Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Okay, we have a quorum. I'm going to welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. I'm going to ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. For Members of the public today. Normally we had a 130 start time, but the Senate was still in session. Senators were required to be there to vote. Now that the Senate has adjourned and we have authors over here, we can begin. But that's been the reason for the delay. I want to go over a few talk about the conduct of the meeting.

We're going to begin with a special order of business to allow additional time for Members of the Committee to consider and for Member of the public to express their opinions about SB 403. We realize that many people have traveled to Sacramento to voice their opinions and we want to hear from you. But unfortunately, our time to hear this matter is not unlimited.

We have 10 other bills to hear on our regular agenda, including at least one other Bill with nearly 40 groups that have registered their support or opposition. So after the author's presentation of the Bill, each side support and opposition will have a total of 30 minutes to voice their opinions.

The time will be broken down to include testimony of the two main witnesses, allowing two witnesses each, and for Members of the public who will be able to identify themselves by name and if they're representing an organization, the name and the organization only. After each side uses up their 30 minutes, we will then turn to the Committee. And the Committee has up to 30 minutes. Don't have to use it all, but has up to 30 minutes for questions or comments from the Committee.

And I also want to just go over rules of conduct. There is no talking or loud noises from the audience that will be allowed. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and is limited to the name, organization and support or opposition of a Bill. No conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. No engaging in personal attacks of Members of the Committee, authors or staff.

And please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement procedures. With that, we will begin with item one, SB 403 Wahab. Senator Wahab. Welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you. Chair, Assembly Members and Members of the public, first, I received special permission to leave the Senate Floor. Sorry. The goal of this Bill is simply to ban the kinds of caste discrimination that exist on every continent and across diverse communities and cultures. Caste systems are a social hierarchy that limit human potential, crush spirits, and cause intergenerational trauma spanning centuries. People suffer in silence, forever trapped in bondage.

No education, marriage, wealth, nor generations can break the invisible shackles of caste imposed at birth, caste discrimination poses a threat to California industries, from agriculture to healthcare and technology. The overwhelming response from people across the state and support and opposition of the Bill exposed a hidden discrimination. Clearly, we have hit a nerve and that means something is going on. Something in California is going on. The nation rallied in 2020 to address the systemic inequities that continue to perpetuate discrimination against black community Members.

There is a similar reckoning to destroy the wheel of power and privilege perpetuated by caste systems. Caste discrimination manifests as housing discrimination, unfair hiring practices, human trafficking, workplace bullying and harassment, gender based violence, and sexual abuse. There is simply no place for this type of discrimination. SB 403 is a simple Bill that does not harm nor target any specific community nor religion. It clarifies that caste discrimination will not be tolerated in California under the Fair Employment and Housing Opportunity Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

It defines how caste systems may manifest and follows the Civil Rights Department's authority for enforcement of violations. In fact, Cisco, the CSU System, Harvard, Seattle, and the California Democratic Party have all adopted explicit language to mitigate caste discrimination. Clearly, this is not a simple tech issue. Caste is a civil, racial, gender, workers, women's and human rights issue. And it's why we have the coalition of supporters across sectors, which includes the California Labor Federation, the ACLU, the NAACP, the MeToo movement stop AAPI Hate

Hindus for Human Rights, Apala Alphabet Workers Union, the South Asian Bar Association, Bend the Arc Care, the California Apartment Association, the United Nations special repertoire, Republicans and Democrats alike, including our central committees, both Alameda County, Santa Clara County, Monterey County and others, including the Coalition of Sikh Communities Across California, which represents over 35 Sikh community organizations with a combined membership of over 200,000 people. Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Jane and many other interfaith communities. Support SB 403.

The Bill never did and was never intended to single out any particular community because it literally targets a system that encompasses all communities. I stand before you as a proud American, one who believes in, defends and protects the American dream, where, no matter where you're from, what religion you practice, who you love, or what background you have, you are guaranteed to be able to live your full potential. Here in the United States, civil rights should not be decided by political bargaining.

In fact, I've often told people this Bill is not about industry, it's not about money. It's about the dignity of people past, present and future. The amendments represent a concept of the Bill my office discussed at length. Weeks ago, we've debated much about this Bill because it is incredibly important. I'm glad the Committee and the chair agree to this idea as well. The world is watching. California will set a precedent that others will follow. So let's do this right and let's do the right thing.

I would like to introduce my two witnesses. First is Tanuja Gupta, who is a former senior engineering program manager of 20 years, with 11 of those years at Google as she grew from an individual contributor to a senior people manager at the company. She also advocated for workers rights in the form of leading a global walkout against sexual harassment in 2018 and successfully lobbying for Google to end its policy of forced arbitration in March 2019.

She was also a key advocate for HR 445, which became law in March of 2022, bringing together survivors of sexual harassment around the country to end forced arbitration at the federal level. She is the recipient of the 2019 Ambassador I mean, American Association for Justice Stephen J. Sharp Public Service award. Tanuja was promoted three times during her tenure at Google, consistently garnering superb performance reviews and doubling her reporting team year over year since 2019.

