Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person via teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment., today's participant number is 877-226-8216, access code 6217161. We're holding our committee hearings today in the O Street building. I ask all members. I'll repeat it again, all members to please present themselves in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. We are one short. Before we hear today's bills I'm going to announce the items that are on the consent calendar.

We have 10 items on the consent calendar today. They are as follows. File number 5, AB 957 by Assemblymember Gabriel. Film number 8, AB 1166 by Assemlbymember Bains. File number 10, AB 469 by Assemblymember Vince Fong. File number 11, AB 1139 by Assemblymember Garcia. File number 12, AB 20 by Assemblymember Gibson. File number 14, AB 968, by Assemblymember Grayson with amendments. File number 15, AB 1280 by Assemblymember Maienschein.

Film number 16, AB 959 by Assemblymember McCarty. File number 18, AB 1818 by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. And finally, file number 21, AB 717 by Assembly Member Villapudua. All right, let's go over the ground rules again today. So this testimony today will go as follows. For each bill, we'll permit two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each witness will get two minutes to speak. After the main support witness speaks, we will turn to the metoos in support.

In other words, those are here in the committee hearing room may appear at the microphone. They should announce their name, their position and their affiliation. In other words, if they're on behalf of an organization, name that organization. Then we'll do the same thing with the opposition. Two minutes each. After we finish the in person support and opposition testimony we'll then turn to phone testimony. We'll hear from both support and opposition phone testimony at the same time.

Those of you who are listening on the phone you'll announce your name, your organization and your position. There will be a 15 minute limit on phone testimony. That means that some of you who are currently waiting on the phone will not be able to testify. However, we will accept, and we do accept, any written communication. You should go to the committee website for instructions as to how to submit written communication.

If you wish to expand again on your position, you can send us a letter or any other written material. The first Bill we're going to hear today is AB 665 by Assemblymember Carrillo. We're going to begin as a Subcommitee. I see Assemblymember Carrillo is here, so the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We actually have two bills to present. Should we do 1194 first, followed by 665?

No, let's do 665 first. I think there's a number of folks who wish to testify to 665.

Okay. Thank you for that. Give me one second.

Before we go, though. Before you start, let's establish a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, if you would call the role for purposes of establishing a quorum, and then I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar.

Umberg. Umberg, here. Wilk. Wilk, present. Allen. Allen, here. Ashby. Ashby, here. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo, here. Laird. Laird, here. Min. Niello. Stern. Wiener. You have a quorum, right?

We have a quorum.

Mr. Chair, I would move the consent calendar.

Senator Laird moves the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, if you would call the role on the consent calendar.

Umberg. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Laird. Laird, aye. Min. Niello. Stern. Wiener. Six to zero on the consent.

All right, six zero. We'll put that Bill on call. The consent calendar on call. All right. Assemblymember Carrillo, the floor is yours now, officially.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members. I am proud to present Assembly Bill 665, which would expand access to mental health care for young people using medi-Cal. Across the countries our communities are facing, young people across our communities are facing, a mental health crisis and the numbers are shocking. From mass shootings in public spaces, in particular, school shootings, as well as fentanyl overdoses and social media bullying, young people are experiencing a new reality different than what we did growing up.

A new report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that two in five teens felt persistent sadness or loneliness. Among teenage girls, it's three in five. That's a 60%. 13 years ago, there was a bipartisan agreement that we needed to empower our young people to address their mental health needs as early and as quickly as possible. But young people that are medi-Cal recipients were left out.

Only about 20% of young people receiving medi-Cal can get screened for depression, but we know the need is much higher. We all deserve a life full of pride and full of dignity. And what we are doing today is simply expanding care for those that already receive mental health access and resources through private insurance and expanding it to Medi-Cal. It starts with ourselves, it starts with our parents and grandparents to acknowledge the trauma that families have lived through and recognize that there is a big difference between surviving and living.

Here to testify and talk more of the need of the Bill, as well as answer any technical questions, are Taylor Chambers, the attorney and legal fellow at the National Center of Youth Law, Esther Lau, a student advocate and coalition member in support of this Bill.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Taylor Chambers. I'm an attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, a co-sponsor and strong supporter of AB 665. AB 665 addresses a deeply inequitable policy that creates added barriers for youth on Medi-Cal to access mental health counseling. We all want youth to be healthy, safe, and thrive. To ensure that, young people need access to quality health care, including mental health support from trusted providers. California lawmakers have long recognized this.

More than 40 years ago, the Legislature passed a law allowing youth ages 12 and up to access outpatient mental health care based on their own consent in some circumstances. This long standing right has been a critical pathway to care. But due to an inconsistency between the parallel sections of the Family Code and the Health and Safety Code, youth who rely on Medi-Cal must meet significantly higher levels of acuity before insurance will pay for their care.

In practice, this means that youth on private insurance can access needed care at an earlier stage, while youth on Medi-Cal must effectively be in crisis before insurance will pay for their care. Youth on Medi-Cal are predominantly youth of color and youth experiencing poverty, and this stricter standard compounds the already heightened risk factors they face.

AB 665 would address this inequity by aligning the standards in Family Code with long established law in Health and Safety Code so all youth can access the support they need, regardless of what insurance they have. Removing this barrier is critical given the current mental health crisis that our children face right now. CDC data shows heartbreaking rates of attempted suicide and persistent sadness and hopelessness increasing among youth, making it even more important to open every possible door to care. I urge you to vote yes on this important Bill. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Esther Lau. I'm a student advocate from the San Francisco Bay Area, and I'm here in support of AB 665, which would allow youth relying on Medi-Cal to consent to outpatient mental health services, holding them to the same standard as youth on private insurance. As a low income student whose family has heavily benefited from public assistance programs, including Medi-Cal, Calfresh, and section eight housing, I've experienced what it's like to seek mental health support throughout the medical system.

In my sophomore year of high school, during the height of the pandemic, I was struggling with a mental health like many others were at the time. My parents were incredibly understanding and supportive, encouraging me to seek mental health support. But as first generation immigrants, they were quite unfamiliar with the healthcare system, so I was a primary point of contact and navigated the Medi-Cal system myself. I asked my provider for access to therapy, but due to a number of reasons, like long waitlists, administrative complications, and the bureaucratic nature of Medi-Cal, I was denied access to mental health care.

Luckily, with the help of the Internet, I discovered I lived near allcove, a mental health clinic established in partnership with Stanford University that provides free short-term therapy to youth. I'm incredibly grateful that the support I received at allcove was transformative for my mental health. But unfortunately, it's rare for youth to live in close proximity to free mental health clinics like these, which is why AB 665 is so important. By aligning standards of access for Medi-Cal, youth and youth on private insurance, AB 665 affirms that access to mental health services is essential health care and a human right. For these reasons, I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Others are here in the hearing room who are in support of AB 665. Please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your association, and your position.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support.

Thank you.

Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in strong support of AB 665.

Thank you.

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

Melissa Lovato on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

Angela Vazquez, the Children's Partnership co-sponsor in strong support. And I've been asked to read the list of supporters. California Alliance of Child and Family Services, the Children's Partnership, National Health Law Program, National Center for Youth Law, GENup, Cal Voices, California Children's Trust, A Greater Hope, ACCE Action, ACLU California Action, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Alliance for a Better Community, Alum Rock Counseling Center.

American Academy of Pediatrics, API Equality LA, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, Aspiranet, Blue Shield of California, Board of Behavioral Sciences, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies, California Coalition for Youth, California Family Resources.

All right. Thank you. Let me just make sure that the rules are clear that when you approach the microphone for what we call MeToo testimony, you should give us the organizations with which you are affiliated. So, for example, if you're a board Member, if you're President of the organization, or if you've been retained by the organization, let us know. Otherwise, we have the list of supporters. So we actually can read. I know many don't think we can, but we can.

Okay, if I could add two that are not in the analysis.

Right. That you represent or you're affiliated with.

I'm affiliated with the coalition and co-sponsor of the Bill.

All right.

Visión y Compromiso and Haywood Burns Institute.

All right, thank you. Others who are here in the hearing room in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. Same rules will apply to the opposition as did to those who are in support. Go ahead. I'm sorry?

I brought materials for the Senators.

