Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. We are going to, for those of you who are in attendance or watching, we're going to begin as a Subcommitee. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8216, and the access code is 621-7161. We're holding our Committee hearings in the O Street building.

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in Room 2100 so we can establish quorum and begin our hearing in full. As I mentioned, we will begin as a Subcommitee. Before we hear presentation on any bills... Well, let's skip that. We have three items on the Consent Calendar today. Those items are file item number 2, SB 428 by Senator Blakespear, with amendments. File item number 8, SB 75, by Senator Roth. And finally, file item number 12, SB 80, by Senator Laird.

All right. I want to note that for each bill, we allow two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness will get two minutes to speak. After the support and opposition witnesses have spoken, we will have heard, and we've heard from all the Me toos. The Me toos are those who express their support or opposition, give us their name and their organization. Then we'll turn to phone testimony. We'll hear from both support and opposition on the phone testimony at the same time.

There'll be a 15 minutes limit on phone testimony. For those on the phone, please limit your testimony, again, to your name, affiliation, position. If you wish to further expound on your position, you can submit a letter to the Committee. Contrary to conventional wisdom, most of us can read. Now we hear from our first author. Are you objecting to that? Somebody objected to... If our lips move, that does happen on occasion. We have Senator Atkins. If you would like to present SB 487, the floor is yours.

Well, thank you. I'm going to hope this is on. It is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleagues. I am here, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present SB 487. And to put it simply, this bill is needed to help protect providers who provide abortion and gender affirming care to people from out of state from additional sanctions that could be imposed.

We've worked hard to ensure reproductive health care is protected in California, and unfortunately, this is not what is occurring across other states and across this country. The aftermath of the Dobbs decision overruling Roe not only eliminated 50 years of reproductive freedom, but it also encouraged states to enact their own bans and restrictions, with many passing laws to target providers. While many of the states with abortion bans do have limited exceptions, providers are becoming increasingly wary and discouraged from entering the reproductive health field.

And with a shortage of access to care in other states, California is seeing people who need abortion care coming to our state because they can't find a provider or they can't find anyone willing to take the risk in their home state. We're also seeing some of our providers traveling to other states to provide abortion care services where needed.

And the purpose of SB 487 is to protect California health care providers who are willing to take risk by providing abortion care and gender affirming care in other states from additional sanctions, as well as providers who provide those services in California for people from out of state. The bill, in essence, would shield providers from retaliation and repercussions so that there is no disruption in their ability to perform abortion care in California, where abortion care is legal and enshrined in our state constitution.

SB 487 is also narrowly crafted and in no way limits or restricts our important consumer protections or the ability of the Medi-Cal program to terminate providers for other non-abortion related health care reasons. So I think most of you know, I did manage clinic services at a women's health center more than 30 years ago. From that perspective and experience, I've come to appreciate how important it is to support our providers of abortion care services.

And SB 447 does just that. 487 does just that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I'm happy to take comments and questions. And with me today, Mr. Chairman, are two speakers I'd like to introduce to testify and support, Dr. Tanya Spirtos, President-elect of the California Medical Association and also a practicing OBGYN, and Lisa Matsubara, who is the Vice President of Policy and General Counsel of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Thank you, Madam pro tem. The floor is yours, Doctor. I understand we're going to alter what I had mentioned a moment ago. You're going to have three minutes, and the follow on witness will have one.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, Chair Umberg and the Members of this Committee for allowing me to present testimony today. My name is Dr. Tanya Spirtos. I am a board certified obstetrician gynecologist, practicing at Stanford Healthcare. I'm here representing the California Medical Association, which is co-sponsoring Senate Bill 487. SB 487 expands protection against civil actions from another state's law being applied to reproductive healthcare clinicians licensed in California.

It ensures that California's providers can continue to care for patients without the fear of another state's laws interfering with their ability to serve people in California, whether on Medi-Cal or privately insured. As a physician who provides reproductive health care services, I can say with certainty that the protections SB 487 provides are of utmost importance. As you all know, we have recently seen unprecedented legislation attacking reproductive rights and gender affirming care throughout the US.

Because of these types of laws, we are confident even more out of state patients will seek care from California's providers. 29% of women in the United States of reproductive age are living in states where abortion is either unavailable or severely restricted. Half of the states are certain or likely to eventually enact abortion bans now that Roe versus Wade has been overturned. We see the effects of limiting access to abortion and reproductive care.

Patients are forced to travel hundreds or thousands of miles or delay their care, or face financial difficulties and time away from work just to undergo simple and safe medical procedures. Yet there are untold numbers of patients who do not have the ability to leave their state to seek care and are ultimately forced to continue pregnancies that may be threats to their health and safety. Seven states have introduced legislation criminalizing a patient or a provider for performing or obtaining an abortion.

My patients come to me with a need for a service I can expertly provide. I will never interrogate my patients about their state of origin, and I know my colleagues treat their patients with the same respect. Out of state legislation that threatens our license to practice and credentialing as providers puts California practitioners at risk. Abortion care and gender affirming care are essential healthcare services. California has already done so much to be a safe haven and destination state for protecting reproductive freedom.

SB 487 builds upon the state's achievements by expanding the protections for its abortion and gender affirming care providers. I'm honored to serve my patients, but I can only continue to do this safely with the appropriate protections. Please allow my colleagues and I the peace of mind to focus on the patients sitting in front of us every day and to provide them with the quality health care they deserve. Help us protect access to health care, access to abortion care in California by voting yes on Senate Bill 487. Thank you.

Thank you, doctor. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and Members of the Committee. My name is Lisa Matsubara. I am the General Counsel and Vice President of Policy at Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We represent seven Planned Parenthood affiliates throughout the state who operate over 100 health centers and provide over 1.3 million patient visits annually. I'm here today in support of SB 487 that builds on the protections for California's health care providers put into place by this Legislature last year.

Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe, abortion providers and their patients are facing an uncertain landscape, with efforts in other states to ban and criminalize abortion, a safe, essential, and common health care service. At the same time, transgender, non-conforming, and non-binary people are also facing an onslaught of hostile laws passed by many of these same states, including laws banning healthcare services related to gender affirming care.

Unfortunately, it's become clear that California must do everything we can to ensure that patients can continue to access compassionate and evidence based health care here in the state and protect those who provide that care. SB 487 does just that. This bill further shields providers from the impacts of hostile laws in other states. Thank you to Senator Atkins and for all of your continued support to ensure that California is a reproductive freedom state. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Before others have to move on to other committees, let's establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

[Roll Call] You have quorum.

We have a quorum. All right, let's now turn to those who are present. One second, sir. One second, sir. All right, those who are present in support, if you'd approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs district nine, co-sponsors on the measure, in support.

Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Erin Evans on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California and the California Nurse Midwives Association, both in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a co-sponsor, in strong support. I've also been authorized to provide support for the following organizations today, Equal Rights Advocates, National Council of Jewish Women California, MYA Network, San Francisco Black and Jewish Unity Coalition, American Nurses Association California, and the American Association of University Women California. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. Opposition lead witnesses, if you're here in the room, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Anybody here who wishes to provide me too opposition. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Moderator, if we could turn to the phone lines for both support and opposition to SB 487.

If you would like to provide public comments in support or opposition to SB 487, please press one, then zero at this time. That command, again, one, then zero. And we have no comments at this time.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions? Yes, Senator Ashby.

I just want to thank pro tem Atkins for bringing the item forward and to the witnesses who took time to come in. Senator Atkins, I'd be happy to be a co-author and, at the appropriate time, to make the motion.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Ashby moves the bill. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments. Madam pro tem, care to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you for your patience. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is for SB 487. The motion is do pass to the Senate Rules Committee. [Roll Call] Four to one.

All right, madam ... will put that on call. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next up is file item number three, SB 490. But while we're waiting for Senator Bradford, he may be in public safety. Let us go ahead and take up the consent calendar.

So moved.

Senator Wilk. Moves the consent calendar. All right, Madam Secretary, recall the role.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]. 4 to 0 on the consent calendar.

Votes. 4 to 0 on the consent calendar. We'll put that on call. All right, let's see. Senator Bradford is not present. I think he's in public safety. Senator Dodd, file item number four, SB 296. Senator Durazo is here and ready. Okay, perfect. All right, let's hear from Senator Durazo.