While managing a large team at Google and working on some of its highest profile engineering and regulatory initiatives, Tanuja built a diversity, equity, and inclusion program that was replicated by several teams within the company. However, when she advocated for caste equity in 2022, her career came to a standstill. What happened to her and her colleagues at Google is one of the reasons why I authored SB 403 to ban cast discrimination. My next witness is Tarina Mands.

Tarina Mand's practice includes litigating, plaintiff class action, mass tort and employment discrimination cases in California State court and federal court across the country. She's the past President of the South Asian Bar Association of San Diego and the current chair of the Racial Justice Task Force for the South Asian Bar Association of North America. She's also a board Member of Cal APABA and the chair of the DNI Subcommitee for the National Federal Bar Association.

She's been selected to the Super Lawyers Rising Star List in California for 2023. She received the Rising Star Award for the Federal Bar Association of San Diego in 2022. And the San Diego County Bar Association in 2023. Overall, I do trust my colleagues to stand on the right side of history on this matter, and I hopefully hope that you will all move this Bill with amendments and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you and each witness up to two minutes each, and you can start either one. Whoever would like to start first.

Thank you. Good afternoon. In September 2021, two Google employees approached me confidentially about the caste discrimination they experienced when trying to host an expert speaker to come talk about Dalit civil rights. So, for context, Google hosts dozens of external speakers on a weekly basis around the globe to educate and enrich the work experiences of its employees. I saw the value in the talk and agreed to host it with my team in the spring of 2022.

However, as some colleagues learned about the talk, they complained to Human Resources that this talk about Dalit civil rights made them feel unsafe in the workplace. Caving to a heckler's veto, Google postponed the talk indefinitely. When I blew the whistle on this decision, Google lowered my performance rating, reduced my compensation and deemed me ineligible for future promotions. Meanwhile, email threads that denied caste discrimination or made openly bigoted statements spread throughout the company's large listservs unchecked by HR.

It has been over one year since I left Google, and that caste equity talk that the company postponed has still not happened with any Dalit speaker. While several other diversity and inclusion talks have still occurred confirming the second class status of Dalit workers at Google, workers need SB 403. This Bill protects workers that speak out against caste discrimination as well as those who are accused of caste discrimination.

Because until SB 403 is law, California companies and courts alike will struggle to understand the meaning of caste, the required level of rigor around internal investigations of caste based discrimination claims, and how caste fits into discrimination law in terms of the burdens of proof, production and persuasion. SB 403 requires public and private institutions to reckon with caste in modern America, and I hope this Committee does the same today.

Sorry. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Tarina Mand, and I'm here on behalf of over 20,000 Asian Pacific American legal professionals in California, the South Asian Bar Association of North America, the Pan Asian lawyers of San Diego, and the Black Bar Association. I sit before you representing many voices because caste discrimination is a widespread issue that affects Americans from faiths and continents ranging from South America, Africa and Asia.

In California, there's a large immigrant community from many different countries, many of whom are now facing caste discrimination in the United States. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing's landmark lawsuit against Cisco for employment discrimination based on caste is the perfect example of why we need to expressly enumerate caste. After successfully avoiding defendant Cisco's request for arbitration, Cisco was sued for discrimination on the basis of religion, ancestry, national origin and race. In that case, the judge denied the admission of evidence related to caste.

This ruling serves as an example that courts would be reluctant to admit evidence related to caste even if it's relevant to the case. This would make it more difficult for victims to prove they were discriminated against on the basis of caste. The opposition argues that South Asians will be disproportionately affected by the accountability in this Bill. That's analogous to saying that race discrimination laws wrongly affect white people or gender discrimination laws wrongly affect men.

SB 403 would protect not just lower caste people, but would also help protect people of higher caste who are discriminated against by people of lower caste. The shield works both ways. The SB 403 Bill is critical and necessary in this step to fight against caste based discrimination, and we urge you to support SB 403 to help make California a more just and equitable place for all. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we will hear witnesses in support. Microphone is right there. Name. And if you're with an organization organization only. And to confirm as those witnesses. Those witnesses are approaching. I just want to confirm with the author. The author has accepted the amendments. Correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

My name is Thenmozhi Soundararajan, I'm here with Equality Labs, one of the sponsors of the Bill. And I am an aye and please in support.

Hello everyone. My name is Sunita Singh and I am representing Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha in Pittsburg, California. And I am aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon everybody. My name is Hari Umpal. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Vinod Kamar. I am the Chairman of Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha and I support this Bill strongly. Thank you.

Thank you all Members, my name is Kurr I'm coming from San Antonio. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.

Good afternoon respected members. I support this bill. Please make equality. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Dr. Pramila Danuka. I'm oncologist in Redding, California. I'm also representing United Way of Northern California. I fully support this Bill. Please vote yes.

Hello. My name Anjit Kaur ... SB 403 support.

... I support. Yes.

Good afternoon. My name is Kulwant Kaur. I'm the chairperson of Guru Ravidass Sabha at Pittsburg. I strongly support SB 403.