All right, thank you. We'll ask the sergeant to distribute the materials. All right, thank you. Floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Nicole Pearson, Attorney for Facts Law Truth Justice representing tens of thousands of California families. Assemblywoman Carrillo and Senator Scott Wiener claim that AB 665 is designed just to expand access to mental health services to kids enrolled in Medi-Cal. If this was really about funding, it would have been heard in an Appropriations Committee, and it has not.

If it was really about expanding access, all the authors needed to do was strike one word from the Welfare and Institutions Code "not" which controls funding. But they didn't. Instead, they want to amend the Family Code and strike 44 years of guardrails that ensure that mental health providers only place a child into a residential shelter if that child is in danger of abuse, incest, or harm to themselves or others.

The authors want to change the law to let a 12 year old opt out of their home on a whim, invoking parental separation and emancipation of minors without any claim of danger or parental consent. This is child emancipation. We have heard nothing as to why they want to make it easier for kids to be taken to shelters. Again, if the authors wanted to expand excess, all they had to do was strike one word from the Welfare and Institutions Code and we're done.

But AB 665 is not about obtaining Medi-Cal coverage or aligning two codes. It's about taking children from parents without a claim of abuse. The Bill presentation has been lowballing what the authors want to present saying it's about parity and extreme situations using minorities, Indigenous, and the LGBQT communities to hide the actual intent and impact of the Bill, when really it's a broad, unclear and badly written dangerous bill.

Members, when it's your turn, please ask the hard questions of the authors. You have Democrat and Republican parents here in a panic. Ask the real questions and vote no or abstain on AB 665. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next witness in opposition.

Hello. My name is Wendy Minas. I am a mother of five, ages 2 to 19, and I'm from Los Angeles and four of my children attend LA USD. I drove here with my children when I found out AB 665 will emancipate 12 year olds to self consent to living in a group home or residential facility by removing the existing guardrails for proof of abuse or danger prior. Have each of you used your elected platforms and networks to inform and speak with the people of California?

It doesn't seem so, because when I talk to my community, no one knows about it. And when they hear about it, they are shocked and angry that you would consider passing an extreme Bill that would break apart families during a child's most difficult and challenging years. You have passed laws putting in protections of interrogation and vaping because you know the prefrontal frontal cortex isn't fully developed until age 26.

You know children 12 and up are at their most vulnerable in their emotional and mental development, and even more so, under current social media influences and COVID. Kids can be impulsive, influenced, and rebellious. And instead of emancipating them, we should be creating programs that support communication and keeping families together. As parents, we are constantly navigating how to support our children in their growth while protecting and guiding them through challenging situations.

What about when your daughter starts talking to a much older boy or your son is accessing unhealthy media sites? Or what if they are just hanging out with kids that are getting in trouble and you try and guide them through that with boundaries and they rebel? AB 665 will emancipate them to leave home and be able to continue the dangerous behavior and also be subject to additional dangerous circumstances of group and residential facilities.

A child could literally go to school one day and not come home and not realize they have just entered themselves into the state child welfare system, and you as a parent are left trying to find them and fight to get them back. I know the system and we should all be doing everything to keep children out of it and keep families together. Who up here believes it's better for our kids to be a ward of the state and not be with their parents? I guess you'll show us all with your vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. For those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation and your position.

Erin Friday, Our Duty democrat of 37 years, mother to two children. I oppose.

My name is Ava DuBose and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Denise Aguilar, co-founder of Freedom Angels, and we oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels, and we oppose this Bill.

Ali Snyder, mother of two, registered voter. I oppose this Bill.

Sharina Latch, mother of three, CPU Member and a Member of Educate Advocate. And I'm in strong opposition of this Bill and asking for a no vote.

Thank you.

Don't take our children.

Thank you.

Harrison Tinsley, single dad. Opposed. Also, please amend 957. Thank you.

Stephen Barossa. I oppose gender affirming sex conversion without parental consent.

Haley Page with Mom Army. I oppose.

Thank you.

Margaret Arader. I'm a survivor of grooming and assault in an adolescent treatment center.

Are you opposed?

I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Members. Kasia Williams, on behalf of California Parents Union, Special Interest Group for parents, grandparents, teachers. We are in opposition to AB 665.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shannon Kurtz, a Member of California Parents Union and I represent over 100 parents for California parents rights act now. And we oppose.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Lisa Disbrow, veteran public school teacher representing Teachers Against Groomers, Law Mirandans for Education, and Informed Parents of Contra Costa against this issue.

Thank you.

David Bolog, on behalf of the Los Angeles area, San Fernando Valley parents in opposition.

Thank you.

Sabrina Williams, mother of seven. I also am the captain of Mom Army Sacramento. And we oppose.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Veronica, mother of five, former youth pastor, and I oppose.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Patricia Dincecco. I'm a registered nurse and a mother of five, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Daphne Hewitt. I am with Catholic Families for Freedom, and I oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Charlotte Johnson. I'm the mother of two, a registered independent voter, and I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with California Leaders Network and California Legislative Voice, strongly opposed.

Thank you.

My name is Susan Craigle. I'm a registered Democrat. Mother. I oppose.

My name is Julius Giles. I'm a reporter and news analysis. And I 100% oppose this Bill.

Hi. On behalf of myself, my family, and my friends back in Los Angeles, I oppose.

Mi nombre es Patricia Cavada El Espido, que por favor votar no.

Jeanette Phelps, Sacramento county, mother of two, grandmother of one, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm a pastor and Member of CPU. I'd appreciate if you guys don't pass this, it's unconstitutional. I'm in opposition.

My name is Susan Waters. I'm a mother of three, grandmother of three, and a physician. I strongly oppose AB 665 and the emancipation of 12 year olds.

All right, thank you.

I am Amanda Covitana. I live in the San Mateo County. I'm a lesbian, a writer, and longtime activist and Democrat. I strongly oppose.

Thank you.

I'm Barbara Hyde from Fremont, and I've been a voter on the Democratic ticket for 57 years, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Sherry Meek. I live in Oakland, California. I've been a lifelong Democratic voter, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Jane Jackson. I'm from Alameda. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

And the grooming of children.

Thank you.

Jessica Bowen, Alameda County. I'm a grandmother of two and I oppose this Bill as it is eloquently stated.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Me llamo Nicole Pearson. Tambien soy inmigrante y latina. Yo pongo activa proyecto de le. Gracias.

Max Bonilla with Rebuild California. Sacramento resident here to voice my strong opposition.

Thank you.

Judith Cahill, registered Democrat. I'm a mom. I'm against this Bill.

Thank you.

Lauren Wall Sanchez, former lifelong Democrat of 40 plus years and public health professional. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. All right.

Aka Geneva, Mrs. G. And I'm opposing this Bill for all the kids in Orange County.

Thank you. All right, go ahead. You have to approach the microphone so we can hear you.

Alexis Rodriguez of the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Taylor Jackson with California Health Plus Advocates representing California's almost 1300 community health centers and clinics in support.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association in support.

Thank you.

Kelly Beam on behalf of Health Net of California, serving over 2 million Medi-Cal enrollees, in support.

Thank you.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Ryan Souza on behalf of Essential Access Health, in support.

Thank you.

Nora Lynn on behalf of Children Now, in support.

Thank you.

Christine Campbell. I'm a concerned mother and in definite opposition.

Thank you.

Hello. Mike Mattingly with the Funky Fathers and the Who owns your body, Who own your body, if you own your body, then you don't own your body and that's makes you a slave.

Are you opposed?

I'm opposed.

All right.

Thank you very much. All right.

My name is Stephanie Swaler. I'm here from Rebuild California, and I strongly oppose this, being a mother, a grandmother, and a great grandmother. Stay away from the kids.

Thank you.

My name is Michael Haas. I'm here with the Freedom Writers and we strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Catherine Boulos, 35 year Sacramento county voter and Sacramento public school teacher and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hola, me llamo Blanca. Esto groupo Stand up Sacramento County y estoy en opposition de estibe.

All right, thank you.

My name is Ethan Lee. I'm with the California Family Council. I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Kara Butler from Contra Costa County. I have two teenage sons who oppose this Bill alongside me.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Sarah Martinez. I'm a mom from Contra Costa County and I oppose AB 665.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Barron. I'm a mother and I'm also a registered voter in Sacramento County. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Brena Sheehy on behalf of Perk Advocacy in opposition to AB 665 and we urge a no vote.

Thank you.

