy concerns, both from our users, but also this Legislature is to incorporate more features that protects their information and their data. That, in part, is through encrypted messaging.

So only the recipient and the sender of that message are able to access that information. When a message is encrypted, it's physically impossible for us to access that content. So with the retention requirements in this Bill, if we can't access an encrypted message, then we're liable for not being able to turn that over. And I think that's something that should be considered when we're moving forward and having these difficult conversations around.

As we increase safety and security, we may be asking platforms to roll back some of those privacy concerns. So just wanted to highlight that. Very much looking forward to continuing the conversation and appreciate the work of the author and this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair Members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, also in opposition.

Margaret Gladstein, on behalf of NetChoice, also in opposition.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Dixon.

Just for my own edification, is there any law, state or federal, that is attempting to limit this illegal activity on the Internet? Is there law?

So a lot of this really is within the purview of the federal government and is within federal jurisdiction. Kind of the limitations on what is happening on the sites themselves. And I would say that there is a lot of conversation going on right now on the hill, and actually our witness probably can comment more about it, because I think that there has been a recognition nationally that kind of the current free-for-all is not working.

But that's not for us to say, nor is that kind of within the scope of this Bill. But right now, no, there are no limitations.

There's no existing law that would accomplish half of what you're trying to.

No, what we're trying to do is find something, a step that we can take within the purview of the state, within our jurisdiction, to simply say, well, let's at least store the information so that when someone dies, we're able to actually access that information when law enforcement trying to conduct their investigations.

Yeah, you mentioned something. Now, do you represent the entire industry or your company, or what's your role in the industry?

So our Trade Association represents about 100 companies in the tech and innovation space. Many of them are social media and online providers.

And you mentioned the liability issue, that if the messages or whatever, the communication is encrypted, there's no way that you could access that. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. So currently, under the Bill, we're required to retain not only all communication, like a record of all the communications that happened, but also the content of those communications. And so as we interpret the language, if a message is encrypted, we very literally do not have the content of that message. And so we cannot turn that over even if it's requested. And so that would be a barrier to us complying with the law, even in good faith.

Is that something, Assemblymember, that you've considered? And how are you considering that?

So we have had conversations with industry stakeholders and certainly, obviously we're not going to ask you to do something that's actually impossible. And so one of the things that we're committed to doing is with some of your member companies and some of our key law enforcement stakeholders, bringing everyone around a table to determine for that set of communications. So the encrypted messages, how can we accomplish the goal within the realm of what is actually.

So you're willing to do it?

Yes.

And then for law enforcement, is this the only tool that has existed in present time to really go after enforcement and having this period of time to go after and look at that investigation that will facilitate your investigation?

Absolutely.

All right. I move this Bill. Thank you.

Motion from Ms. Dixon. Second from Ms. Reyes. Mr. Haney?

Well, first of all, Ms. Petrie-Norris, thank you so much for your leadership and for tackling this with real solutions. It's terrifying. And I'm so sorry for your loss. And I really commend you for taking on this challenge of addressing the fact that for many people, and especially young people, they're accessing these deadly drugs online, they're being tricked, they're being preyed upon. And so we absolutely need solutions in this space. And so I will be supporting the Bill and moving it forward.

I do have some concerns, particularly related to privacy, on issues that don't relate at all to fentanyl. If people are sending private message that they believe to be encrypted, if they are discussing things that are sensitive for a variety of reasons, and I think that they should be able to do that.

And also the issue of keeping data for seven days, particularly data that has nothing to do with fentanyl or private messages, that's something that I just hope that we can look at further and really target in on protecting young people, protecting people and making sure that we can hold people accountable who are committing crimes around this particular area. So thank you so much for your leadership and for working on these issues, and I'll be supporting it today.

Well, thank you for that. And thank you for, yes, thank you for your comments. Certainly committed to continuing to work on that and make sure that we thread that needle. And I will also note that certainly nothing in this Bill changes the standards in terms of what's required to access any data. So in most instances, you have to actually obtain a search warrant, and certainly none of that will change.