Good afternoon everybody my name is Gyan Suman I am vice president of Sri Guru Ravidass temple in Pittsburg, California. I strongly support SB 403.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Parmjit Kaur. I'm from Bay Area. Fremont. I'm supporting Bill. SB 403. I'm from International ... Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kamalji Shrila. And I'm from Pittsburg, California. And I'm the treasurer of International Bahjan Organization. And I strongly support SB 403 Bill.

Good afternoon, I'm Vijay Pal from Fairfield. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name's Harminder Momi I come from ... California. I'm supporting SB 403. Yes.

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Vinod Kumar. I'm President from Sri Guru Ravidass of Pittsburg, California. I support SB 403 strongly. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jagtar Singh Bhatia. I support this Bill strongly. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Roger, Rajinder Momi. I am a businessman. Former Chairperson Sri Guru Ravidass Temple, Fresno. I support this Bill SB 403. Thank you so much.

Hi. My name Lai Patrai ... I am in support.

My name JK. Vote yes 403.

My name Rajinder. Vote yes on 403. SB 403.

Hello. My name is Moti Singh. I'm from Bakersfield. I support SB 403. Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Sue, I'm a Member of Sri Guru Ravidas Sabha in Pittsburg and also a Member of IBO of Pittsburg. Thank you.

Good afternoon to everybody. Gurbaksh Baga, I just traveled back from India in order to vote SB 403. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ramesh Suman. I'm a former chairperson of Sri Guru Ravidass Temple in Pittsburg and real estate broker in East Bay Area. I strongly support this and request you to do the same. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon everybody. My name is Shashi Paul and I'm a civic representative from City of Fairfield. And at present I'm President of Indian Career Association, Fairfield. I strongly support Bill SB 403. SB 403. All the Members to vote yes on it. Thank you.

Yes. My name is Hardia Singh Concord, California. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Hi everybody. My name is Bhagwandas. I am from Pittsburg City. I am in favor of Senate Bill SB 403.

Good afternoon. My name is Suhan Ladar. I am from Pittsburg, California. I request that 403 may be passed.

My name is Bikramjeet Singh from Bakersfield. SB, 403. Thank you.

... I support this Bill.

I am Balevraj from Sacramento and I strongly support this Bill 403.

Good afternoon everybody. My name is Jasmir Maman. I'm running a business in Hanford, California. I strongly support SB 403. God bless America.

Hi, my name is Sulkan Singh from Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha in Selma, California and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon Committee Members. Myself, Deepak Siroa, I'm the Executive Member of Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha Temple Sacramento and we all are supporting this Bill. Please pass this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Balyanda Singh. I'm from Bay Area. I support SB 403. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sangita Jesse and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon, my name is Rafi Jesse and I strongly support SB 403.

Good afternoon everybody. My name is Anita Kumari and I strongly support SB 403.

Hi, my name is Yashpri Jesse, I'm from Newark and I support SB 403.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Rakesh Chandler, I'm from local here, Sacramento, California. I strongly support SB 403. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Hi everyone. My name is Sadpal Surila, I am from Pittsburg and I am a Member of Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha and also I am a Member of International Bahujan organization and I have a business in Pittsburg. I have a real estate business and I strongly support SB 403. And I'm a proud American. And God bless America.

My name is Jeet, I am from Fremont, California. I support this well. And I think caste discrimination should be crushed with ironhead. Thanks.

I am Herdel Singh from Pittsburg, California. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Hansu Shimar. I am from South San Francisco. I am owner of three businesses. One Granada Inn in Santa Clara, and Baymont Inn and Suite, Dallas, and Comfort Inn and Suite, Frisco. I strongly support this Bill. SB 403. Thank you.

My name is Dalvindra Paul. I'm a Member of International Bahujan organization. I support this Bill SB 403 very strongly.

Hi. My name is Dashandra Paul. I'm from Pittsburg, California. I'm chairperson of International Bahujan Organization in California. Strongly support SB 403 to end caste discrimination. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Harvan Singh, I'm from Sacramento. I support SB 403. Thank you.

Motiram Sacramento. Yes. Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Krishna Ujagar from Sacramento and I'm supporting the Bill SB 403.

Good afternoon. My name is Uzma Rahman, manager of the Insurance Diversity Initiative of the California Department of Insurance and I am in support of SB 403.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lakshmi Tikatri. I am Nepali, Hindu Dalit, and I am here to support SB 403 Bill strongly. Thank you so much.

Hi. My name is Dahantrai Kajla. I'm from Elk Grove. And caste still exists after India in America too. So I support Yes.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very much for giving the opportunity to say SB 403, Yes. My name is Ram Sroy from Fremont, California. SB 403, yes vote.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Prem Pariyar. I'm Alameda, human relations Commissioner and board of Director of National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. I strongly support this SB 403 because I am Nepali Dalit. I experience caste discrimination here in California. Thank you.

Hi. I am Ram Kumar ..., support strongly SB for yes SB 403. My city number Pin code 94561. Thank you.