I believe that's SB 27, file item number 11. SB 27. Whenever you're ready, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. And thank the Members and the Committee staff for all of your help. SB 27 creates an ability for employees to recover their earned but unpaid wages. The University of California's equal pay for equal work policy requires vendor companies that have one of the estimated 400 service contracts with UC to pay their company employees the wages and benefits equal to what UC pays the service workers it directly employs.

While the UC has responded to an earlier version of the Bill last year by initiating an audit process, the impacted workers are still left with no way to recover earned but unpaid wages. To address this problem, the Bill requires vendors to supply the UC and the appropriate Joint Labor Management Committee, basic payroll information necessary and any audit outcomes to know if a vendor is actually abiding by UC policy.

The Bill also requires a vendor to supply a written notice to their employees about the relevant compensation rates. Each worker will be told how much they should be paid. The Bill would also allow a contracting vendor company an opportunity to correct and to cure any discrepancies before facing any consequence.

If an employer still refuses to comply with the UC Equal Pay for Equal Work Policy or correct and cure employees would then have the right to pursue recovery of their earned but unpaid wages from the contracting vendor in court. The Bill advances the strides UC continues to make towards third party vendor compliance. It will not interfere with the UC's hiring ability, but it does address the problem that has not been addressed of workers getting their money, the money they earned but has been unpaid. My witness today is Monica De Leon with AFSCME 3299.

All right.

Taking her place. Okay, Mr. Chair, is that?

Sure that's fine. Go ahead and give us your name.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Avant. I'm Executive Vice President of AFSCME 3299. I'm here on behalf of the service workers, cleaning toilets, cutting grass, picking up trash, cooking food, and cleaning the hospital bed pins, helping to make UC one of the greatest education, research and public medical institution run and succeed. I'm advocating for workers who have no protection if they were to speak out today in fear of retaliation.

These colleagues work alongside UC, but who works for the third party vendors and companies doing business with UC. These workers need the recovery time of earned but unpaid wages. Because they need the money and you can help them get it. UC has a policy entitled Equal Pay for Equal Work. That means for service work being performed at UC by outside vendors. Those workers should get the same pay and benefits that UC employees like me receive. UC has made strides in implementing that policy.

We applaud the progress, but UC has acknowledged that they are often left to rely on vendors about actual wages and benefits being paid since these vendors employ the workers. UC adopted a recent audit procedure. However, this ... procedure won't get to the fundamental problem. It won't give workers a way to recover their earned but unpaid wages and benefits. This Bill will fix the problem.

In human terms, SB 27 means the difference of getting their child a backpack for school, putting gas in a car, paying their utility bills or rent. This Bill is fair, but the workers and their employees, before a worker can pursue recovery time of unpaid wages and benefits, their employer will have an opportunity to cure and correct the shortfall. If the vendor refuses to cure and correct, then a worker is permitted to recover their earned but unpaid wages in court. We ask for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Other witnesses in support.

Mr. Chair, Members Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, Members Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Member Sandra Brera, on behalf of SCIU California in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. Anyone here in opposition? If you're here in opposition, please approach the microphone, floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Senator and Mr. Chair and Senators Rosanna Carvacci Elliott, sorry. I just ran down here representing Fidelity Investments. We are unfortunately in an opposed, unless amended position. I would like to thank the Senator and her staff for the continued conversations. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and your staff for recognizing in the analysis that the Bill scope is larger and unfortunately pulls in Fidelity Investments with the way the definition of services and vendor are drafted.

So we're hopeful that we can have the Bill drafted and take some amendments to narrow the scope so that it is not applying to Fidelity Investments. Fidelity Investments, the services that are provided for the University of California are investment management services. So I don't think that is the intended scope. And with that, I would just like to again thank the author. Hopefully we can reach some type of agreement and go neutral on this Bill. And thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition.

Michael Bedard, on behalf of the University of California, we don't have a position on the Bill, but if I could take a minute to voice some concerns and conversations we've had with the author.

All right.

Appreciate, as Rosanna said, the thorough analysis by Committee staff, and to be clear, the University fully supports wage of benefit parity and the enforcement of that policy that the regents passed at the end of 2019. We're working with AFSCME to provide the information they need to enforce these provisions in their contracts as well. Our concerns are similar to last year. We're working with our suppliers to understand the impact this measure would have on our ability to fully staff our hospitals and campuses.

There's a nationwide labor shortage, and we see sometimes up to 15% to 20% vacancy rates. So if there's a chilling effect where vendors are afraid to work with the University for fear of the litigation, that becomes a challenge for us operationally. We also have concerns, as the analysis points out, that the scope is too broad in the definitions of services and contracts, and we have 37 other bargaining units, 35 of which don't have a wage and benefit parity policy.

So getting some clarity there, and conversations with the author has indicated that's not the intent. So hopefully we can fix that in the near future. And finally, I would mention, as the author said, we are working on our audit that should be available to the public and to all of you on April 15. When we see what, if any, compliance gaps and enforcement gaps exist from the audit, I think we'll be able to have a more complete conversation about what, if any, remedies are necessary in statute. Thanks.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator if you would queue up those in support and opposition to SB 27.

To provide public comment. In support or opposition to SB 27, please press one, then zero at this time. And we have one comment coming through. One moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. And now we'll go to line 34. Please go ahead.

Hello, Cassie Mancini. On behalf of the California School Employees Association and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

All right, let me bring it back to Committee questions by Committee Members. Yes, Senator Min.

Thank the author for this. I think it's an important Bill, but I just wanted to follow up on some of the opposition. It states in our analysis, your intent is not to sweep up vendors like Fidelity. And I assume it's safe to presume that you will continue working, as you always have done, with stakeholders, to try to clean up the Bill as it moves forward.

Yes. Thank you, Member. We do not intend to include Fidelity or the services that they provide. It's pretty clear, I think, for us, although I understand if they have a concern they should raise it that throughout the Bill there's reference to the University policy being the way that they decide the scope of who's covered and who's not. So it's at least 6 or 7, 8 times when University policy is referred to. So I think that is an important consideration.

Fidelity is not performing the work for the University of California as covered in their policy. So in our opinion, the Bill does not apply to them. In spite of that. Yes, we'll continue to work with Fidelity and with the Committee for any kind of clarification we could give.

I appreciate that. And with that I.

1 second. Thank you, Senator Durazo. I have to attend Transportation Committee for just a few moments, so I'm going to turn over the gavel to my capable and talented colleague, Senator Wilk. I'll be back in just a little while.

Well, thank you, Senator Durazo, for that. And with that, I would move the Bill and I will be supporting it out today.

Thank you.

Senator Allen.

I've also gotten the same call from Transportation, so I got to run over there, too. But I appreciate your answer to Senator Min's questions. I think obviously, you ran a similar Bill last year that was vetoed and largely based on the idea that this audit was coming. So in some respects, the Bill is a little premature.

The flip side is, of course, the audit is coming in less than a month and you need to have a vehicle to respond to whatever issues come out of the audit. So I guess I would presume that to a large extent, the future of this Bill is going to be determined by the findings that come out of the audit. And assuming that that's the case, I'm happy to support the Bill today, but I think that audit is going to have to really help to inform where we go on this important policy area.

If I could just say something. Thank you. We appreciate that UC has taken this as another step to try to address our concerns. The audit does not address the issue of enforcement and compliance. And so while I think it's an important tool, it does not get to the fundamental issue of enforcement and compliance. And so we're hopeful to be able to move on with what really matters to those workers, and that is to get paid. Thank you.

Anything else, Senator Allen?

Okay, so could you just give me a little more clarity as to. Because it's, it's, let's see here. He was, I mean, it's a. So, so what's your, the. I guess the, the Governor had directly referred to the audit and, and the audit. Let's see, I'm just trying to read the governor's veto message here. It's ultimately about enforcing their own policies that we agreed to as part of that whole negotiation coming out of ACA 14. Right. I'm sorry. Just tell me exactly where is the audit going to be insufficient to address the policy enforcement?

The audit is not an enforcement mechanism for people who did not get paid what they should have gotten paid. So we think the audit is a good tool to have, and we applaud UC for including that. However, it does not get to the fundamental issue of getting paid for wages that they've earned but have not received payment for. Again,

the audit is going to provide data.