Terry Miller, Sacramento resident, stepmother, step grandmother, Casa worker. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Bo King, resident of Sacramento County. You do not have the right to take children away from parents.

Eric Mawell, elder of Light Dove Ministries. We oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

California native, millennial, opposing 665. My name is Veronica. I highly oppose. I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Kenny, Oakland.

You have to speak at the microphone.

Elizabeth Kenny, Oakland, California. I'm a mom and a grandmother, and I represent mothers over overreaching hands. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you very much.

You see this?

Thank you. Next, please.

There's a lot more of us, too.

Cheyenne Kenny, Central Committee member for the Alameda County Republican Party and Gen Z. Strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ruth, and I strongly oppose. I'm a mother and a grandmother.

Thank you.

I'm Lisa Mullins from Contra Costa County. I'm a mother of two. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Barbara Walker from Alameda, mother of three, registered Democrat. On behalf of reality, I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Dean, pastor of Elmira Baptist Church. We are strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Pastor Tim Benefield of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Modesto and father of three, and ask for a no vote on AB 665. Thank you.

Thank you.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland and Northern California Director of the California Capitol Connection of Independent Baptists, in opposition.

Thank you.

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, unfortunately opposed.

Thank you.

Patricia Beebe, no party preference. LastCalifornian.com, strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Catherine Carlson, San Mateo, California, I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Mike Carlson, I live in the United Nations stronghold of San Mateo, California, right in the backyard of Stanford Research Institute.

All right, thank you.

I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Stephanie, California native, registered voter, and I am strongly against this Bill. That's a heinous crime against humanity.

Thank you very much.

Cyrus Javadi, Rockland, California. I'm a registered Republican and I am a father and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Jessica Wagner, I'm a parent. I'm a teacher. I represent Jim Shoemaker for Congress and San Joaquin CRA and we oppose.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center, I'm rising strong opposition to AB 665.

Thank you. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Moderator, let's turn to the phone lines. For those of you on the phone lines, we are. Oh, I'm sorry, did I speak too soon? Go ahead. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? If they do, they need to approach the microphone, give us their name, their affiliation and their position on the Bill.

Thank you. Balia Caraveo, Sacramento resident and I strongly oppose this Bill.

All right, thank you very much. All right. Now, seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. For those of you who are on the phone line, we're going to permit 15 minutes of testimony, both support and opposition. I expect that we are not going to get to all the callers. You can submit written testimony if you wish. All right, moderator, please open the phone lines for those in support in opposition to AB 665.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 665, please press 10 at this time. And first we will hear from line 115. Please go ahead. My apologies. Line 142.

Hi, I'm calling on behalf of my public school teacher husband. His name is Daniel Mckinnon. My name is.

Are you in support of opposition?

And my affiliation is a mother of four. I have a right to speak. 15 minutes is arbitrary. If you need to stay till midnight.

Thank you very much. All right, moderator, let's go to the next caller. All right, thank you.

And next, we'll hear from line 170. Please go ahead.

Hi, I am Leila. I am eight. Hi, I'm Ryder. I am 11. And we strongly oppose this Bill. And my name is Rochelle Cole. And I am a mother and a homeschooler. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Protect parental rights.

Thank you very much. Line 194.

Hello, Jennifer Johnson, Placer county and a mother of three. I strongly oppose this horrid Bill.

All right, next. Line 227.

Hi, my name is Vanessa Santos. I strongly oppose AB 665.

Next we'll hear from line 222.

Hello, my name is Chloe Granger and I am a mom and a homeschooler. And I strongly oppose this horrific Bill.

Line 167.

Yes, my name is Nicole Young. I'm the Placer County chapter chair of Moms for Liberty and also a mother of six. I represent over 2000 families in the Placer County area and we vehemently oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Line 185.

Yes, my name is Linda Madra. I'm calling from Lincoln, California, Placer County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 229.

Hello, my name is Heather Jimenez. I'm from Hayward. I'm a parent and an early childhood educator. I support the access to health care, but I oppose the guardrails being removed for children and their parents.

Thank you very much. 137.

Hi, my name is Jill Hawkins. I'm from Santa Monica, California. And I represent 1000 people here who oppose this Bill. From Santa Monica Freedom.

Thank you. Line 85.

Hi, my name is Perry Prancis. I'm the founder of California Rise up and a loving mother. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Line 193.

Hi, this is Rachel Pecan, and I'm a Member of Stand up, Sacramento county and founder of Natoma's USD for Freedom. And we oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 195.

Hi, my name is Lori Lopez from Riverside, California, and I strongly oppose AB 665. Thank you.

Line 187.

Good afternoon, legislators. This is Gina McNaughton from El Dorado County. Also the mother of a neurodiverse child with ADHD. I strongly oppose this abomination of a Bill. AB 665.

All right, thank you. Line 237.

My name is Lydia Person. I am a family law attorney and mediator. I've been certified by the State Bar as a family law specialist. I have degrees in child development and psychology.

Thank you. Do you support or oppose? I will mark you as an opposition. All right, thank you. Next caller, line 86.

Hi, my name is Barnaz Petronio. I'm a mother of three and my children and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Line 173.

My name is Ted Hudako, father of two, Catholic Youth Organization approved coach, multiple... strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 240.

Hi, my name is Denise Hernandez, and I'm from La County. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 145.

Yes, my name is Shaeleen Davidson. I'm with 80 parents for Education and ... Freedom Coalition, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 174.

Yes, hello, thank you. This is Linda Bagnell, registered voter in Placer County. I am in opposition to AB 665.

Line 158.

Hi, my name is Michelle Richardson, and I'm a parent, a grandparent, and a small business employer in California. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 148.

Hi, my name is Capri Weekam. A single mom and a medical recipient, and I strongly oppose AB 665.

Thank you. Line 155.

Hi, my name is Monica, and I oppose the Bill. AB 665.

Thank you. Line 110.

My name is Dean Barron. I'm an Orange County resident and a small business owner in California. And I strongly oppose AB 665.

Thank you. Line 128.

My name is Joyce Lumot, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 141.

Hi, Audra Sterrick from Fair Oaks, California, as teacher and parent in opposition.

Thank you. Line 144.

Hello, my name is Julia Hetland. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 131.

Good afternoon. My name is Rose Santanados. I'm a mother, grandmother. I'm an educator and student advocate, and I oppose this Bill.

Line 163.

Yes, my name is Catherine Mcbride, Placer county teacher and mother of three with California Parents Union. I strongly oppose this anti parent, unconstitutional Bill. AB 665.

All right, thank you very much. Next caller, please. Line 183.

Hi, my name is Rosie Cole. I represent hundreds of moms here in Stanislaus County, California Nurses United, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 185.

Yes, my name is Jane. I'm calling from Placer County, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 188.

My name is Julie Meador. I'm a parent and a strong proponent of family and mental health. Please don't support a Bill that puts parents out of the.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Line 189. Line 189. Please go ahead. Line 190.

Ivan Pacell, Valencia, California, father of three, strongly opposed.

Thank you. Line 191.

Patrice Foxworthy, Cameron Park, California. And I oppose this Bill.

Line 199.

Hi, yes, my name is Tiffany Fipps. I'm a single parent. I do live in Tracy, California, of San Joaquin County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, thank you. Line 203.

My name is Anne Marie. I'm a mother and healthcare professional in California, and I strongly oppose this. AB 665, thank you.

Line 176.

Sandra Sparza from Los Angeles County calling to oppose AB 665.

Line 127.

Yes. Allison Meno, parent advocate, calling from San Diego, California. I strongly oppose AB 665.

Line 138.

Hi, my name is Doris. I'm a registered nurse and mother of two, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 216.

Curtis Lewis, AB Anti Human Trafficking Coalition and pastor at Faith Community Church, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 218.

Hi, this is Matt Tozer from Placer County, and I strongly oppose AB 665, thank you.

My name is Denise Rucker Henry. I am a Christian, and all of heaven opposes AB 665. Thank you.

Line 207, your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Keisha Low, parent. And I oppose AB 665, thank you.

Line 226.

Yes, Marlene. My name is Marlene Gomez. I'm a mother of three, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 125.

My name is Ida Serquisian. I'm a mother of two, and I strongly oppose AB 665, thank you.

Line 219.

Hello, my name is Vicky Collier. I'm a mother, a grandmother, a follower of Jesus Christ, and I oppose this Bill. AB 665. I strongly oppose it.