The goal of the Bill, really, is simply to ensure that once people have gone through that burden of proof past those hurdles, that there's actually something at the end of that tunnel. Right. Rather than just a big black hole.

Any other questions? Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Papan?

I just want to dovetail a little bit on Assemblymember Haney. First of all, I'm sorry for your loss. I'm a mother of a 17 year old girl, and it frightens me. So I thank you for being here and having the courage to be here. I'm a little worried about the privacy thing, especially as it relates to other states who don't have similar laws to ours, who have laws that I might object to, and I don't want them to get at this information.

So if you could work at some point, I'll be voting for it. I know this is coming up on privacy, so that's why I had some reservations when we communicated about it. But I do want to ask one thing of the opposition. It is, however, if something is encrypted, you may still get the metadata of, there was a communication between X and Y on a certain date. Do I have that right?

Apologies for the awkward setup of this group. Yes, I believe we would have the record of that, but we wouldn't have the content of the message.

I got you. But if it's some black market sales for an innocuous Percocet, and we know that some child had a communication with that purveyor, you could at least provide that. I think it's called metadata information, right?

Yeah, I believe we would have that record, correct.

Okay. That's what I just wanted to clarify. So I'll see you in privacy. Thank you.

I want to begin first by the opposition. Thank you. You talked about the fact that we're all on the same page. We do want to be able to protect, especially our minors who are accessing something that is so important to them, and that's the Internet. That's always a good start, and I'm glad you started there. I, too, am very sorry for your loss and do appreciate that you are lending your voice to make sure that the rest of us get to see how serious this is.

I think that clearly it's a response to a desperate measure, to the desperate issue. We are desperate. We're trying to find solutions to something that's just affecting all of us. If it hasn't affected somebody personally, it will. I think the statistics that I heard in another informational hearing. Something, and I'd like to go back to what my colleague, Mr. Haney, was saying.

In law, as attorneys, we know that if we want to present evidence, but we don't want the other side to see the contents of it until somebody has decided whether or not it relates to the case, you take it to the judge in camera and the judge reviews it, determines. Now, if this Bill would require you to not encrypt until after seven days, is that something that is potentially possible?

Thank you for the question. This is where I'll plead that I'm not a computer scientist nor an engineer on the technical aspects of this. So I don't know if.

Neither am I, you can tell by the question.

That is something I'd have to follow up on and get back to you. I will say, though, I think the purpose of encrypting it in the first place when the message is sent is to give assurance to both the sender and the recipient that it can't be accessed either in transit or at any point along the line. And I think if there's a waiting period, it somewhat undercuts the value of that protection.

But I would have to circle back on whether it's something you can do later or if it has to be done at a point in time.

So then we'll be stuck with then the only evidence will be for those seven days, as my colleague has said, is you will know that there was a communication between A and B? We don't have the contents, but we know there's a communication, right?

I believe so. And to the extent that we do have information that we can share with our law enforcement partners currently or figure out ways to improve that information sharing, I think we're very open and very willing to have that conversation. Because, like I said, we want to make sure that not only are reports of this type of content getting removed from the platform, but that they're actionable afterwards. Right?

That law enforcement is able to follow up, because we can keep playing whack a mole all day and removing these traffickers from our sites, but if they're not being followed up in the real world and they're not leading to prosecutions, we're going to be playing a lot of whack mole.

And they'll use a different address next time. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Connolly?

Yeah. Quick follow up to that, and I appreciate the Bill coming forward. Why the seven days?

What's the magic number on seven days? That was the recommendation from the Orange County Sheriff's office. So perhaps you can elucidate why, t's better than zero days.

It's definitely better than zero days. And, yeah. I, too, apologize for the setup of this room. No, the reality of the situation is when we look at cases involving overdoses--and particularly overdoses that result in death--24 hours, which is the standard retention period for some companies like Snapchat, before a communication occurs, 24 hours goes by and then all record of that communication is erased.