Good afternoon, sir. I am Harvansa Lal. General secretary, Guru Ravidass Sabha Fresno. I strongly support SB 403. I want to live in equality. Thank you very much.

...

Honorable committee. My name is Kapil Singh. I've been the Assembly delegate two times. I ran four elections. And also I belong to SEIU. And I 100% support this Bill. The reason why I support...

My name is Dabeet Singh from Fremont. I support this. SB 403, yes.

Good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Duke Cooney. On behalf of ACLU California action in strong support. Thank you again, Senator, for bringing this important Bill.

My name Vimla Rari. Yes.

My name Charanjit Ram. Yes.

Good afternoon. My name is Madheep Kumar and I support this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Prem Chumbar. I'm convener of ... USA. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you all.

Hello, Megan Abell with Tech Equity Collaborative and Alphabet Workers Union CWA proud to co sponsor this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Kashmir Kaur. I support SB 403. Yes, good.

My name is Sarjeet Kaur. Vote yes.

Hi. My name is Kirana Banga from Pittsburgh. I vote for SB 403. Thank you.

SB 403, yes vote.

Yes vote.

Yes vote.

Hello, everybody. My name is Ghadev Singh Tinth. I'm from Pittsburg, California. In strong support of Bill 403 and my vote yes. Also thank you Senator Wahab.

Hi. My name is Pawan Kumar. I'm from Elk Grove, 95829. I strongly say yes to SB 403. Thank you.

My name is ... Krishim Bolina. I live in the Elk Grove 95624. I vote for yes 403. Thank you.

My name is Sanpo Haral. Concord, California. My vote is just strongly standing yes.

My name is Ram Prakash Raju, I'm from Pittsburg, California. My vote is a yes. Yes. 100% 403.

My name is Lamber Singh, I'm coming from Sonora, California. I support SB 403 yes. Thank you.

My name ... Yes. Support.

Hi, my name is Sakvir Hid I came from Yuba City, 403 yes. Thank you ...

My name is Aftar Singh. I'm from Manteca, California. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Surinder and I'm, the American Indian ... Society, belong to that. And I strongly sport to SB 403. Thank you. And thanks Wahab for bringing this.

My name is Chain Chohira. SB 403.

My name is Surinder Singh SB. 403 Guru Ravidass, Pittsburg, Sabha. Thank you.

My name is Daljit Karhira. I am from Pittsburg, California. Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha. Pittsburg been here 43 years. It's unfortunate to see this thing going on. I suport SB 403 thank you.

My name is Narvinder Singh, I am from Pittsburg. Sri Guru Ravidass Gurdora and I support the bill SB 403.

My name is Amandeep Sahota, I live in Fremont, California. I support with SB 403 and Sri Guru Ravidass Bay Area. Thank you.

My name is ... vote for yes.

Hello. My name is Harvinder Kumar, I live in Pittsburg, California. My vote for SB 403. Yes.

My name is Daarun Pal from Pittsburg. Guru Ravidass Temple. I vote SB 403. Yes for SB 403. Thank you.

My name is Sohan Singh. I'm coming from Hayward. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kuldeep Badhan. I'm from City of Antelope and I'm in favor of SB 403. Thank you.

My name is O.P. Balley. I am from Supreme Counsel Sri Guru of Ravidass Sabha, California. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you very much.

Everyone, my name is Harish Kumar, I'm from Elk Grove. I say yes to this vote. Thank you so much.

Hi. My name is Raj Kumar. I'm from Fresno. I strongly support SB 403. Say yes.

I'm Ravi Kumar. My city is Elk Grove. My vote is yes.

Hello, my name is Kamaldev from Fremont, I strongly support this bill SB 403. Thank you.

Malkiet Singh, I'm from Fresno County, Kingsburg. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.

My name is Harmesh Bangar, I'm from Dublin, California and Member of Sri Guru Ravidass, Pittsburg, California. I support SB 403.

Hello. My name is Kasmiri Bhatia. I'm from Gilroy, California. Also I'm a real estate investor and also businessman. But I would like to have my support for SB 403.

My name is Satpala, I'm living in California. My vote is yes. Number SB 403. Thank you.

My name is Kamalde Pal, I am from Pittsburg, California. I support SB 403, yes.

My name is Shiv Singh Hira. I'm from City of Folsom, California. I am a businessman and I support bill SB 403. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sandeep Thind. I'm from Pittsburg, California. And I'm yes on SB 403.

My name is Hardeep Thind. I'm from Pittsburg, California, and I support SB 403.

Hi. My name is Gagan Singh Thind. I'm from Pittsburg, California, and I am in support of SB 403. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Navdeep, and I support SB 403. Please read it. After you read it, you would definitely support it.

Hello, my name is Nilesh, I am from Pleasanton, California, and I support the Bill SB 403. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Dheer Dra. I'm from Pittsburg, California. I support this bill, yes. Thank you. Sir.

The Alameda County Democratic Party would like to register their strong support for SB 403 and urges an aye vote.