Line 221. Hello, we can hear you. Hello. Your mic is off.

My name is Nancy Newer representing Evermore Youth, and I strongly oppose.

Thank you. Line 241.

Line 102.

Good afternoon. Cole Klein, on behalf of Kipp SoCal Public Schools, in support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is... I'm a mother of two. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 162.

Hi, my name is Teresa Willis. I'm a mother of one, a single mother, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. I apologize. 247.

Hi, my name is Christina Mckinney. I am a nurse in Riverside County and a recovering Democrat, and I am in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Line 157.

Hi, my name is Bailey Tarantino from the Contra Costa County, and I'm a mother of five, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 229.

Here we go. Hi, I'm Evelyn. And I'm Rosa. We're from Alameda County, and we strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 185.

Yes, my name is Linda, and I'm calling from Lincoln, and I strongly oppose this Bill. This is not to be confused with ...

Thank you very much. Line 196.

Hi, my name is Christy Russo from San Diego, and I'm a mother and former youth pastor, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 161.

Hi, my name is Sophia Cisnado from Riverside County, mother and Christian follower of Jesus Christ. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 246.

Hi, this is Gabrielle, founder of Stand up Sacramento county, representing thousands in the area, Senator Ashby and Senator Niello. We oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Line 256.

Hi, is that me?

Yes. Go ahead.

The phones are very confusing.

Thank you, ma'am. Go ahead. State your name, your affiliation, and your position. Line 268. That's our caller. Line 268. Please go ahead.

Zero, hi, this is Amber De La Cruz. I'm in Tom Umberg's district. I oppose, and I hope that Tom Umberg will oppose or abstain from voting also.

Thank you. Line 271.

Hi. My name is Raquelle Holgene. I represent Catholic families for Freedom, San Bernardino, and Riverside County. We strongly oppose.

Line 269.

Hi, my name is Tee Hakobian. I'm speaking on behalf of Tulare Coalition for Freedom, Blessings of Liberty in Porterville, unmasked Tulare County, Red Rover Children's Advocate group, Calvary Visalia Church, and Rock Harbor Church in joint support with ... Sacramento county in Freedom annuals, and we strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 63.

Hi, my name is Delia Martinez, coming from Pacific Valley, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 78.

Hi. My name is Wendy Palacici. I am from Woodland Hills, California. I strongly oppose this extremely deceiving and dangerous bill.

All right, thank you very much. Line 154.

I am Brianne Matt, co founder of Freedom Fighters of STV and a mother of three, and strongly opposed AB 665.

Thank you. All right, two more callers. 266.

This is Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. One more. And lastly, we'll hear from line 84.

This is Jessica... mother of three and strongly opposed.

Thank you. All right. Moderator that's it in terms of callers, we're now going to bring it back to the Committee. For those of you still on the phone line, you can submit written information if you like. Committee Members questions? Is there a motion? All right, Senator Durazo moves the Bill. Senator Allen?

Assembly Member I'd love to get your take on some of the concerns raised by the opposition. Obviously, this has been pitched in some respects as creating parity between kids who have access to private insurance to those that have Medical. But as was mentioned, if that were only the case, then only that portion of the current code would be impacted.

Obviously, there's been some language added in that focuses on allowing a kid to, it seems like, well, allowing a kid to consent to residential services without the consent of the parent or guardian. And it requires parental or guardian involvement unless the professional person determines that the involvement would be inappropriate. Ideally. Hopefully, there's some criteria there to guide that. But can you give a better sense of, there's obviously a lot of concerns out there about how this might impact parental rights. I'd love to just hear your reaction to some of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate.

Sure. Hello. This thing on? Thank you for the question, Senator. I would like to bring up our sponsors for the more technical aspects of the Bill.

However, the lies and misinformation on this Bill have been so grand that the Associated Press had to, through a project that they're doing on misinformation and lies regarding policy, took an in depth analysis of this Bill and concluded that the social media advocacy against the policy, as well as some of the lies and misinformation regarding the Bill are completely untactual and untrue. This Bill does not take away parental rights. This Bill does not allow an opportunity for a parent or a guardian to be involved.

It does, however, align itself with existing policy that was signed into law 10 years ago, bipartisan support signed into law by a Republican Governor with no opposition. Unfortunately, the conversation has far exceeded what the intent of this Bill is. It's now a national conversation related to mental health and young people that also brings into the national conversation about LGBTQ plus rights.

The two issues are separate, however, if a young person, let's say a 7th grader goes to their counselor at school and says, I'm contemplating, I'm thinking about suicide. That counselor is mandated through the ED Code to report that. And so it is important that we realize that this does not change existing law as to the parental rights of a child, meaning that that child will receive care, that child will receive counseling, and the parents will be involved in the conversation.

There are over 186,000 homeless youth any given day in the State of California. Many are not in the foster care system. Many are living on the street. And there is an opportunity for those young people to be housed and to receive residential care. And so it aligns a lot of policies that are currently existing. But again, I'd like to bring up our sponsors as well to address the technical concerns over that one particular item in the Bill.

All right. Senator Allen, does that answer your question?

I'd love to hear from.

Thank you for the question, Senator. I would just say that AB 665 does nothing to change child custody law. It doesn't provide the opportunity for young people to consent to inpatient care. It doesn't provide the opportunity for young people to access medication or any type of surgeries without their parents consent. It really is mental health counseling and treatment. And the residential shelter pieces to clarify as well. There's that technical definition in the existing family code that really are temporary or emergency services.

So those are the residential shelters that it's referring to. And the last sort of final technical piece I would just make is that this Bill does nothing to negate the existing parental notification that's currently written in the law. So any providers of residential shelter services or of outpatient mental health care are required to go to their best efforts to notify parents that the young person is receiving the treatment. And this Bill does nothing to change that.

It's really, as Assemblywoman Carrillo has said, just trying to create equity between youth on private insurance and on MediCal.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Anything else? No.

Well, I mean, you seem to be in a rush. I'll let Senator Wiener ask some questions, and I may ask some more.

All right. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'll move the Bill, and I'm proud to be a co author, and I want to really thank the author for Moving this important Bill forward and taking a lot of heat based on just extreme. One of the primary creators of misinformation in this country, Marjorie Taylor Greene, went after you on that Bill, and I know what that's like. It generates just an avalanche of vile, toxic, horrible stuff so thank you for pursuing this Bill and for persevering.

This Bill is common sense. It expands access to counseling for young people who need it. It provides the ability to obtain shelter for a kid who's homeless. We know that we have an outrageous number of homeless youth under the age of 18 in the State of California. They are on their own, on the streets, and to put them through hoops to try to access residential shelter is incredibly inhumane. They should simply be able to obtain it.

A child who is being abused should be able to obtain shelter without having to jump through hoops. This Bill protects children. It makes children safer. It makes children healthier.

And it's unfortunate that this Bill, like so many, has been caught up in this right wing outrage machine that it's like every 12 hours they need another issue or another Bill or another or something that's completely made up to try to just stoke outrage online, to scare people, to scare parents, to feed this just absolutely false moral panic that people are running around trying to steal people's children.

We know that there are children who are truly at risk, and the outrage machine completely undermines our efforts to address actual children at risk by making pretend that all children are somehow being targeted and that the mental health profession is targeting them and their teachers are targeting them and LGBTQ people are targeting them. It is outrageous. And this is a good and important Bill, and I want to thank you again for moving it forward.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Senator Durazo?

Yeah. I, too, want to thank the author very much. One of the most important pieces of why I appreciate the Bill is that there is a higher bar for access to care for minors covered by Medikal, and that means Low income, very Low income families and minors who would not have access to the care that they need. So that, in particular, struck me as something that your Bill is correcting. So thank you.

Thank you. Other comments? All right. Senator Wilk, did you want to comment?

Sure. Why not? Well, no, you invited me, so I will. Anyway. Great respect for the author, as you know. And I really appreciated our conversation we had earlier in the week and going and speaking to a lot of young people. I totally understand just the need for mental health services. Now you're just trying to extend a policy that was already done back in 2006.

I personally don't think we should have passed that back in 2006, but we did. But one of the things that the opponent said that struck me, and maybe somebody could answer this, that all we had to do was strike one word under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1402 9.8. It currently reads, section that section of the Health and Safety Code shall not apply to the recipient of benefits under the medical program.