It's a good thing, but we still have to get to, in addition to the audit, we still have to get to the issue of paying those workers what they were not paid.

Right. Because it's the audits looking to provide data to see where there are lapses of enforcement. Right. Which is about getting people paid. Right.

Well, it will tell you who hasn't been paid. Maybe. I'm not exactly sure what's going to come out of the audit. But again, we're looking for compliance and the audit not a compliance tool. It helps, but it's not the actual compliance.

Of course not. Right. It's an audit just gives good information, hopefully. All right, so this is a to be continued conversation, but thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I got to run over to transportation.

Thank you. Senator Allen. Senator Ashby.

Yeah. So first of all, just thank you to Senator Durazo. I know you've been really a good author for this Bill, taking in a lot of information and a lot of input, and I've heard from folks about it as well. I'm going to vote for it today in Committee, but I want to reserve my future vote to see what the audit says.

And I think, like Senator Allen said, hopefully we get, the audit's not going to change anything, but at least it would give us the information that might inform changes to the Bill or changes of opinion about the Bill. But I think it's important to have the audit information. I also think this is a critically important discussion, and I'm glad you brought it forward. So you'll have my aye vote today, but I'll be looking with a keen eye at what the audit says as well.

Thank you.

Senator Wilk, would you like to make a comment? Yes. My prerogative is chair. I saw this Bill in labor. I laid off it in labor again because of the audit. This has been an ongoing issue, and I'm not sympathetic to the UC cause, and so we'll see how. So I'm going to lay off it today, but I Reserve the right to vote for it as we proceed through. Based upon the information we get from the audit and seeing no further comments or questions, Senator Durazo, you may close.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote this is a policy we're looking to enforce that was passed in 2019. So thank you very much. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. We've had a motion already by Senator Min, and that motion is do passed to the Senate Rules Committee. And with that, secretary, please call the role.

This is for SB 27. That motion is do passed the Senate rules. [Roll Call].

We'll leave the roll open.

Thank you, Members.

All right. Thank you, Senator Durazo. So was Senator Eggman. I believe she was here first. Are we going file order? I like the Assembly better. All right, Senator Bradford. All the scripts flipped. We're going to take 1 minute till I can get back on schedule here with the script. I didn't have it so that's why.

All right. Senator Bradford, welcome. And you are here to present SB 490. And with that, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As stated, I'm here for SB 490, which is a simple, straightforward measure. It extends the California task force that studies and develops reparations proposals for African Americans, and it's due to sunset. Or to extend the sunset, I should say, to July 1, 2024. Before July 1 of this year, the reparations task force intends to publish its final report and recommendations to the California Legislature. However, after the date of the task force, there will also be disbanded according to AB 3121.

This poses a significant challenge to the task force ability to engage in discussions with both the public, with the legislature, to provide technical assistance in the final recommendations. Last week, every Senator's office received a copy of the 500-page interim report published last year, which provides hundreds of recommendations across a variety of issue areas. Having the ability to provide technical assistance on the final report after it's published will help avoid misreporting and misinformation about the task force work.

During the January 2023 meeting, the task force voted eight to one to extend the task force, and Don Tamaki, one of the task force members who also served on the Japanese reparations task force had a three-year window, and he said it wasn't enough time. So this bill just simply extends the task force. It doesn't delay the final report that's due on July 1.

It just gives, really, a firewall to the legislature once that final report is issued to answer questions and make clarity and making sure, as you've seen, where neighboring cities across the state are implementing their own reparations suggestions and recommendations just to make sure we're clear and on the right path and making sure that what the final report has is correctly implemented. So I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any lead witnesses here?

I didn't have one listed.

Oh, is she not a lead.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm not a lead witness. I'm just here on behalf of SCIU California to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I guess we're going into other witnesses in support. Seeing none, we'll go to. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any other witnesses in opposition in the room? Seeing none. We'll go to the moderator, and then we'll turn it back over to Chairman Umberg. Moderator, are you there? Because right now, we'll take witnesses pro and con over the teleconference system.

Sure. To provide public comment. Port or opposition to SB 490, please press one, then zero at this time.

And we have no comments at this time.

All right, let's bring it back to committee. Questions? Comments? Is there a motion? Senator Durazo moves the bill. Senator Bradford, you care to close?

I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Although you still left some bills to be heard, apparently. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is SB 490. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call] You have five to zero.

Five to zero. We'll put that on call.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members.

All right, I see Senator Dodd here, who's getting out of his chair. Senator Dodd. And then we're going to hear from Senator Eggman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

Chair and Members, today I'm presenting SB 296 pertaining to in-vehicle cameras. Increasingly in society today, we find ourselves being recorded or surveilled with no idea of how the images will be used. Now, in addition to backup cameras and blind spot monitoring systems, new cars are being equipped with inward facing cameras that monitor impaired or distracted driving.

While there are essential traffic safety benefits derived from monitoring impaired and distracted driving behavior, there is also increasing concern that such cameras could be exploited by data brokers and other third parties who would manipulate and sell the images. My bill would prevent that, giving the consumer more control over personal information recorded by their in-vehicle camera. SB 296 would place restrictions on the retention and transfer of video recordings while still permitting important driver safety information to be analyzed and used for traffic safety purposes.

It would make California the first state in the country to give consumers meaningful control over these type of in vehicle cameras. Ignacio Hernandez and Saveena Takhar are here with me today in support of the bill.

Mr. Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. We are the sponsors of the bill. Sorry, I was running from the stairs. Excuse me. We've been working on this issue for a couple of years, primarily because there is an increase in the use of in-cabin cameras. And oftentimes, consumers are unaware that the cameras are there, number one. Number two, there are no regulations in place.

There are very few regulations that could be argued that may be in place to control the videos that are taken inside of a vehicle. So what we do here is establish that, one, the consumers must be notified that there is an in-cabin camera. Two, they must have the ability to say no, to have consent on whether or not to share it. And so we really limit that.

And it's really critical because there are some consumers who may want the video in their vehicle and there may be others who do not want it. This is Tesla. This is Lincoln. This is a number of other manufacturers that are installing these cameras, and a lot of folks are unaware. So this bill really moves it forward. Establish a format and a protocol for consumers to know. We think it's easy for the manufacturer to comply, and we think it's workable for the dealer also to comply. And for those reasons, we ask for your support.

Thank you, Mr. Hernandez.

Mr. Chair and Members, Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California here in strong support. As new technologies emerge, it's important that our laws and statutes keep up. CAOC has been a proud supporter of these efforts, including our efforts with Senator Dodd to update our data breach laws. This is another step in that direction to ensure privacy in your own vehicles. So we align ourselves with the comments of Senator Dodd and the sponsor.

We are also working with both the sponsor and the author to make sure that the language in the bill that allows access for litigation purposes is clear. So for those reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in the room in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're in opposition to SB 296, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. John Moffatt on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We're the trade Association for all the major automakers in the United States. We are opposed to the bill, just as we were opposed to the bill last year. This is basically the same bill that the Legislature saw last year that was vetoed by the Governor. For reasons that we continue to fail to understand, the sponsors of the bill say that no rules apply to the information gathered.

That's not true. The California Privacy Act applies to these cameras that are used for a number of safety reasons. You want to talk about increased notification? We are absolutely open to that. You want to talk about a prohibition on advertisement? We're open to that. You want to talk about a prohibition on sale? We are open to that. But as the bill is drafted, it switches the Privacy Act's opt out mechanism to an opt in mechanism.

It defines personal information in a different way in this bill than it does in the California Privacy Act. This bill uses consumer devices. I thought the bill was about cars. Why are these devices in the definition of personal information in the bill. Last, we don't think it addresses the Governor's veto because it puts the safety information in the opt out part of the bill or, excuse me, in the opt in part of the bill.

If you're an alcoholic buying a car and you know that the car will shut off if you're drunk driving, are you going to opt in to that information or are you going to opt out? My guess is you're going to opt out. And so we think it suffers the same problems that last year's bill had, and we ask for a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. We also respectfully oppose SB 296. Align my comments with my colleague, but just want to expand on a couple of points. Similarly, we don't oppose the bill's prohibitions on advertising or the sale of this information. We also believe in increased consumer disclosures, and I think those provisions are appropriate. I think just the provisions related to the sharing of this information could use additional tailoring, as well as the anti-discrimination sections.