I'm Rama Krishna from San Jose. I strongly support this Bill.

Good afternoon, I'm Ram Kumar from Morgan Hill and I am representing America International Center and Coalition AACD. I strongly support this Bill. It's a human right issue.

Hello, I'm Raju Rajagopal. I represent Hindus for human rights and America against caste discrimination. We strongly support SB 403. Thank you.

... from Sacramento. I support this Bill.

My name is Cherinjilal and my vote, yes.

I am Karnav Singh from Bay Point. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Naindeep Singh. I'm the Executive Director of the Jakara movement that works in 17 counties across California. We absolutely support SB 403. I've also submitted a letter to the chair with 50 other organizations. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Josh Deep Singh. I'm with the Jakara movement from the Central Valley and I strongly support this Bill.

... Yes.

My name is Kulwan Singh Sidu. I come to Fremont. I support SB 403. Yes.

Hello. My name is Sonal. I come from Fremont. I support this Bill.

Nanjuran, yes for SB 403. Thank you.

My name is Karmji Singh from Pittsburg. I'm strongly support yes for SB 403.

My name is Thinder Singh, Pittsburg. SB 403.

My name is Sam Bhatia. I'm from Sunnyvale California. I support SB 403. Yes.

Hi, Sandura Sampla, Guru Ravidass ..., Pittsburg. I strongly support SB 403. Thank you.

Good evening, everybody. I am Satpal Vidri came from Pittsburg, Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha. I support SB 403 strongly. Thank you.

My name is Amar Shergill. I'm the Vice President of the Capital City trial lawyers. Also a board Member of the Sacramento Sikh temple. And I strongly encourage you to vote aye. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Ann Ravel. I am at the moment an international human rights lawyer. I have been appointed by President Obama. Excuse me. Name and support. Don't have to say who I am. Okay. I support the Bill as it is written now. Thank you.

My name is Mindha Singh Dhami. I live in California. I support this Bill strongly. Thank you.

My name Tekchan, I live in the state. I love 403. Yes.

Hi. My name is Usharani. From Sacramento, California. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Vote yes.

My name is Frena Kaur. I am Freeno. Vote well yes.

Germeda. My name Germeda. Freeno. Supporter. Yes.

Bill. Yes.

Thank you. That concludes our witnesses, our thirty minutes of witnesses in support. Next, I'd like to call witnesses in opposition. I'd ask the two witnesses in support if they could move to allow the two witnesses in opposition to be seated there. And then, same as the proponents, we have two primary witnesses who will have up to two minutes each. Then we'll hear thirty minutes of witnesses in opposition stating their name and organization only. You may begin.

Good afternoon. My name is Samir Kalra. I'm an attorney at the Hindu American Foundation, here to express strong opposition to SB 403. While the Committee Consultant's recommendations are a step in the right direction, any use of caste, even as a clarification of ancestry, is unconstitutional.

The analysis affirms that the bill's author and supporters equate caste with South Asians and repeats their xenophobic claims about South Asians from a study whose methodology is so faulty it was refused, as evidenced by the presiding judge of the Cisco Caste Case. This is precisely what concerns us: their intent to add a category that implicates one particular ethnic group premised on questionable data and false stereotypes. This makes SB 403 discriminatory on its face, in intent, and impact.

If the Committee is unpersuaded that caste is a discriminatory clarification, then I ask, are any of the non South Asians on this Committee at risk of being presumed to have a caste? The simple answer: no. Do you all have a heritage, parentage, or inherited social status? Yes. If the goal is actually to address all forms of social status discrimination, then clarifying ancestry with a facially neutral inherited social status instead of caste is the constitutional path forward. This solution will expand protections.

Regardless of how SB 403 defines caste, caste will always be associated with South Asians. Just look around this room and demonize, profile, and target us as a matter of law. Since we all agree that caste is covered under existing law, we urge you to oppose the bill or amend it to remove any mention of caste and instead clarify ancestry with facially neutral phrases such as 'inherited social status.' I ask you to protect everyone, target no one, and uphold the promise of equal protection. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

*Wahikujika khalsa Wahikujiki pateki Nagraka American Sikh PakJan California Partner Pala Bomb majti Shali Kushal De Sandasi ate Jaspati bhumari Bhumari Kanhi ATMI Sarito Lake bhatt Shashkanutwakan SV four atri Sad Mahan Deshwe Jaspada Beach bijan JaRIA Kalasiya Ate Ajazi Kaden sadi Ajadi Purvy fallen heroes, liberty, justice, equality, fundamental right known as SB 403. God bless America. Tanawat.*

Hey. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Harjot Kaur and I will just be translating what was said. So, 'my name is Satnam Sang. I am a U.S. citizen belonging to the American Sikh community and a resident of Yuba City. American Sikhs have been immensely contributing to the great land of the United States for more than a century. We are doctors, engineers, store owners, businessmen, law enforcement officers and army personnel, elected officials, and serving in almost every sector.