All we had to do was strike not, and then all those group of children would be able to access it. So I'm just curious why we took this other approach when that was very simple and elegant.

Thank you for the comment and the question, Senator. If it were that simple, we would have done it. But as our colleague from Los Angeles mentioned, the challenges and obstacles for Medical recipients to receive mental health care is much higher than for private insurance. So therefore, we have to figure out how we get mental health services to medical recipients so that they're able to actually access that care. I'm going to allow, if I may, to reintroduce our sponsor for more technical approach.

Senator Wilk, I would just add that. Excuse me, it was not on airplane mode. I would just add that even if we did go the route of amending the WIC code, as our opposition has stated, we still would have two existing codes that would cause confusion for providers in terms of billing and creating access, and that would still ultimately not create this parity and equity that we want for all young people.

So in order for on the ground and in practice to make this a really clean delivery of services for all young people, this was the route of amending the family code that folks in Medi Cal are using to continue their billing versus going that WIC route. Thank you for the question.

Thank you. Senator Allen, I didn't want to cut you off. Did you have further question?

I appreciate someone just sent me the AP story that was just referenced, and I'm reading it. It's very helpful, and I commend it to folks. It's entitled, it was the one that was referred to by the author, California Bill on Youth Mental Health Services distorted on social media by Corena fan. All right, it's a fact check.

Okay, thank you. Senator Durazo has moved the Bill. Senator Carrillo, care to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the Members for the conversation questions to our sponsors and to the parents that are concerned. We would never move a piece of policy that takes away parental discretion, that would allow children to have access to, that would allow children to not have access to their parents. That's not the intent of the Bill. It wasn't the intent of the Bill 10 years ago. It's not the intent of the Bill now.

So there's been a lot of misinformation and lies about this Bill to the point that it has national and international attention as to how we treat mental health services for young people in the United States and in California. The Bill was originally a bipartisan effort signed by a Republican Governor. It had no opposition, but it excluded medical recipients because it was passed during a recession.

We are finally correcting that wrong and ensuring that the billing process for Medi Cal recipients is corrected in the Family code, and that young people from Low income housing or Low income communities across the state, most of whom are young people of color, and a percentage of those who are unhoused, have the resources and opportunities to receive mental health care. And with that, I respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. If you can call the roll.

This is file item number one. AB 665. The motion is do pass. Umberg aye. Wilk no. Allen aye. Ashby. Caballero. Durazo aye. Laird. Min. Niello no. Stern. Wiener aye. Four to two Members missing.

All right, four to two. We'll put that on call. All right. Assembly Member Carrillo, AB 1194.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to head to Assembly Health and add on to bills, but we can get through this.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm proud to present Assembly Bill 1194, which will protect California's right to privacy when it comes to reproductive health care decision and ensure that companies cannot circumvent California's strongest in the nation privacy protections in this critical space. Since the fatal Dobbs decision last year, there has been a renewed need to ensure the access to accurate and authoritative information about all of one's options when it comes to reproductive health care are available. However, it's just not enough to be able to find that information. One should be able to access it without the threat of being shared with or sold to third parties or of it being the subject to a data breach. The California Privacy Rights act gives individuals agency over how their online activity is stored and used. Californians have come to expect that their privacy will be protected, and this Bill closes a potential loophole that would allow for flawed conclusions and misinformation about the safety of reproductive care, but also makes access to good information harder. Closing this loophole will ensure that privacy is upheld as one of the situations when it is needed. Most critically, no one should be wary of using resources available to them to access care. Here to talk more about the need of this Bill is Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy Director of Oakland Privacy.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and Members. Kind of a hard act to follow there, but I'm Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are a citizen's coalition that advocates for privacy regulations with respect for civil rights and community control. AB 1194 is a simple Bill, and I know that everybody says this, but in this case it's absolutely true. The Bill closes a loophole in the California Privacy Rights act that would allow a business to sell or share data related to reproductive medical care by citing a danger to life or health.

After the Supreme Court Dobbs decision unleashed a wave of abortion restrictions across the country, practices such as tracking your period became an increasingly precarious endeavor. Digital reproductive tools and apps collect a great deal of sensitive information, often without giving users the ability to control that information. So there's a false sense of security, that their data is private, safe, and secure. A fertility apps study found that on average, 3.8 trackers were activated at the moment of installation of one of these apps.

Once this data reaches Google, Facebook, or other large tech companies, it can then be sold to aggregators, who in turn sell it to entities like law enforcement or bounty hunters. So, AB 1194 will compel the protection of sensitive reproductive information under the California Privacy Rights act without leaving loopholes or escape hatches. We thank Assembly Member Carrillo and the Legislature's continued leadership on Reproductive Freedom and ask for your support for AB 1194.

All right. Thank you very much. Other witnesses in support? Seeing no one else approach- oh. Other witnesses in support.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange on behalf of the city. City and County of Services go in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez of the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Brian Suzon on behalf of Essential Access Health in support.

All right. Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines. If there's no one else in the hearing room who's in support or opposition, we'll turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please open the phone line.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 1194, please press 1 and 0. First, we will hear from line 167.

Yes, Nicole Young in opposition.

Line 155. Line 155, your Mic is open. Please go ahead. Line 232.

All right, thank you.

This is Aaron Evans on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association and Naral Pro Choice California in support.

Thank you.

Line 266.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in support.

Thank you. And we do have one more comment coming through and just be one moment, please. We provide them with their line number and line 103, please. Go ahead.

I'm in opposition. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further comments at this time.

All right, bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. All right, in support or opposition? In support.

Hi, Anthony from the AG's office. I'm sorry, I was caught outside in the hall, but Aganta supports 1194. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Is there a motion? Senator Durazo moves the Bill. All right. Assembly Member Carrillo, you care to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I'd like to thank the future of Abortion Council as well as the Legislative Women's Caucus for making this a priority to our caucus and respectfully request an I vote.

All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. If you'd call the role.

This is file item number two, AB 1194. The motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Wilk, aye. Allen, aye. Ashbly, aye. Cabballero. Durazo, aye. Laird. Min. Niello. Stern. Wiener. 5-0. Members Missing.

5-0 Put that on call. All right, we're looking for Assembly authors, Assemblymember Haney, Assemblymember Gabriel, Assemblymember Lee, Assemblymember Bryan, Assembly Member Gibson, Assemblymember Mccarty, Assembly Member Valencia or Assemblymember Wilson. No waiting.

There's Assembly Member Haney. Assembly Member Haney, the floor is yours. AB 12. Item number three.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I know we are all hearing from our constituents about how challenging it is to manage the cost of housing in our state. There are 17 million families and individuals who are renting in our state and rents are skyrocketing. The median rent in California has increased by 35% since 2000 while median rent or household income has only increased by 6%.

We are the second most expensive state for rent and have the most residents that are house cost burdened in the country. This increase in rent has led to increased barriers in even getting into housing that is appropriate for a person and their family. Under current law, every renter can be required to pay up to three months rent for security deposit. This law was put into place in 1977 and hasn't been changed substantially in decades. Three decades.

This outdated law is forcing renters who live in some markets to pay as much as $8,000 for a security deposit which, along with a first month rent, can be upwards of $10,000 for an average unit. That's a down payment on a house in many parts of the country. The result is that families have to forego necessities such as food and utilities to afford the deposit or acquire more debt in order to be approved for housing.

In some cases, they're even forced to stay in housing that's insufficient, unsafe or crowded at times far from school, work or their family, or even stay on the street or living in their cars or RV. To help ensure access to safe housing, AB 12 will limit the amount a landlord can charge for a security deposit to one month's rent.

This balances the needs of the renter and the landlord and will make California the 12th state in the country to grant this protection, following states like Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts and Alabama. I'd also like to note that this Bill does not take away the landlord's ability to hold their tenants accountable. Tenants are still fully liable in the very rare cases in which damages exceed one month of rent.

This Bill got widespread support in the Assembly from our colleagues that are renters, homeowners and landlords because it's fair and balanced, common sense solution, and will ensure that landlords don't miss out on good tenants and provide much needed relief for millions of Californians. With me to testify in support of the Bill is Brandon Dawkins, an operations manager from San Francisco Medical Respite and Sobering center, and Beatrice Hernandez from the California Immigrant Policy Center.