We know why that's in there. However, I think as applied could potentially mean that we're required to provide the same level of product and service. But if a consumer fails to opt in, and we're either not able to update the cameras or we're not able to offer the service entirely, whether it's drowsy driving prevention, we're arguably not able to provide the same level of service and so would therefore be liable to suit under that provision.

So just wanted to point that out as well and look forward to continuing our work with the author's office to continue to refine those points and address some of the need for this bill. So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members Ronak Daylami, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We align our comments with our colleagues at the Alliance and TechNet, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Dan Chia with Omni Government Relations, here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, also in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the room? Seeing no one else in opposition, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those on the phone lines, both in support and opposition to SB 296.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 296, please press one, then zero at this time. And we have no comments over the phone.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Senator Min.

Permission to ask a question of the opposition witness?

All right.

First one, from the Auto Dealers. So I have to confess, I was not aware there were internal facing cameras. Is this something that if I were to buy one of these cars, I can opt out of when I purchase it? And is this something that's clearly communicated to me that these cameras are...

Yeah. There's going to be notice in your owner's manual that the vehicle, not all vehicles have these. The National Transportation Safety Board has made a recommendation that all vehicles...

You're saying it's in the owner's manual? It's not presented up front to me. So I might very well purchase one of these cars and not be aware that it has internal facing cameras?

I'm with the Auto Makers, not the Auto Dealers, the folks doing it. And again, we don't object to the notification provisions of the bill.

But I guess, let me just take it back. Why shouldn't it be opt out? I mean, if that's the big, or opt in, because this is not Instagram. I'm not posting pictures of myself. I'm not purchasing a car, typically to post myself on social media or to share footage of myself. I'm purchasing a car to drive, right?

Yes. You're purchasing a car to drive with technology that these safety features and other features...

Do you think the average consumer wants to purchase a car with the intent of having their information broadcast?

This information isn't broadcast.

Or shared with manufacturers, shared with whoever else might...

If it improves the safety features of the vehicle, I think, yes.

I will tell you, I've purchased a few cars in my life, and one, I had no idea these cameras existed. I had no idea they would be taking footage of me. And I think that's a real problem if that's not being clearly communicated to people at the point of sale.

But I guess I don't understand what the argument is for not allowing an opt in. Again, the primary purpose of a car, yes, we want it to be safe, but it's to drive a car, right. When I purchase a car, I'm not purchasing it to take surreptitious footage of me. Right. I imagine your average consumer is not purchasing a car with that in mind.

And again, we don't object to the notification provisions of the bill. We don't object to the ban on sale. We don't object to the ban on advertising. I think you're thinking that the cameras are taking pictures of you and sending it to the automaker.

Well, they're taking video footage of it.

They're digitized images that are used to help improve the technology and software for those safety features. That's all we're trying to preserve here. And saying that that information, again, consistent with California's Consumer Privacy Act, which means it's de-identified and aggregated so that it can be used to improve the safety software of the vehicle.

From our perspective, we look at that and say, okay, if it's consistent with California law and California's privacy law, which applies to phones, televisions, all of the other consumer devices that are out there, we think an opt out approach is the appropriate approach, consistent with existing law, so that information can be used to improve that technology on a going forward basis.

All right, well, thank you for your answer.

Appreciate that.

Thank you. Other questions? Comments? Seeing none. All right, is there a motion? Senator Min moves the bill. All right, Senator Dodd, care to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is SB 296. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Seven to zero, but we're going to put that on call. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Next we have Senator Eggman, who's been patiently waiting. After Senator Eggman, then Senator Menjivar on SB 457, and then Senator Portantino on SB 712. Senator Eggman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I am presenting before this Committee SB 267, which would allow prospective tenants with a housing voucher to submit alternative documents demonstrating their ability to pay in lieu of a credit score. So, as we all know, you go to rent something and you got to give up your credit score.

So when I first learned about this, I was with my housing director, who's here to testify with me today, and they talked about the difficulty of people who have vouchers to even be able to use those vouchers. I think less than half of the ones that we have provided for people to get housing go unused, because oftentimes when people go before to try to apply, they run a credit score.

Well, if you've been homeless, if you've had a really hard life, you probably don't have a great credit score. You might have a stain on your credit score. Today at lunch, I dropped on my jacket. I have a stain on my jacket. Just as some people have a stain on their credit score. It's not something you want, but it's something that's part of life that happens sometimes. This Bill simply says, and you heard it last year, got all the way through this house with bipartisan support.

Got it a little bit held up a little bit in the Assembly. This only says, and again, a voucher is going to pay between 70 and 80% of a person's rent. This just says that they can provide alternative information, could be pay stubs, could be their last person they rented from to be able to say, yeah, I know my credit score is not great, but my life is turned around. I have a housing voucher. I have my kids.

The government's going to pay this portion, and I can pay this portion based on my pay or whatever else. So that's all this Bill does, is allow people a shot who might have a stain on their credit to not have to carry that with them the rest of their life and be able to get housing. We must address our homelessness issue, our housing issue. This is one more tool to put a little bit of compassion and variation in what landlords can look at.

And with me today, I have Peter Ragsdale with my housing authority.

All right, Mr. Ragsdale.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and Members. Thank you, Senator Eggman, for bringing forward SB 267. The Housing Choice Voucher program, formerly known as Section Eight, helps struggling Californians afford rent, which we know is incredibly challenging in California. 13% of housing choice vouchers nationally are in California, representing about 340,000 vouchers that we'd like to see deployed in our state. Vouchers typically support 70% of a household's rent paid reliably to participating landlords.

Vouchers are intended to keep family housed for as long as it takes and if this means if income goes down, payments go up and the family is prevented from falling into a financial spiral or worse, homelessness. These households are often the most vulnerable Californians. 67% of voucher-assisted households include the disabled, seniors, and children. Vouchers are a primary tool to bring the most vulnerable Californians off our streets and stop new households from adding to the state's homelessness crisis. Unfortunately, the need for housing subsidies greatly outstrips supply.

To get a voucher, wait times are often two to five years or longer. Finding available units and landlords willing to participate is profoundly challenging for both housing authorities and voucher participants. Landlords are often reluctant to accept the voucher for fear of the perceived risk of administrative burden or the perception of low-income renters. For the people we serve, low credit scores, reflective cost of living, and the wage gap, 89 hours of work are necessary to afford a one-bedroom apartment on minimum wage in California.

Increasing rents have only exacerbated the problem, especially for the most vulnerable Californians. At San Joaquin County, less than half of the households issued a voucher locate and are accepted for a rental property. Known as the voucher success rate, this is common across our state. A low credit score or credit invisibility needs to consider the support offered by the voucher. Expanding housing opportunities for low-income families. As folks search rent money sits idle. Support sits idle.

And candidly with ARPA, there's been a bright spot, which gives us hope that this is possible, that the American Rescue Plan California received 17,000 emergency housing vouchers in late 2021, receiving over 24% of the national allocation. Statewide, our utilization is 67.8%, representing 11,542 households. We've been able to lease up 129 households in San Joaquin County, representing 357 individuals that have transitioned from homelessness. Voucher programs work and provide an amazing public-private partnership to housing affordability and mobility.

As communities consider more innovative solutions to see vouchers utilized, including landlord incentives, occupancy loss payments, and damage mitigation, removing the barrier of a good credit history for low-income families will actually have dollars turned on in California. I urge this Committee to support SB 267. Thank you for your time.

All right. Others in support? Other witnesses in support. Others in the room who wish to provide their name, their affiliation and their position.

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

Thank you. Others in the room, seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. Opposition?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in respectful opposition. We have a very good working relationship with Senator Eggman and would like to continue to do so. I think what we're looking for today is to ensure that that information that is provided is verifiable. Right. We have other portions of the code that do provide that any information provided by any others, not including the subsidies, is legal and verifiable.

So we do believe that it's important that individuals with a rent subsidy do not face discrimination. In fact, we cannot discriminate because they have a rent subsidy. So we would like to continue to work with the Senator to find a solution to that evidence that is provided that is separate from the credit report. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition?

Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Ron Kingston, representing the Apartment Association of Orange County, East Bay Association, and the Affordable Housing Management Association that literally caters to every low-income tenant there is for seniors and disabled, as well as the very low-income households. Here's our sole concern, is that the information that the applicant, not tenant, but the tenant applicant that provides this information has certainty, and we can rely on it as really credible information.

The tenant's portion of a Section Eight payment, that's what we look at. We look at one, the certificate or the housing choice voucher, and then how much is the tenant earning and how much can they devote to paying rent, as well as all the other obligations for food, for a number of other essential services. And sometimes that amount is overwhelming. And we can't qualify the tenant because they have too many financial obligations or they have failed to perform and are not able to meet those obligations.

And we need to have that opportunity to do so. We would like to ask the Senator to include and address these very factual, real-life issues because of what we face each and every day when an applicant comes to us and say, we would like to rent from you. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

Mr. Chair, Senator, Dean Grafilo on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association, respectfully opposed to SB 267.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Others in opposition? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator if you would queue up those who are in support and opposition to SB 267.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 267, please press one, then zero at this time. So far, we have five comments queued up. First, we'll go to line 38.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Amer Rashid with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 36.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Tina Rosales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you.

Line 24.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors and Opposition, respectfully request a No vote. Thank you.

Line 39.

Good afternoon. Yasmin Peled, on behalf of Justice and Aging, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And line 37.

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

Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further comments at this time.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions or comments? Seeing, yes. Senator Ashby.

Senator Eggman, I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward, and I plan on supporting it today. But I did think that the very first speaker in opposition had a good point about making sure that the documents could be legally certifiable so that apartment owners and rental housing owners could rely on that information. I lived in this situation as an adult myself. I lived in low-income, inclusionary housing as a young single mom.

And it would have been helpful to me if I would have been able to show my pay stubs or something to help offset maybe a bad credit score, because credit scores last a really long time, sometimes unreasonably long. And so if you can find that solution for them, to make sure that the landlord or tenant can really have a legal document that they can rely upon, both of them, I think it would help the situation.

But I appreciate you bringing this important dialogue forward, and I'll be voting yes today.

Thank you. Senator Allen.

Yeah. I just love to get a better sense of how your conversations have been going with the opposition. I guess one of the core issues that's kind of floating around this is that obviously, there's nothing more reliable than Section Eight, but you're expanding this to every type of government assistance, including partial. Right? You can see how in those kind of situations, a credit check might be a really useful tool.

So, anyway, I'd love to kind of get a sense of how your conversations have been going with them.

Yeah, we have a great relationship with the Apartment Association and intend to keep on working with them. We work with them through this last year. Anytime somebody gets a government subsidy, it means they are in need, whether it's mental health, whether it's veterans, whether it's Section Eight. I think Peter spoke more specifically to Section Eight, but there's a lot of other ones, and most of them pay about 70%. And so we're talking about that extra 30% if someone thinks they can pay it or not. Right?

So when they apply, and they may have. There was just a case in Los Angeles County of a woman who had had a bankruptcy 20 years before. 20 years ago, she had a bankruptcy and could not find a place to rent because that was still on her record. I just think there should be some remedy to things like that.

And that's what we're trying to get to, to be able to actually use our government vouchers that we're giving out to people so they can have a place to live and find. And we are glad to work with the Department of Association about unverifiable. I'm not talking about a note from somebody's mom. We're talking about pay stubs. We're talking about bank records. We're talking about things like that.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but we all have to figure out what we can pay, what we can't pay every month. And if someone thinks they can make that 30% and some other association may think, well, but you have food, you have this. I don't know that that's up to somebody else to decide how important housing is to you. It kind of feels like at the end of the day, right? How important that housing is to you.

And we know people who have experienced homelessness and trauma and loss, having that safe place to live can help heal a lot of other things. So I just think this is one more way to give people a shot at getting into stable housing and letting them be able to provide additional documentation that says that they're good for that 30%.

It speaks to kind of the broader system in general. Right? I think some of us have run into trouble because we're trying to live in two places. We're not paid well enough to really justify living in two places. They have formulas amongst the lenders how much money ought to be going to housing, and we're probably all paying more, higher percentage of our incomes on housing. In some respects, it speaks to the formula that are applied through the credit check system or anywhere else.

Maybe through the course of the development of this Bill, you'll provide a really good and robust alternative that could help to inform lending in general. I look forward to the development of the Bill.

All right. Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author. I think this is a very well-balanced Bill. This is not saying we would let anybody get away with not providing documents to back up your ability to pay. But I'm a little surprised because I think it's really taking everybody into consideration and it opens up. Check stubs is a very reliable way of showing your income. Pay stubs. Sorry.

So there's a lot of ways of doing that that's very reliable, and I think that's all you're asking for. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions? Comments? I have a question. So if applicants offer alternative evidence, so, for example, they show, as you suggest, pay stubs, does a landlord have to accept that?

They still get to make their own decision, but it just provides the person an opportunity to present something else versus just being rejected out of the blind with that credit score. So when they apply for that rental, they can say, and here's some additional documentation.

All right. But it doesn't require the landlord at that point to rent. Next question is a follow on to Senator Allen's. Are you aware of vouchers that are less than 50%? I know what you'd said about the average is 70. Are there?

I am not aware of it. I don't know if my. Are there some that are less than 50? Peter?

There may be rapid rehousing programs that are different than housing choice vouchers coming through HUD, but in the case of housing choice vouchers, that math. To the larger question of how that 30% is determined, that math is objective and done at eligibility. So we don't just say to someone, hey, I'd like to get this apartment at $1,500 a month. We determine how that household can afford, and maybe they rent to, $1200 a month. So it's subjective.

But to the extent that there might be rapid rehousing programs that pay a lower amount, specifically, housing choice vouchers through HUD pay 70% at a minimum.

No, I got that part. I was wondering whether there was, for example, a city subsidy or something. All right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Durazo moves the Bill. Senator Eggman, you care to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. And just thank you for the robust conversation. I think we all are trying to find ways to be able to use all of our resources to get as many people into stable housing as we can. We know stable housing is a life changer for so many people. And a stain on your credit score from 20 years ago shouldn't determine what you can do today. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is SB 267. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll call]. You have seven to zero with.

Seven zero. Senator Eggman, we'll put that on call.

Thank you very much.

As Senator Menjivar approaches the podium, let me thank Mr. Griffis for his service here on Judiciary Committee. This is the last time he'll be up here serving with us. He's not moving far. He's moving to budget. But I think I see a number of advocates in this room. You know, how careful, how analytic, how helpful, how creative Mr. Griffis is. And we are, especially me, are indebted to his service here. So thank you, Tim. Thank you. All right. Senator Durazo abstained. All right. Senator Menjivar.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm here to talk to you about SB 457 which provides a simple fix to ensure that unaccompanied homeless minor who are 15 years or older in managing their own financial affairs can access vision care services without a guardian's consent. This Bill also adds a definition of vision care in the Family Code that aligns with the Optometry Practice Act covering scope of practice for optometrists.

Current state law already allows minors to consent to medical and dental care, but is silent on whether they can obtain vision care. This ambiguity has caused confusion amongst vision care providers on the legality of providing services to unaccompanied homeless youth. A lack of statutory clarity has resulted in an already underserved community being further overlooked.

If you're wondering why this service can't simply be provided at a school where the individual attends, a study produced by the American Optometrist Association in 2017 found that school screenings provide less than 4% of the eye tests needed for children, and they're missing up to 75% of children with vision problems. Even in cases where these problems are identified in school, identified in school visits, subsequent doctor visits are needed for proper diagnosis and treatment.

So the current status quo allows for unaccompanied homeless minors to fall through the cracks. And we all know, don't have to tell you all, that children who are struggling with vision care will then not be able to read and read what they're learning in school will impede their learning and education. Vision development is vital for a minor's growth and if left untreated, can lead to vision challenges that impact their educational and social development.