'I want to state that I and my community are staunch opposers of SB 403 because this bill is like giving us poison in honey. Americans have never experienced the caste system. It is an ugly disease of India and it never migrated to the U.S., but this bill is directly bringing that evil into our beautiful country. If I ask you and my fellow Americans, 'what is my caste,' no one will answer correctly because the caste system does not exist in our country.

'India used to be a very strong, powerful and prosperous country and the disease of the caste system weakened it. From the 8th century to the 19th century, India was attacked and ruled by many different Muslim rulers just because of this caste disease. Great men of all times stated that if you want to destroy a country, simply sow the seeds of the caste system in their society. This bill, SB 403 is going to sow the seeds of the caste system in our great country.

'Yesterday, we celebrated 4th of July very fondly and today we request you for the sake of our Independence, forefathers, fallen heroes, liberty, justice, equality, and fundamental rights and a better future for our country, please vote no on SB 403.'

Thank you. Now, we'll have thirty minutes of witnesses in opposition. Name and organization if you represent one only.

My name is Sandeep. Eleven years technical program manager at Amazon and also the co-founding members of APNADB that has rebutted every argument that Senator Wahab and Tanujagurtha made today. No to any amendment that basically mentions word 'caste.' Thank you.

Hello, respected Members. My name is Chandrashekhar Joshi. I'm a senior engineering manager at Accenture Federal Services and I'm here to oppose this bill in any form. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Ramia. I'm here to express my opposition to SB 403. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Dakshata Talekar. I'm founder of Kimaya Transformations and I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Rishali. I'm representing a 150 member group of Satsang and Bhajan Seva from Bay Area, and our entire group rejects the SB 403 as well as the council analysis. Thanks.

Hi. Param Desai, President of Casket Park Democratic Values Coalition. I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hi. My name is Tarachan. I'm the Member of Annapoorna USA Foundation. I oppose the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Venkat Manish Maramreddy, the President of McKinley Youth Sports Committee. I strongly oppose SB 403.

Good afternoon. My name is Santosh Kali from San Ramon, California. I am a member of organization APNADB and I strongly oppose SB 403 bill in its entirety.

Namaste everyone. My name is Prabhakar Maramreddy. I am Vice President of Foothill Desi Sports Association. I strongly oppose SB 403. Please, no caste in the building.

Hi. Namaste. My name is Nagaraj Patil from Fremont, and I oppose this SB 403.

My name is Nishan Singh. I'm from Sunnyvale. I strongly oppose this bill because this is...

Mesay Nartah and I oppose this bill.

My name is Ajit and I'm from Pleasanton and I think that I don't know caste, so I think no. What?

Hi. My name is Veer. I'm from Folsom, California, and I oppose for no.

My name is Shanuka. I from Livermore, California. I do not know the caste and I do not--

Hello. My name is Anirudh Mukkamala. I am from Rocklin, California. I reject this bill.

I am Ishaan Mukkamala, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

My name is Smriti Deshpande. I live in Roseville, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

My name is Shray Deshpande. I also live in Roseville, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

My name is Manti Sharma. I am also from Roseville, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

My name is Meena Sharma, Roseville, California. I'm strongly opposed this bill. Thank you.

I am Lalit Kumar from City of Roseville. I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.

My name is Arya Joshi. I live in Sacramento and I strongly oppose SB 403.

I'm Dr. Ranaju Joshi, Sacramento. I strongly oppose this bill and use the word 'caste' in it. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Nihar Gootar-Deparde, and I strongly oppose the bill, SB 403.

I'm in 10th grade from the Bay Area and I strongly oppose SB 403.

I'm Enakshi Garnipudi. I'm from Pleasanton, California, and I strongly oppose this bill because---

My name is Anishka Ponimutula. I'm in Livermore, California, and I strongly oppose this bill.

I'm Reva Desai. I'm from San Jose, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

I'm Suhani Desai. I'm also from San Jose, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hey. Pratap Bhatt from Pleasanton. I strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Pashan Kumar, and I say no.

Kumar Swami Lakshman. Hello, I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ramya, and I strongly oppose SB 403. I say no.

I represent Action and Advocacy of Cupertino. I strongly oppose this discriminative bill.

Gita Sekund. I am opposed to SB 403. I represent...against bullying.

Hello, my name is Athens Kulkarni. I'm from San Jose, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Lavin McKarna. I'm from San Jose and I strongly oppose this bill.

Hello. My name is Aditya Dej. I am from San Jose, and I strongly oppose.

Hello. My name is Sena and I'm from Pleasanton and I don't want to be discriminated in school.

Hello. My name is Sarabi, and I strongly oppose SB 403 because I think it brings...

Namaste. My name is Gargi, and I vote no for SB 403.

Hi. My name is Irasha. I live in Fremont and I strongly oppose this bill.

Hi. My name is Ashka, and I'm from Fremont, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Shweta, and I'm from Pleasanton and I strongly oppose this bill, and please do the right thing.

Namaste. I'm Urmila Patil from Sacramento and I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hello, I am Sarvesh from Cupertino, and I strongly oppose this bill. I do not want to be profiled.