All right, thank you. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon chair and Members. My name is Beatrice Hernandez. I am a statewide organizer with the California Immigrant Policy center and also a renter here in California. I'm here to share with you my personal experience of renting as an immigrant in our state. During my time as a college student at UC Mercedes, living in the Central Valley was remarkably more reasonable compared to other college towns.

The added advantage was that we even received more living space for our money and freshly built homes that were in close proximity to campus and quiet neighborhoods. However, having a roof over my head was not without its challenges. As an undocumented student without DACA, I faced the hurdle of managing to pay a security deposit upfront despite not having simple access to employment.

The situation was far from ideal, but attending college degree was extremely important to me, so I accepted every opportunity I could get my hands on, whether it was working overnight, cleaning at Foodmax, or doing an internship at an organization that didn't close the doors on me due to my status. Since graduating, I have moved five times, with three of those moves occurring within a space of less than a year here in Sacramento, each time I move, unforeseen circumstances forced me to change my living situation.

In my current apartment, my security deposit was $600 more than my monthly rent. My landlord explained that because of my rental history of moving frequently, I had to pay higher deposit. The reasons for my moves were out of my control, but I still had to unfortunately deal with the repercussions. To me, high security deposits feel like a punishment for renting rather than owning. However, how can we have an opportunity to own when Collinsbury, such as this one, stand in our way?

I say we because I am not the only one dealing with this unfortunate reality. Consider the hundreds of communities and families in the Central Valley who were displayed from their homes due to recent floods, forcing many of them to resume looking for other rental situation and forcing others into shelters. Had this Bill been implemented while I was a student, it would have significantly helped me focus more on school and less on how to make ends meet.

It is even more urgent now as we continue to see rising cost of living and living in natural disasters that keep taking place. Immigrant Californians deserve access to housing and AB 12 will help ensure this. Thank you and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon everybody. My name is Brandon Dawkins. I am the Vice President of organizing for SCIU Local 1021. I am also a health worker with the San Francisco Department of Public Health and I know firsthand how difficult it is for a lot of the working class folks in San Francisco to afford housing. Number one, not only is the rent too high, but number two, the security deposits are extremely high.

We have 16,000 of our Members that work for the city and County of San Francisco. However, 8500 of us do not live in San Francisco and one of the barriers is the security deposit.

Security deposits can come as close to like $7,000 on top of $3,500 a month for rent, which causes extreme barriers for us to the fact that to the point that folks are living in Sacramento and commuting to San Francisco on a daily basis because that's where they can afford, in addition to that, on top of a security deposit, even though, yeah, they're asking for that upfront, but many workers do not have that security deposit to pay upfront.

So that means that they are scrambling to try to find somebody who can loan them the money for security deposit and it's no guarantee that they'll get that security deposit back. So we are asking for you all for a yes vote on AB 12 so that renters will actually have a fair chance, not only in San Francisco, but across the state, to actually afford to live where they work and not have to pay outrageous security deposits so that they can actually have a quality of life. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in support. If you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Becca Kramer, mater on behalf of ACLU, California Action, in suPport.

Marcus. On behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advanced in Justice Southern California here in support.

Thank you.

Tracy Rosenberg, just speaking on my own behalf as a California renter in Senator Skinner's district for 20 years.

Thank you,

Kim Larry is representing the California Coalition for Youth, in support.

Matt Lege, on behalf of SCIU California, in support.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation. Also in support. John Chaban, California Nurses Association, in strong support.

Izzy Swindler, with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support.

Anya Lawler. On behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance foundation, the National Housing Law Project, and the Berkeley Rent Board, in support.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley, AFSME in support.

Hello. Cassie Mancini. On behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Forrest Cameron. On behalf of the Western center on Law and Poverty, strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Chloe Stuck with the California Immigrant Policy center in Support. Thank you.

All right, let's turn to opposition now. Those in opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We certainly appreciate the goal of AB 12. I think the challenge for rental property owners, and certainly small rental property owners, is that it's very expensive to operate housing in California today. You know, in the unfortunate situation where the landlord is unable to work it out with the tenant who doesn't pay the rent, and they have to go to court to evict. Again, an unfortunate situation.

It can take months, up to six months in court. And the typical cost and loss of rent in those situations is well over $10,000. Reducing a security deposit isn't going to be helpful for the owners in this sItuation. Sure, a landlord can go to court after and attempt to collect, but in most of those cases, that debt is not going to be collectible. And the landlord in the next situation is not going to know that the tenant failed to pay the rent.

Because in California, we mask our court process for evictions. So, unfortunately, it may happen to the second owner again. So I think what's happening in California is those security deposits have either gone to the maximum amount. Which is typically two times the amount. Three times if you have a unit that is furnished. Which is pretty rare. But I think what we're dealing with. Is some of the unfortunate situations in the court costs. And what owners are facing.

COVID has certainly lent to that unfortunate situation for everyone. So thank you very much for hearing our concerns.

Thank you. Others in opposition. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Let's now turn. zero, there we go. One more.

Sorry. A little slow today. Senator Pat Moran, Aaron Reed and Associates. Representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. In opposition. For similar reasons stated by Ms. Carlton.

All right, thank you, Mr. Moran. All right, anyone else in opposition? All right, let's turn to the phone lines. For those who are in support and opposition to AB 12. AB 12?

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 12. Please press one, then zero. And first we will hear from line 87.

My name is Abazine Shannon. I'm a Member of Agala and Apartment Association. And I oppose this AB 12 due to hardship. Because damages are normally two times more.

All right, thank you. So, those of you waiting on the phone line. Give us your name, your position and your affiliation. And that's it. All right. Line 204.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi. I'm a small commercial property owner in Southern California. And I have done something unheard of. Which is holding my property rents for about.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Are you opposed? All right, let's go to the next call line. Thank you. Line 240.

Line 240, please go ahead.

Yes, sorry. My name is Denise Hernandez and I am a renter in Los Angeles County, and I am in support.

Thank you

Line 312.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in strong opposition, respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 147.

Christine Fitzgerald, community advocate of Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, in support.

Thank you

Line 334.

Hi, this is Alia Sky. I am speaking on behalf of the University of California Student Association, which represents over 230,000 UC undergrad students, and we are in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 336.

Hello, Chair and committee members. Jassy Grewal with UFCW Western State Council. Strong support.

Thank you.

Line 338.

Seth Bramble, speaking on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are in support.

Thank you.

Line 340.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in support. Thank you.

Line 344.

Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support.

Thank you.

Line 346.

Dan Okenfuss on behalf of the California Ffoundation for Independent Living Centers, in support.

Thank you.

Line 347.

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

Thank you.

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

All right, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? All right, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate what you're trying to do. There's no doubt that housing and rental prices are very high in California for any number of reasons. We can try to delineate them all, but primarily cost, supply, et cetera. And I understand that a security deposit, a high security deposit, can be a barrier to renting, but at the same time, a limitation on a security deposit, and therefore a limitation on a landlord being able to mitigate his or her risk to any number of things that can happen in a rental agreement. Non payment of rent damage at the end of the rental period, that presents a barrier to the landlord. Which is it? Providing lower costs to the renter or perhaps doing things that discourage the very supply itself? I might also add, by the way, that there are various ways that a landlord could manage this.

If we pass this, and it can only be one month's security deposit, a landlord could decide, well, that's not enough for me to mitigate my risk of non payment or damage at the end, so I'll just raise my monthly rent by $50. If there's rent control, obviously, that's a little bit more difficult, but then exacerbates the supply question that I raise. So it seems to me with attempts like this, we end up chasing our policy tail, and I think it's a flawed approach.

All right. Do you want to respond to that in your close? All right. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Yes, Senator Ashby.

Thank you. Nice to see you, Assemblymember Haney, and thanks for bringing us this bill. I am going to support it today, but I have a couple of questions for you and also a statement about why I'm going to support this. So I was a single mom for a long time. I lived in low income housing here, and there were a couple of people that spoke, and one of the primary speakers said you have to move a lot. That's really true when you're like a young single parent. I had to move because they raise a rent every year or something. And you're in this bracket, so you can only stay there as long as the rent is in that bracket, and then you have to find another place. And there were certainly times that I had to weigh in to that factor in, can I afford the security deposit? Are they asking me for first and last?