That is why SB 457 is needed to make the simple fix to make it clear that unaccompanied homeless minors are able to consent to vision care services. To reiterate again, this fix is needed because the current provisions around medical and denture care afforded to unaccompanied homeless youth is not extended to their vision care. So here with me to testify on behalf of SB 457, I have Kim Lewis of Lewis Advocacy, followed by Kristine Schultz from the California Optometric Association.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth, pleased to sponsor the Bill. I've been working with Senator Menjivar and Senator Ashby on this. For our young people who are unaccompanied, they may be couchsurfing or other places and trying to make their basic needs met, but we know that vision is such a critical need for them to be able to see and be able to get continuing their education for their own safety.

So we really appreciate the opportunity to hear, to be with you today, and to help expand the current existing law just to ensure that we're capturing vision services for our young people, which is a critical need. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Kristine Schultz, representing the California Optometric Association. I want to thank the author for introducing this important legislation to clear up this oversight, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support here in the hearing room, if you'd approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's turn to the opposition. If you are opposed to SB 457, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator. If you would queue up those on the phone who are in support and in opposition to SB 457, I'd be grateful.

To provide public comment, in support or opposition to SB 457, please press one, then zero at this time.

While we're waiting, next up will be Senator Portantino, then Senator Skinner with SB 343. Then Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. All right, Moderator?

And we have no comments at this time.

Okay, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions? Yes, Senator Ashby.

Yeah. Just very briefly, proud to joint author this with my colleague, Senator Menjivar. I think it's really important. These young people can already do this with medical and dental. It's just vision that somehow got left out, and that's really important for young people to be able to take care of themselves in this regard. So it's a yes for me, and I'd love to move it at the right moment and urge everyone to make an Aye vote.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Ashby moves the Bill. Senator Menjivar, care to close?

All I want to say is that I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. Even with that close, I'll be supportive. All right. Yeah. Okay. All right, Madam Secretary, if you can call the roll.

This is for SB 457. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]. Yeah. Seven to zero.

It's seven zero. We'll put that on call. Thank you. All right. There's Senator Portantino. All right, Senator Portantino, SB 712.

Good morning or good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. Good staff work, Mr. Chair. SB 712 will prevent landlords from prohibiting tenants from owning personal micro-mobility devices or storing them in their dwelling units unless the landlord provides a secure long-term storage for those devices. It makes sense.

If you're an apartment dweller and your landlord doesn't provide you a place to charge your e-bike, you should be able to bring it to your home to do so. E-bikes represent a revolutionary technology that benefits our climate, human health, and mobility. The batteries help break down the barriers to riding for older people or people with mobility issues by traveling, by traversing hills, and hitting ranges over 40 miles.

E-bikes are transportation opportunity with a chance to transform our mobility's future. Private developers across the country, including in many major cities, have begun enacting measures to limit or ban tenants from owning these important e-bikes. And so, as a result, we need to make sure that California is on the cutting edge and allows tenants to store and charge their alternative mobility devices. And with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. All right. In support?

And Chair and committees, my name is Mark Foxovich and I'm the co-director of State Policy for Streets for All, the sponsor of the Bill. This Bill is really simple, prevents landlords from outright banning tenants from having micromobility devices unless they provide adequate storage. E-bikes are the fastest-selling electrical vehicle in the entire country. Fastest selling in the entire country. They're not going away. Study after study has shown that e-bike usage reduces vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

E-bikes are an opportunity that we have to supplement car trips for more sustainable and frankly, more fun and healthy trips. E-bikes represent a freedom of mobility, like work for working-class folks and students who cannot afford a car, or for those who want to bike to the office without getting super sweaty through your suit. As a mobility advocate, I recognize that e-bikes are having some growing pains. But what this Bill does is stop an overreaction from landlords for banning e-bikes outright.

There's been a lot of media coverage around e-bike fires in New York City specifically. And in turn, landlords across the country have decided to ban this technology. Ban one of the best chances we have at lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The circumstances in New York are very different. They have delivery drivers testing the extremes of their bikes in cold heat, salt, and sand. These drivers oftentimes have irresponsibly modified batteries or just low-quality imports from Alibaba, the Chinese Amazon competitor.

Not something we're seeing here in California. Furthermore, the most common ion battery fire in a home is from a smartphone or laptop. The most intense lithium-ion battery fire we're seeing is from an electric vehicle. From cars. E-bikes are very safe, and that's the entire market right now. What's at stake is who's affected by this Bill. So at streets for all, we have an intern, David Martinez, who goes to USC, and he's not allowed to have his e-bike in his dorms at USC.

And if he had a car, it would cost him about $10,000 between car payments, insurance, gas, parking passes, and maintenance. But David is prohibited from having his e-bike in his dorm. So that's the alternative he has to consider because of the distances he may need to travel. Let's give David the freedom of mobility he deserves. Thank you. I ask for an Aye vote, and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support? Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Any witnesses wish to testify as me-toos? Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn the opposition. Those opposed, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Any me-too testimony in opposition? Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn the phones. Moderator, if you would open the phone lines to those who are in support and in opposition to SB 712.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 712, please press one, then zero at this time.

All right, let's turn it back to the committee. Questions? Comments by Committee Members? Seeing none. Is there a motion?

Wilk moves the Bill.

Senator Wilk moves the bill. Senator Portantino, you care to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Excellent. Close. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

Excellent. Close. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is SB 712. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Six to zero, placed on call. I saw Senator Skinner just come in the door right after Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Senator Skinner, you're up.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members, I am presenting SB 343. And what SB 343 addresses is our child support system. In 2016, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement issued what is termed the final rule. That was the first comprehensive child support revision in 20 years. It was purpose was to improve outcomes for our low-income families. Specifically, what is called the final rule, made more realistic orders based on evidence of an individual's financial circumstances.

It specifies screening for ability to pay before incarcerating parents for failure to pay, and ensures that incarcerated parents are able to adjust their payment based on income. Now, under this final rule, which is a federal rule, California has to implement it by September 1, 202. Tto ensure California's conformity with that rule, SB 343 will basically put California in conformance with it.

And I want to thank specifically the pro tem staff and a group of stakeholders made up of various department and agency staff, State Department and agency staff, and the Judicial Council, who worked all summer and fall on this proposal before you. And it represents an agreement from both Assembly and Senate. And it requires child support orders to be determined by a case-by-case basis on actual earnings.

It raises the definition of low and middle income determining child support orders and updates the child support calculations to more accurately reflect each parent's actual income. And now I would like my witnesses in support. Stephen Goldberg from Legal Services of Northern California, and Michelle Chan, who is the founder and Director of California Families Rise.

Thank you, Mr. Goldberg.

Thank you very much. Stephen Goldberg, regional counsel for Legal Services of Northern California, in support of SB 343. The bill does two very important things. It implements the federal final rule, which California is required to do by 2024. And it does so by ending California's presumed orders, by ending the practice in California of assuming that an obligor parent has a certain amount of income without any evidence to support that.

The federal final rule prevents California from doing that, and the bill does a very good job of implementing that federal requirement. And secondly, it makes two changes to California's child support formula in order to right size orders in order to create orders that low-income obligors are much more able to pay and thus in doing so creates orders that will more likely be paid because it allows low-income obligors to be able to afford their payments and then be able to make them.

So it helps everybody in the child support system we stand strongly supporting. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Chan and I'm founder of California Families Rise and also CFR's direct action arm, Parents Against CPS and Court Corruption. I'm a domestic violence survivor and CPS and child support impacted mother. For a period of time, my ex had sole custody of our son. I feel strongly that my ex was driven to take custody away from me because he did not want to pay child support.

Shortly after I regained custody, the family court ordered him to pay $3,600 a month in spousal support, an amount that cut into his budget that he needed in order to maintain his living expenses and he hit the roof. He withheld payment and then had me evicted from my rent-controlled apartment of 10 years. I waited several years to file for child support because I was terrified that if he was ordered to pay more than he could afford, he would pursue child custody proceedings against me again.

What is important to me is that my son has stable housing and his needs are met. Although I am the collecting party, I feel that child support orders should be determined based on the child's needs and the paying party's ability to pay. Even though my ex is a high earner, when he was ordered to pay $3,600 a month, it didn't leave him with enough money for rent, car payments, insurance, student loan payments, utilities, and food.

My son would tell me how he always ate the same bland foods or whatever was buy one, get one free at the supermarket that week and how his dad stopped buying him toys and his dad never took him to do things. My ex-husband's financial stress had a significant negative impact on my son's overall well-being, which impacted on his overall well-being, which impacted how my ex treated our son, and it also put me at constant risk of having to fight another custody battle.