Namaste, everyone. I'm Shikhand from Pleasanton. I strongly oppose SB 403. Please don't burden us.

Namaste, everyone. My name is Rama. I'm from Pleasanton. I strongly oppose this bill.

Namaste all. I am Maliki Godi from Pleasanton, and I'm strongly opposing this bill. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Hema. I'm from Livermore. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Namaste. Pleasanton. My name is Ludsa Anapoli. I know. I say to SB 403 no.

My name is Shridhir Shankar. I'm a high schooler from Rancho Cordova and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

My name is Vavia. I'm a high schooler from Mountain View and I strongly oppose this bill.

I am Gita. No to this bill.

Hi. I'm Ashwani. I don't support this bill and no to the caste as well. Thank you.

My name is Jaya. San Jose. I vote no.

Namaste. My name is Akshita Macaru. I say no to the bill.

I'm Shankar Ratneshwaran. I strongly oppose this bill unless...

My name is Vijay. I am from Fremont. I oppose SB 403.

I am Radhakrishna Prakhya from San Ramon, and I oppose this bill.

Manish from Fremont. I strongly oppose the racist SB 403 bill.

Hi. Pushpita Prasad from the Coalition of Hindus of North America. Oppose SB 403.

Hello. I am Tanuja from Fremont, and I oppose SB 403.

I'm Trisha from Fremont. I'm a college student, and I oppose the bill, SB 403.

I'm Ormika. I'm a college student from San Ramon, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

I'm a high school student from the Bay Area and I strongly oppose SB 403 and the use of the word...

I'm a college student, and I oppose SB 403.

Hi, I'm Purvi. I oppose SB 403. Remove the word 'caste' completely from the bill.

Hello, I am Suhasini. I reject SB 403 strongly.

Namaste. Madhulika Singh from Dixon. I strongly oppose SB 403.

I'm Sandeep Butt, representing Palo Alto Indians for fair treatment under law. I reject SB 403. Reject council's analysis.

Namaste. My name is Mohan Gummalam. I'm a spokesperson for Chinmaya Mission, San Jose. I oppose non facially neutral SB 403.

Namaste. I'm Kamisa Prasad Mukkamala. I'm Vice President of Dinabandunidi. I strongly oppose this SB 403 bill.

Hi. My name is Vaishali with three kids from San Jose. I strongly say no to any bill with the word 'caste.' Thank you.

Namaste. Sri Shubha from San Jose with two kids. I strongly oppose this bill, SB 403.

I'm Padmaja from Fremont. I strongly oppose the word 'caste.' Use ancestry instead.

I'm Deb Biswas from Cupertino, California. I strongly oppose SB 403.

Jay Ghataode from Fremont. Strongly opposing 403.

Hi. I'm Suraj Dasika from Santa Clara. I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hey, my name is Aruna Paluri. I'm from Tracy. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Maturima. I'm from San Ramon, representing a family of six. I strongly oppose SB 403. And I am...

I am Shaun Vemuri from Wahab's district. I strongly oppose this bill.

I am from Fremont and I really think if you cannot defend...

I'm Annapurna, so I reject caste word.

I say no to SB 403. I say...

Hi, I'm Nima. I'm from Pleasanton representing my family of six. I say no to SB 403. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Saroja. I want to say no to 403. SB 403.

My name is Pavani. I'm saying opposite to Bill 403.

My name is Lakshmi. I'm from Antioch. I represent a family of four. I say no to SB 403 and no to...

My name is Mangala Kumar on behalf of a family of three. I say no to SB 403. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sima Ved from Santa Clara representing a family of five. I say no to SB 403.

Hi. Professor Jay Simon. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Janma Jay Singh. I'm from Dublin, California. I represent Faith. I strongly oppose SB 403 bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Dr. Paraguay Shampan. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hello everyone. I am Anand Pransan Raman. I strongly oppose this bill.

Hello. I'm Lohit Denamori and I strongly oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Venababy Inamori. I am from Pleasanton, California. I strongly oppose the SB 403. Thank you.

Namaste. I'm Naveen from Pleasanton, California. I'm also the President of Pleasanton Kannada Balaka, and I oppose SB 403.

Dr. Dilip Amin, Hindu Speakers Bureau and President of Interface, Shaadi. Just remove the word 'caste.' Thank you very much.

Raju Amin from Burlingame. No to SB 403. No word 'caste.'

Good afternoon. Ramya Ramakrishnan, proud Californian, strongly opposed to SB 403. Please no to caste...

Shaisha Desai, Swadhyay Pariwar, San Jose Desi group. Strongly opposed SB 403. No racism.

Hello. My name is Deepak from Sunnyvale, and I oppose SB 403. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sandeep Desai. I am representing Temple Volunteers of Fremont Central, and I say no to the SB 403 and please...

I am Prakash Ranade, proud Californian. No SB 403.

Hi. I'm Yogesh Hegde. I am representing Temple Volunteers of Central Fremont. No to SB 403.

I am Dr. Dar Sima, representing Temple Volunteers of Fremont. I have four members in family. On behalf of all of them, I say no to the SB 403.