So I have not too long ago firsthand experience with that, recognize it's a big issue and especially for this younger generation and our older generation, both of whom are trying to find their spot in all of this with limited income. But I do have three questions for you because as I have talked to this same situation with some of my colleagues in the Senate, when you're talking about rent and you're talking about rental housing, it looks so different across the State of California.

And people use San Francisco as an example. But San Francisco is so different than LA and LA is so different than Sacramento in terms of who owns these rentals, who's managing these rentals and what it's like. In my district, there are a lot of small landlords, like an older person who kept their family home uses that as part of their income. They're not wealthy. They rely on that and they need that. There's a lot of that actually in Sacramento. So these are my three questions for you. You already have my support, but I'd love to know what you think about these three things and how you're feeling about them. I know you've worked really hard with the opponents, too, and I appreciate that about you. I know there was a request for the implementation to be delayed by six months. Have you agreed to that already? Okay.

Yeah, I haven't agreed to anything yet.

Okay. All right. Okay. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you had. So that one was just to give people an opportunity for compliance. It wasn't like for any particular reason other than implementation. And then that this would be a forward facing bill, meaning not retroactive, so that folks that just entered into leases wouldn't have to go back and renegotiate or do something different than what they had done because it may change the process for either side, how they would have handled it or where they would have gone. And then third, my last one is, have you thought about that small landlord issue and do you have a plan to talk to the opponents about it? So those are the three, Matt. Assemblymember Haney.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And I appreciate all three of those and certainly am committed to working with the opposition on all three of those issues moving forward. Certainly our intention was never to have this be retroactive. If you've already given a security deposit, this would not mean that a portion of it would be returned. They've already made that exchange. So this would be moving forward and would be happy to amend it. To make that clear, I'm open to some sort of delayed implementation, and I want to talk about what makes sense there so that they have the time. If you already have a listing up, and I get that as well. So definitely open to that as well. And I said this in the Assembly as well. Moving forward, if this goes out of committee, we will look at some way of treating some set of smaller property owners differently.

I understand if it's your one home or one or you live in one and you rent one, the level of risk that you're taking on it is a bit different. And so we will work on that with the opposition moving forward. I think we're at a point of sort of discussing what's the right number of units and that kind of thing. But if it comes out of committee, I will commit to doing something on that and hopefully in an agreement with the opposition.

Okay. And in the meantime, you're going to help a lot of young people and people on fixed incomes and single moms and single parents. So good job. And with those answers, I'll move your bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you. I will want to know there's a huge number of working people who are here as well who I think are supporting it because of often if you lose your job or you're living hours away from where you work or where your kids go to school or you need to be closer with your family, there's a lot of reasons why working people have to move. You have another baby. There's a lot of reasons. And right now this presents a huge barrier, and it has a lot of ripple effects, and I know you understand that firsthand as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you have a one bedroom rental, an average statewide is $1,800. If you make minimum wage, you'd have to work 90 hours a week to be able to afford that rent. So clearly, there's a real serious problem. I have a very significant percentage of the people in my district are renters, one of the highest percentages in the state. So this is a great concern, but it's obviously not a great concern just here in California. If 12 states from Alabama to New York, Rhode Island, I mean, we could go on and on. 12 states have passed that requirement of no more than one or one and a half months rent. So this is something that is happening across the country, not just in California. And I understand that we voted a similar bill just a few years ago that would lower security deposits for active service members, which is a great thing to do. But I do think that it's time to do this for all renters and not have some covered and some not covered. So be glad to support your bill.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none. All right. Thank you, Assemblymember Haney, and let me join some of my colleagues. I appreciate your flexibility in dealing with some of these difficult issues. The impact on supply, which ultimately is my hope, that will reduce the cost of housing, the impact on discrimination in terms of those who may discriminate because they no longer have the kind of security that they once had, the impact on implementation and how soon it would be implemented and to whom it applies. So I appreciate your flexibility on all those issues and your consideration of supply and discrimination. And with that, would you care to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to your staff as well, and absolutely have my commitment to continue to work on those issues as we move forward. I totally agree and appreciate that. Ultimately, when we think about how we solve our housing crisis in our state, we have to build a lot more housing. We have to increase the supply. That's going to take some time.

This Bill will provide some immediate relief to folks who are trying to afford their rent or need to move to another place. And right now they're going into debt, they're foregoing other necessities or they're staying very far from where they work or go to school. I believe this is a balanced approach, and it's fair. I understand the continuing issues that we have to work on moving forward, and you have my commitment on that. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is file item number three, AB 12. The motion is do pass. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Laird. Min. Niello. No. Niello, no. Stern. Stern, aye. Wiener. Five to one, numbers missing.

All right, five/one. We'll put that on call. Next, you have AB 816. I understand that there's no at least opposition on file. Assembly Member.

Thank you. I know this is an issue you all are very familiar with in a lot of ways and the need that we work in every way we can to make it a lot harder to get deadly opioids like fentanyl and a lot easier to get treatment that has to include our young people. Opioid overdoses now account for one out of every five deaths of minors, and enrolling people, especially young people, in medically proven treatments as early as possible is one of the best tools we have to save lives.

The most effective treatment for opioid addiction is buprenorphine, also often referred to as Suboxone. It deals with the devastating physical symptoms of withdrawal and can help people get off drugs entirely. It contains Naloxone, which is the primary substance in Narcan, so you can't overdose on it, and it's safe under the supervision of a physician.

Right now, youth who are addicted to opioids need consent from their parents to enroll in buprenorphine treatment, and thankfully, most young people who have support from parents and will have support in parents in seeking this treatment, but some young people, tragically, will have no choice but to seek treatment on their own, often because they're homeless, have parents who themselves are addicted or absent, or have a legitimate fear of asking for help. So under current law, these youths will be prohibited from getting enrolled in buprenorphine treatment.

Everyone concerned about this epidemic should find common ground in lowering barriers to access this evidence-proven treatment in turning away 16 and 17-year-olds. This is only applying to 16 and 17-year-olds who are only allowed to enroll in this under the FDA approval.

Turning them away would be reckless, wrong, and potentially deadly. We should be encouraging people to seek treatment. It will save lives, and so here to testify with me today in support of this bill is Dr. Congdon, a certified pediatrician who is testifying on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who are the sponsors of this bill.

Thank you, Doctor. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Jayme Congdon, a pediatrician here on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. California youth and families are facing an unprecedented opioid crisis. The rates of young people developing opioid addiction and opioid overdoses have skyrocketed. Substance use is now the third leading cause of death in kids. We have a safe and effective treatment for opioid addiction. Buprenorphine is FDA approved for ages 16 and up, and it is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, less than five percent of young people with opioid addiction have access to this life-saving treatment. A key barrier that prevents young people in California from getting treatment with buprenorphine is the need for caregiver consent. I want to emphasize that pediatricians always make every effort to engage parents and caregivers in the treatment of minors.

However, sometimes this is just not possible. To illustrate how the parental consent requirement sometimes plays out, I'll share the story of a patient who I'll refer to as CB. CB is a 17-year-old girl who had been using fentanyl daily for the past year. She came in for treatment with her mother, a single parent who also had opioid use disorder and had been doing well in her own treatment program.

When we first met CB, she was hospitalized for acute opioid withdrawal, and with her mother's support, she successfully started buprenorphine during her hospital stay. She was scheduled soon after discharge to see an outpatient provider for buprenorphine maintenance treatment.

However, before CB's outpatient appointment, her mother sadly relapsed and left their home. So CB came to her follow up appointment alone, but we were not able to give her ongoing treatment without parent consent per existing California law. So CB made additional attempts. We rescheduled her. She showed up several times without her mother, but her mother never ultimately showed, and then, without access to treatment, CB ultimately relapsed herself. I can tell you about many others: minors who are unhoused or who are--unsafe living situations.

AB 816 would increase access to care, especially among these most vulnerable youth for whom the consent requirement is often delaying treatment or preventing treatment access altogether, which, in the case of opioid addiction, means a high, imminent risk of overdose or death. The unfortunate reality is that teens are already--

All righty, thank you, Doctor. If you'd wrap it up?

Yes. The unfortunate reality is that teens are already getting fentanyl without parental consent. We've heard again and again from teens that it is so much easier to get fentanyl than it is to get treatment for fentanyl addiction. So in the midst of this opioid crisis, I am confident that this would make a hugely impactful step towards increasing access.