Really, any more time after that is just going to exponentially increase our chances of being able to identify who is responsible for selling that substance to the individual who passed away. If there is a specific reason for the seven days exactly, I am not sure. I cannot answer to that exactly.

But I do say seven days is enough time for law enforcement to at least have the case go from the responding officer to an investigator's file where they can actually start working leads and potentially have success.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Petrie-Norris, thanks for this Bill. And I think the Committee has recognized what we're focused here on is sort of the legal issues and the issues under the purview of the Committee, particularly on preemption, which I know the Committee amendments have addressed. These other issues are very important. I think all of us have concerns on them, and I know they're going to be addressed in the Privacy Committee moving forward.

I also do, this issue is unprecedented in all of our lifetimes. I mean, the deadliness of fentanyl, as you said, essentially two grains of sand. And then for all of us also having teen children, it is so scary that just somebody could simply give them a Tylenol and it could be laced with something else. The unknowing nature of what they're consuming is just so utterly terrifying. So happy that we're attempting to address that.

This is one Bill attempting to address that and pleased that we're getting a chance to support this today. So with that, you may close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for those comments. And as you said, certainly as a mom, the fentanyl crisis terrifies me. Right? It is the kind of thing that I think keeps all of us up at night. And as legislators, I know that I am and that you are, and so many of us are absolutely committed to doing something about it. And this is certainly not the entirety of the solution.

But I do believe that this is an important piece of the puzzle and appreciate the willingness of opposition to work with us to engage and really to be partners. Because the reality is we need everyone marching in the same direction if we are going to make progress and actually keep our kids safe online. So with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion, do passed Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. I ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. Thank you.

We are crushing it today, Committee. We are getting through this. Next up is Mr. Santiago, Item 12: AB 1344.

Move the bill.

We have a motion on the bill, Mr. Santiago, and we have a--by Ms. Reyes. We have a second by Mr. Kalra.

Yeah, I think the hint is pretty clear, Mr. Chair, so I will move briefly if that's okay with the Chair.

Yes.

And I think our witnesses will also move briefly because we got the message. In its simplest terms, AB 1344 will establish a state fund survivors benefit program for children who have lost parents or who are ineligible for the federal OASDI program, while increasing awareness for both programs.

The basic gist of it is there is a federal program for survivors who have lost a parent, but those survivors would not be covered if the parents or the guardian was in an informal economy or was undocumented. And we want to set up a state program to capture those many children in many cases and survivors who don't have a safety net otherwise, in its simplest terms, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

First witness.

Good morning. My name is Devon Gray. I'm the President of End Poverty in California or EPIC, for short. We're an advocacy group that was founded last year by former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs. Our work is focused on centering the experiences and voices of those who are living in poverty closest to the issue, and advocating for the types of bold solutions that we need to ultimately eradicate poverty in the state.

So I'm honored to be speaking in support of AB 1344 to urge you all to make CalSurvivor a reality. I think the question before us today is relatively simple. Will the state show up to provide some financial supports for every child who has experienced what really is an unimaginable loss of losing a parent or guardian at an unnaturally young age? Or will we allow certain children to slip through the cracks?

Social Security provides central monthly payments to a variety of beneficiaries, including families and young folks who have lost a breadwinner to an untimely death. So currently, our eligibility requirements mean that thousands of children in California whose parents worked and contributed to the wealth of this state are ineligible, unable to receive the kinds of financial supports that would allow them to plan for and have hope in the future.

And thanks this antiquated eligibility system, kids are being left out of the safety net at a time when they need our help the most. So I think it's time for California to step in and support every child going through this unimaginable loss, especially the more than 20,000 kids in the state who experienced that loss during the Covid-19 pandemic, many of whom had parents who were essential workers working low-wage jobs that continued despite the pandemic shutdowns.

I think it's worth saying that in recent years, we've seen a lot of progress on the front of making our benefit systems more inclusive to groups that have been historically excluded from these programs.

While we have many more work to do on this, and this bill would certainly be a step in the right direction, I think it's worth recognizing that this progress that we've made in recent years is only necessary because in past decades, we designed these programs to essentially deem some beneficiaries deserving and other groups, though similarly situated, undeserving.