Right-sized child support orders that are determined on a case-by-case basis will make a huge impact on the lives and well-being of children, especially for children living in low-income households, as well as their custodial and noncustodial parents. And for this reason, I'm asking you, Chair and members, to please vote I on the measure vote today.

Thank you. Others in support. Your name, your affiliation, your position?

Hi, my name is Dionna Peterson. I am the Sacramento Chapter Leader of California Families Rise. I'm also the Director of Action Arms Parents Against CPS and Court Corruption, and I am also in strong support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Mariko Yoshihara here on behalf of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition in support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing one person, go ahead.

Myself, Rajesh Sinha. I'm acting as an individual in opposing this particular bill. Respected Senators and related officials, special thanks to Senator Skinner in order to bring this bill. Thank you very much. Also, I extend my thanks to Ms. Allison for bringing up the analysis of the bill. All the details are written in my letters, sent to everyone. The analysis indicated that the formula adopted in 1992 was in default one. That means nobody vetted it. In last 30 years, it was never vetted.

And the outcome of that, ncps are unable to pay their child support calculated by this formula. This bill is again an extension of the same formula, no modification as such, except some changes in the numerators and denominators of the calculator. With some modifications, which, when looked into with random TN values, it spits out very similar numbers. It doesn't make much of a difference, actually. Analysis states that this will reduce areas, areas, basically, but it is not.

As of today, we have $18.4 billion of pending child support areas in the state, and it is snowballing at the rate of $3 million per day. And with this, maybe some lesser amount will be there, but it's not that much that it will make a lot of difference. Maybe by the end of 2026, by the time the bill is going to be implemented 100% by DCSS, the whole child support area is going to increase from 18 billion to 22 billion.

And then what will happen is with this formula again modified and again re-implemented, it may reduce to maybe 700 million a year, but not much. So that means the areas are going to keep on mounting up and up, and we do not find any reason or ways in order to substitute this, basically. And the analysis states that for everything, NCPs need to go to the court to get an answer.

Sir, thank you. If you'd wrap it.

I request the committee in order to look into this more precisely before even giving support to this.

Allrighty. Thank you, sir. Others in opposition? Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's turn to the phone lines. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing no one. Let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator. If you would queue up those who are in opposition to SB 343.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 343. Please press one, then zero at this time. And we have one person queued up. I'm sorry. Two. First we'll go to line 46.

Hello, my name is Rachel Freitas, and I'm a member of the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, and I ask for your support of SB 343. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have two more comments coming through. First, we'll go to line 44.

Hello. Hi, my name is Deanna Scott. I am a representative of the Trust and Justice Coalition. I'm also a policy analyst for Growing Greatness Now, it's an urban design and policy consulting company, and I am in support of SB 343.

Thank you.

And line 45.

Hi, my name is Anne Stuhldreher. I'm with the San Francisco Financial Justice Project in the office of the treasurer, calling in in strong support.

Thank you.

And there are no further comments at this time.

All right, let's bring it back to committee. Questions? Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion, Senator Durazo moves the bill. Senator Skinner, you care to close?

Thank you so much. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is SB 343. The motion is due pass to Senate Human Services. [Roll Call] You have seven to zero.

All right, seven to zero. We'll place that on call. I saw Senator Smallwood-Cuevas here. Oh, there we go. Just a moment ago. So Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, then Senator Laird, then Umberg, Umberg, Umberg, and then we're done. Okay?

Go ahead, Senator.

Good afternoon, Senators. Mr. Chair and Members, I want to begin by saying that I am accepting the amendments that were outlined by the committee's analysis, and I want to thank the chair staff and committee staff for helping us strengthen this bill. I am pleased to present SB 16.

That would empower local agencies to build partnerships with the California Civil Rights Department to enforce actions under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, otherwise known as FEHA. California's workers have a fundamental right to work in discrimination-free work sites and environments. And there are scores of industry, millions of workers and employers, and far too many schemes. And when left unchecked, discrimination in the workplace denies workers their basic right to human dignity, and it robs our community of vital resources.

When workers are not able to earn a living to take care of themselves and their families in many vulnerable communities, too often discrimination can be a job killer. A recent study by UCLA reported that women surveyed cited discrimination as a leading cause of absenteeism due to stress-related illness at work, which often led to resignation. And we don't need women leaving the workplace. FEHA is the state statute that protects workers from discrimination based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and gender expression, among other civil rights protections.

Enforced by the California Civil Rights Department, FEHA is the state's first line of defense for California's workers to report claims of workplace and housing discrimination. But the pervasiveness of discrimination throughout the state and the increasing incidents of late have made it very difficult and near impossible for a single state agency to bear the sole responsibility of enforcement, particularly when the agency is understaffed and overburdened, as it has been for years.

As one example, I had the opportunity to meet with a worker, Castro Landers, who worked in the rail yards, and he shared an incident about his job. His job was to move the train cars out of the switching yard and into the main yard. It's a very dangerous job. You work with folks who uncouple and couple the rail cars, and often, there are moments when folks are crushed in that process.

One day, as he was walking over to his car, he walked into the cabin of the car, and he found a black doll hanging by its neck from his switching pole. And he didn't know how it got there. And in his mind, he was thinking about all of the workers who are in that yard with him who were really responsible for his safety. And he merely realized how unsafe he was in his work environment. And when he reported this to his supervisors, they did nothing.

And when he submitted a complaint to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the incident moved forward. But it took months before he ever got a response. And in the end, the response never came. And he didn't have a solution from our state agency. And to me, that means that there are thousands of Californians, workers, who are not receiving the protections that they so desperately seek and need.

As a result, particularly for low-wage workers, who often cannot afford attorneys and what they earn, it is very difficult to attract attorneys to take their cases. Many of them are left without protection. Our workers deserve better. Our families deserve better. In this effort, many local jurisdictions, cities, and counties have started to create their own civil rights departments. That is the case in Los Angeles, in the city and County of San Francisco, in San Diego, to name some of those agencies.

And while these agencies are working effectively to end discrimination in their jurisdiction, state law prohibits them from enforcing actions for civil rights violations in employment and housing. Today, we have a tremendous opportunity to allow local governments to enforce civil rights protections while enabling our state civil rights department to develop the partnerships needed to ensure robust and vigorous enforcement. These partnerships can look different across the state to fit those local needs, but their goal here is to put more enforcement boots on the ground, strengthening overall protections.

SB 16 seizes on this opportunity by removing preemption from provisions within FEHA: FEHA that prevent local agencies from enforcing civil rights violations and building partnerships right with these local jurisdictions so that our strengthened protections happen overall. With that, I'd like now to take this opportunity to introduce Elda Solomon, policy manager with the Southern California Black Worker Hub for regional organizing, who will testify in support of SB 16. Just say she braved torrential rains driving here to be with you this afternoon.

It's true. I'm dry now. All right, thank you, Members and Mr. Chair; my name is Elda Solomon. I am the Policy Manager of the Southern California Black Worker Hub for regional organizing. It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Southern California Black Worker Hub and an enthusiastic sponsorship of SB 16.

The mission of our organization is to unify black worker voices and consolidate black worker power in the Southern California region with our regional black worker centers in Los Angeles, Inland Empire, and San Diego; often, we hear a lot of worker stories. We collect worker stories and try to inform our policy and campaign work by the things that workers are experiencing on the ground.

What we've learned is that it's all too common, the kinds of discrimination that black workers face, from racial to gender to disability discrimination that runs the gamut. And when speaking with workers, we've learned that workplace discrimination is just disturbingly common. In fact, in the largest study done of black workers in California, we think it's the largest black study done of all workers in the nation -

- we surveyed 2000 black workers at the height of the pandemic, and discrimination was one of three major experiences that black workers commonly faced during this time. And when asked to make recommendations on what all levels of government should do to provide support for black workers, a major recommendation included targeted workforce rights and development programming. And because black workers experience discrimination at higher rates, it continues to be a major driver of unemployment, underemployment, and trauma. And black workers are in need of resources to fight against discrimination -

- unsafe workers, unsafe workplaces, excuse me. All workers face discrimination and are deserving of fair and safe work. Black workers and other marginalized workers like LGBTQ undocumented workers, workers of religious minorities, immigrant workers, elderly workers, differently abled workers, all Californians are at the risk of facing workplace discrimination, and we believe that they need to have the opportunity to assert their rights at every level of the government. The need for SB 16 is complex and urgent across the state -

- research has shown that California has seen about a 34% increase in workplace discrimination complaints since the 1980s, but we do not see a proportionate increase in the state's capacity to adequately address these concerns and complaints. The addition of local workforce enforcement could give more workers a fighting chance against discrimination in their own communities by being able to file complaints with local agencies and departments. The need for stronger enforcement in a work

Thank you, if you could wrap it up.