Thank you very much. Okay. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone except for #MeToo testimony. Go ahead.

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

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

Thank you.

Ryan Souza on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation in support.

Nora Lynn on behalf of Children Now in support.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists and the California City Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's turn to opposition. Anyone here in opposition to AB 816? Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those who are in support or in opposition to AB 816.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 816, please press one then zero. First we'll hear from line 351.

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

Line 352.

You line 352. Your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Hi. Yeah, this is Blake Anderson. I'm just a homeowner within an HOA and a registered voter in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego City, also a normal gay person, not an LGBT gay. And I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Line 255.

And thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Hashida with the Steinberg Institute in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. There are no further comments at this time.

All right, bring it back to committee. Questions or comments? Senator Niello?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a little surprised that there isn't the sort of opposition to the first bill that we heard. There is little doubt in my mind that teens who have drug problems don't want to talk to their parents about it, not because their parents are abusive or unreasonable. It would not be unnatural. That person wouldn't want to talk to their parents about it.

But the use of this drug, I'm not going to try to pronounce it, requires ongoing care. It allows the patient to continue using the drug with the countering medication. So ongoing care is crucial. And it seems to me the best way to ensure that ongoing care is to involve a dedicated and caring patient. Now, if there is no parent available, for whatever reason, I get that in this case, I rather doubt that that is the vast majority of cases.

And if we are where there is a parent available, we are going to allow this because we're afraid of an abusive parent or an unreasonable parent or an uncaring parent. I just ask the question, what percentage of parents fall in that category? I would submit it's rather small and that we're imposing this allowance and therefore a violation of the parent's responsibility. In this case, we're applying it to all families on a blanket basis.

And it seems to me that the best care for the minor, for the patient, is the involvement of a dedicated and caring parent. I just. I can't support this bill for that reason.

Other comments or questions? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Stern moves the bill. Assemblymember Haney, would you like to close?

Yes, and I appreciate that. I think in the vast majority of cases, because effective treatment generally and best practices, as the pediatrician spoke to, will involve a parent, it's very hard to stay on buprenorphine without that type of support if it's there for you. But in those rare cases, we're often dealing with some of the most vulnerable young people. They're on the street. Their parents themselves are addicted. Their parents are not around and able to even come to appointments.

They live in shelters, those kind of situations are especially vulnerable. And sadly, when it comes to opioid addiction, we're often dealing with those types of young people. So this is critically important to get those folks into care and treatment and get them help and off of deadly drugs. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is file item number four, AB 816. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call] Seven to one, members missing.

And, Mr. Chair?

All right, we'll put that on call. Seven to one.

Yes, I understand you're going to present item number nine, AB 954, which also has no filed opposition.

Great. This is a Bill on behalf of Assemblymember Bryan that will continue our efforts to stop punishing poverty in the child welfare system. He wants to accept the Committee amendments and thank the chair and staff for their work. This Bill will ensure the courts do not deny family reunification or family maintenance to a parent solely because they cannot afford to pay for court ordered services. Because it has no oppositions, I will go all the way to the end here and offer an opportunity for the witness.

We have Natalie Bashian, a social worker investigator with the LA Dependency lawyers.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Natalie Bashian, and I am a social worker investigator at Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers. We are the largest family defense organization of our kind in the nation, and we represent nearly 20,000 parents on any given day in the child welfare system. We are honored to sponsor AB 954 to ensure a parent's financial ability to participate in court-ordered programs. Parents' participation in services increases the opportunity for a safe and successful reunification.

A barrier to reunification in the child welfare system exists because the majority of our parents are poor and lack funds to pay for court-ordered services that must be completed in order to reunify with their children. This situation is dire and existing policy is not enough. An illustration as to how severe this situation is is one of our parents who was struggling to make ends meet had to choose between dinner and a parenting program.

There are also parents living in their cars or homeless shelters who are collecting and recycling cans in an attempt to accumulate enough money to afford these programs. Court-ordered classes cost anywhere from $15 a session to $45 a session, most of which are 20 week programs in order to earn a certificate of completion. Furthermore, court orders, like individual counseling, can cost anywhere from $35 a session to $150 a session, depending on the agency and depending on whether or not the parent has medical insurance.

Lack of funds limits a parent's capacity to comply with court orders, which prevents children from reuniting with their parents who are more than willing but unable to comply with court orders due to their financial circumstances. This Bill does not require payment of funds to the parent, but it does ensure that a parent's inability to pay for a program is not used as a basis to find them noncompliant. It does not require the courts to overlook complete-

Thank you. If you could wrap it up.

Yes, sir. Complete noncompliance and lack of effort, but rather support the parents who are actively trying to complete their case plan and reunify with their child. It encourages counties to use existing funds to assist willing care.

I assume you're urging an aye vote.

Yes. My last line.

All right, thank you very much.

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, strongly and without reservation, supports AB 954.

All right, thank you. Others in support.

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

Thank you. Others here in the hearing room in support of AB 954? Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Opposition? If you're in opposition to AB 9454, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's turn the phone lines. For those who are both in support and in opposition to AB 954.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 954, please press one, then zero. And we have a comment from line 351.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support.

And line 204?

Thank you.

I'm opposed only because there's no limit on the amount of poor people we keep letting into the world.

Thank you very much. All right, next, please.

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

Okay, let's turn to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing none, is there a motion there? Durazo moves the Bill. All right.

On behalf of Mr. Bryan, apologies he couldn't be here. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

This is file item number nine, AB 954. The motion is due pass as amended, to the Senate Human Services Committee. [Roll call] Seven to zero. Members missing.

Seven to zero. All right, we'll put that on call.

And, Assembly Member McCarty, you were just beaten by Assembly Member Low. Actually Assembly Member Lee, excuse me. Golly gee. I know McCarty's been here for a while, but typically we go in file order.

He's been waiting here forever.

All right, thank you, Assembly Member Lee. Okay. All right.

Bit older than him, apparently. So seniority?

No, that's by- No, we don't go by age, unfortunately for me. All right, Assembly Member McCarty, go ahead.

Well, thank you. This is a Judiciary Committee, apparently, but I have a transportation Bill. But here we are nonetheless. This is a Bill related to our airports throughout California, not just my district, but help expand airport infrastructure investments throughout California. No opposition. Unanimous support to date. It's twofold, really.

One, eliminates a sunset date related to customer fee charges for rental car, allowing airports to issue bonds in a more excited manner. And secondly, removes the requirements that rental car facilities have outstanding debt to impose fees to also focus on airport infrastructure. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I have a rep from the Sacramento Airport as well as the Statewide Airport Council.

All right, if you're in support, please approach the microphone.

Jim Lites, on behalf of the California Airports Council. We're the sponsors of the Bill. There's two existing law fees that an airport can choose from to finance the construction of a rental car facility. One of those fees carries a front-end sunset date, whereby the airport must begin the process to implement the fee, or you can never do it. And this Bill will eliminate that sunset date. It's turned out to be an artificial date.

We had a number of airports that hit the pause button during COVID on capital projects, and Sacramento is now next up. And Chris with the airport will explain the particular dilemma that they have with the sunset date.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. My name is Chris Wimsatt. I'm with the Sacramento County Department of Airports, speaking in favor of AB 534. Passage of AB 534 would allow airports in the state to continue making critical infrastructure investments and is particularly vital for Sacramento County Department of Airports as we embark on our recently announced plans for a series of significant investments at the airport totaling $1.3 billion, known as SMForward.

The largest component of the SMForward capital plan is the construction of about a $400 million consolidated rental car facility. But before construction and financing can begin in earnest on that consolidated rental car facility, we have a few very complex enabling projects that have to go. Some dominoes, so to speak, that have to fall first, including the construction of new parking facilities and the rerouting of roadways.

Under state laws, it currently stands, we would have to basically issue bonds to finance this project by the end of this year, which is three to four years ahead of when we would otherwise in order to finance the project. It's also a historically volatile bond market, so it's not a really great environment to issue bonds several years in advance. And for those reasons, we support 85.

All right, others in support.

Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksamer, on behalf of the Oakland Airport, in strong support.

Thank you.

John Moffatt. On behalf of Enterprise Rent-A-Car, in support.

Thank you. All right, others in support? Seeing no one. Opposition? Anyone in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines for those in support and in opposition to AB 534.