And this falsehood, I think, is particularly harmful when we're talking about children, and in particular children who are already economically vulnerable and those who are going through a truly worst-case scenario for them early on in life, and we're setting them up for a disadvantage if we don't step in to level the playing field for them. So with that, I want to thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Andrew Cheyne with GRACE End Child Poverty California. Look, I'll be brief. I just want to remark that this is long overdue, that for too long, the federal government has set up this system in which we have children whose parents have paid into Social Security, but because they're farm workers, because they're domestic workers, because they may not have enough credits, they haven't worked long enough before their untimely death because they're doing the type of work that takes them from us too quickly.

And I just want to commend Mr. Santiago, and it sounds like this body is prepared to move forward on legislation to address that. California must and can be a space where we say that this is unacceptable, that we're going to do right by these kids, and this is a critical tool to help close the racial wealth gap. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Santiago, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

[Roll Call].

Your bill is out.

Thank you.

So we have one bill left, which is the omnibus. I will present that, Ms. Reyes, if you would chair, but I do want to call on all Members of the Committee to please come to the Committee. As soon as this bill is done, we will keep the roll open for a very brief time to let everybody add on, but everybody who is not here, this is the call on them to get here while we present this.

Mr. Maienschein, when you are ready, we'll present the omnibus bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Assembly Bill AB 1756 is the Judiciary Committee Civil Law Omnibus Bill, contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of this community, thus saving us from hearing at least a dozen bills. You are all welcome.

Among the provisions, this bill renames a program and associated fund at the Department of Justice, provides relief for lower income Californians filing government claims act cases, clarifies several provisions of law related to consumer auto debt, and this bill also modifies adoption law to help foster families pass on inheritance to former foster youth. Again, all of the changes in the bill are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature. The bill has no opposition and respectfully request an aye vote.

I'd like to confirm, Mr. Chair, do you accept the amendments to the Committee?

I do. They're well thought out, as usual.

Thank you. We thought so, too. Great Committee here. Any witnesses in support?

Madam Chair and Members, Cliff Costa, on behalf of the California Judges Association, in support, would like to thank the Committee, and the Committee.

Hold on. We really want to make sure it gets recorded. One more time, Mr. Costa.

One more time. Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association and strong support. We appreciate the Chair and the Committee for working with us about. I think half of the omnibus bills are requests from the California Judges Association. So we appreciate that. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Would you please take the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Is there a motion?

[Roll Call]

Okay, now we will go through and do add ons. We'll start with the consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Item number one. We'll just go in order. Item number one, AB 12, Haney.

[Roll Call]

Item number two, AB 36, Gabriel.

[Roll Call]

Item number three, ask the Clerk to open on AB 323, Holden.

[Roll Call]

Four, AB 432, Fong. We're lifting the call.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Item number five, AB 560, Bennett. Lifting the call.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Item number six, AB 779, Wilson. Lifting the call.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Item number seven, AB 893, Papan.

[Roll Call]

Item number eight, AB 937, McKinnor. Ask Clerk to open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Item number nine, AB 1027, Petrie-Norris.

[Roll Call]

Item 10, AB 1079, Jackson. We're lifting the call.

[Roll Call]

Dixon, it's number 10, AB 1079, Jackson.

[Roll Call]

Bill is out. Item number 11, AB 1339, Haney.

[Roll Call]

Item number 12, AB 1344, Santiago.

[Roll Call]

Item number 13, AB 1414, Kalra.

[Roll Call]

1414, Kalra. You're well trained, Mr. Kalra. You heard your name and you immediately went to aye. And that's good. You and Mr. McCarty just know instantly. Item number 14, AB 1418, Mckinnor, item number 15, AB 1756, Judiciary Committee. Okay, thank you all very much. Well done everyone. We'll keep the hold the roll open until--give Mr. Essayli another few minutes to get over here. Okay, we'll start. We'll open the roll for Mr. Essayli. Consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

This meeting is adjourned.