Okay. The need for stronger enforcement really comes down to not only more enforcement, but who is actually doing enforcement, and the local governments and agencies, we understand, will have better relationships with the local workers and employers and with communities. And so with that, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, others in support.

Mariko Yoshihara here expressing support on behalf of the Korean Immigrant Worker Alliance: KIWA.

Thank you.

Sara Flocks in support, California Labor Federation thank you.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SCIU California, in support

Thank you.

Greetings, Members. My name is Ayela Gazelle. I am a diaspora from Ethiopia and a California resident. I've lived in SoCal, Central California, and currently reside in Oakland, California. I've experienced working as a corporate employee, gig worker, and an educator over the two decades of professional experience in a number of degrees ranging from computer science, international management, and artistic entrepreneurship.

I share my acumen not to bolster myself but to highlight the degree to which workplace discrimination does not discriminate against the discriminated and why SB 16 is so vital for millions of workers like me. I'm here today to provide a statement and testimony on my experiences of discrimination in the labor force, especially as an employee with an aerospace corporation located in Anaheim, California.

Although I can spend the entire day of sharing experiences of discrimination with an entire spectrum of the labor force, I'll speak only in one especially egregious experience. After the financial collapse of 2008, I was fresh out of college with a business degree, which did not even allow me to acquire a job in the fast food chain. I decided to enroll back into school and obtain a specialized degree in computer science.

It was during that time I was hired in 2010 with an aerospace company in Anaheim, California, working as a system analyst in the technology sector. This was a large manufacturing aluminum extrusion company with a power plant in a number of offices. I was the only black office employee in the whole plant, while over 90% of the floor workers on the power plant were represented by the black and brown laborers on the same floor.

There were countless safety, labor, legal violations and many discrimination lawsuit as a result. My personal and direct experience with discrimination occurred around my second and third year with the company as I began taking on additional responsibilities and began supporting the company on a global scale. As a father with a growing family and two kids, I had a growing need to increase my income. Although a minuscule raises were provided annually, they did not even match the rate of inflation.

So I was essentially facing a pay cut year after year. After completing my computer science degree in two years with the corporation, I approached my direct manager to gain more responsibilities, and again, additional training was required so it could be paid at fair industry standards.

She happily advocated on my behalf to the corporate team, and after what seemed like a back and forth for months, allowed me to get additional training and a database management field and promised me the role of database administrator upon my completion of training and certification process, I proceeded on my training as a role as a database administrator. In six months, I completed my necessary training with glowing marks and five new furbished professional certification at that point in 2014. Since joining -

Sir, this was me too testimony because there was only one witness in support. I let you go a little over two minutes, but go ahead and wrap it up.

Okay. I get to the last page. Okay. So without the adequate enforcement of workers like me, who cannot afford the time, resources it takes to take delinquent employers to court will go without equal and sufficient protections. I urge you to vote yes on SB 16 so that workers across the state in California have fighting chance against -

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Those in opposition? Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Chairman Ron Kingston representing the Orange County Apartment Association, East Bay Rental Housing Association, Affordable Housing Management Association in the state of California. We are a tweener if you will. We're very pleased with the amendments the Committee have suggested because we're looking at uniformity of interpretation and application of our discrimination laws. That's really, really important, whether it's done at the state level or the local level.

There's one thing we would like to ask the author as the bill moves forward, and that is to assure that the Civil Rights Department, as it is now known as of last July, does not suffer an adverse financial setback because they are trying to enforce the laws, and so are the local governments trying to enforce the laws. We want to make sure that whoever it is, there's 1 and 1 entity, one government, that is processing the discrimination complaint.

And we look forward to working with the author to make sure that that just one little tweak is done successfully. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Kingston. Others in opposition, seeing no one else approaching the microphone. All right, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderate. If you would queue up those who are in support and in opposition to SB 16, we'd be grateful to provide public comment.

In support or opposition to SB 16, please press one, then zero at this time. And so far we have three. I'm sorry, five people queued up. First, we will hear from line 30.

Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support of SB 16. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 43. Line 43, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Erickson. I'm a resident constituent of SB 28, and I support SB 16.

Line 55. Line 55, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lori Foray, and I'm calling in support of SB 16.

Thank you, line 48.

This is Gia Riley in support of SB 16.

Line 54.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Julius Young, a resident of Inglewood, California. I'm in support SB 16.

Thank you.

Line 58.

Good afternoon. My name is Tristan Shaw. I am an Inglewood resident, and I am in strong support of SB 16.

Line 42.

Yes, my name is Royce Janey. I am in support of SB 16. I am a resident of San Pedro.

Thank you.

Line 53.

Hello. Trina Traylor, Los Angeles Black Worker Center. I am in support of SB 16.

Thank you.

Line 57.

Hi, my name is Alexandria Davis, a resident of Los Angeles, California, and I'm in support of SB 16.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

All right, let's bring it back to committee. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. I applaud the author for bringing this bill forward, and in a moment, we'll be happy to move it. And I appreciate the fact that you took the amendments, and we're working with the staff. And when I was in the assembly and started 20 years ago, there were 144 nondiscrimination code sections, only two mentioned sexual orientation. Many did not mention gender. Some said handicapped instead of people with disability. Some said ethnic heritage rather than race. Many did not have marital status.

And I did a series of bills that indexed the Fair Employment and Housing Act categories to that so that our code was constant. And also did a Bill that formally added categories to the unrest Civil Rights Act because it was a court case 40 years ago that said that categories could be incorporated by reference that weren't specifically named. That's how sexual orientation originally came and marital status originally came in the unrest Civil Rights Act.

And without notwithstanding that court suit standing, I did a bill that was successfully signed that added categories. And the thing was, we also tried to get money additionally put in for enforcement, and the Schwarzenegger Administration would not do it.

So when Mr. Kingston testified that he hopes that he thinks that money will not be cut from the state because of this bill, I, for one am still in favor of adding and feel like that is something that we have to do to make sure that whether this bill eventually is signed into law or not, we have adequate enforcement at the state level. So, overall, I applaud you for bringing the bill forward. I would move the bill.

Senator Laird moves the bill. Senator Durazo.

Yeah. Thank you to the author as well. Just a question on your agreement to work on some amendment language. Do you feel like that's going to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the committee? Do you feel you're well on your way to addressing those?

I do, and I thank you for the question. I thank you for your comments as well, Senator Laird, and for your work in this space. Civil rights is a generational struggle and fight.

And to your point, Senator Durazo, I think we're in conversations with the governor's office. We're in conversations, close conversations with the Civil Rights Department. This is about strengthening our enforcement apparatus in the state, expanding our capacity, and bringing partnerships at the local level to support. So this is a multiplier bill. How can we multiply our capacity and strength to do this work? And I've also put some money where my mouth is right -

- I'm fighting for resources in the budget to make sure that we have the proper partnerships because there are a lot of protected classes, and folks will come to this bill in its protections through many channels. And we want to make sure that there are resources for our state agency to build the kinds of partnerships that we need to protect Californians. So, yes, I do believe we are on the right track to making this bill successful and getting a signature from the Governor's office.

All right. Yes, Senator Niello.

I don't know what the amendments are, but as long as there's going to be enablement of enforcement at the local level as well as existing at the state level, I see a great risk of inconsistent enforcement. The State perhaps not agreeing with a particular issue or conclusion of the locals or vice versa. I think that's potentially the risk of unintended consequences. And to Senator Laird's point, in the last five budget years, you and I were not here, but state spending has doubled.

And yet our colleagues and former Members as well as the administration evidently didn't see the priority to fund -