Hi. My name is Shridhar Pratika. I represent myself and a family of four. I say no to 403 and no caste.

I am Prakash Sangam from San Diego, California. I vote no on SB 403 and no mention of caste. Thank you.

I'm Konensi Yosen from Fremont. I represent a family of four and Desi nation of our community. I say no on SB 403. I oppose it.

Hi. My name is Suresh Kumar from Sunnyvale. I represent a family of two. I say no to the 403. SB 403.

Hey. I'm Sandy Pra from Roseville, California. I oppose SB 403 and the word 'caste.' Thank you.

Good afternoon. This is Dr. Baskett of Empathy. I am from Sacramento, a family of three. No to SB 403. No to caste.

Vijay from San Diego. This bill is really discriminatory. It's no from me.

My name is Vinod Rai, family of four. No for caste, no for profiling, no for SB 403.

My name is Shyam Chaudhary. I am CEO of two California corporations and I represent Bihar Foundation of 1,600 people. I strongly oppose SB 403. It is casteism.

I am Shiva Singh from San Jose and I oppose this bill.

My name is Suram Yanayak. I'm from Fremont, California, representing family of six. Please remove the word caste from the bill. It's discriminatory. I strongly oppose it.

I am Manas Ray from California. I strongly oppose this divisive bill. Thank.

Hi. Sunil Kumar, Sacramento, strongly oppose this bill. This bill create discrimination.

Viraj Raut, representing Hindu community in Cupertino. No on SB 403. No on caste.

Hi. This is Vinay from Sacramento. I strongly oppose SB 403. No caste discrimination.

My name is Manohar Mandadi, resident of Sacramento with family of four. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

I'm Ganet Habogeti from San Ramon. Family of four. I oppose SB 403.

Good afternoon. Mayan Gandhi, strongly opposed this bill. Thank you.

Mehlin Makwana, San Jose, family of four, no to SB 403.

I'm Bhavna from Fremont. Say no to SB 403.

I am Chetan from Pleasanton. Strong no to SB 403.

Hi. Prasanna from San Jose, family of four, a strong no to SB 403. Thank you.

Hello everyone. I am Anadi from San Ramon representing family of four. A strong no for this bill. Is discriminatory.

Hi. My name is Sandhya Castle. I represent a Canada organization and I'm a family of four. I reject council's analysis and the word caste.

Hi. My name is Prashant. I'm from California, so I reject SB 403 and no to--

Hello. My name is Ritesh Chandan. I represent multiple organization. I strongly oppose SB 403 bill which racially defiles the Indian Americans and it need to be replaced by the word caste. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ritesh Biltheria from Santa Clara, California. I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.

Hello. I am Adit Biltheria and I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hello, I'm Pia Viltern. I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hello. I'm Jason Lesai from Santa Clara, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hello. I'm Lavanya from Mountain House Tamil community. I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Lakshman, and on behalf of the youth, we all oppose SB 403.

Hello, I'm Ruksha. I'm a university student at UCLA and I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hi, my name is Apurva and I'm here as a university student as well, and I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sandeep Deshpande. I'm from Roseville, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403.

I'm Lakshmi Iyer from San Jose, California, and I strongly oppose SB 403. Thanks.

My name is Amol Arrow from Irvine Special Needs Parents Group and I strongly oppose SB 403.

I am Chiranth from Folsom Hindu community and I strongly oppose SB 403 and caste.

Hi. I'm Jigar Shah. I am from Fremont and I strongly oppose SB 403.

Hi. My name is Prena Kumari. I am from Roseville. I strongly oppose the Bill. SB 403. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Deep Singh from Juba City. I strongly oppose SB 403. Thank you, sir.

Hi, my name is Gurcharan Duggal. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Kewal Singh from Manteca. My vote is no for SB 403.

Hello. My name is Vijendra Pal Singh. I am strongly no vote for SV 403.

Hello, I'm Aarti Kaushal Chopra from Irvine. Strongly opposed SV 403 and the.

Hi, my name is Palwinder Mahi. I strongly oppose the bill SV 403.

Hi. My name is Mukund Singh Rao. I'm strongly opposed SB 403.

Thank you very much. That concludes our witnesses in opposition. Turning to the Committee, if there are any questions or comments from the Committee, thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Mckinnor. Second from Ms. Reyes. Okay, Mr. Culver.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to everyone that has come out today in the over 172 years of the State of California, I'm the only Hindu to ever serve in the California Legislature, so I know there's a lot of eyes and ears on me. And this has definitely not been easy for any of us, including the chair and his staff and the author and everyone that's worked really hard to try to listen to everyone and do their best to represent their communities and the State of California.

I know a couple of questions are raised. I just want the opportunity for either the author or the witnesses for the author, the opportunity to kind of describe to us why there was a suggestion that we can just use inherited social status as to why that is not acceptable versus using caste.

Definitely. Okay. The word caste is incredibly important to utilize here, primarily because this is the system of discrimination that we want to fight against. It is just as important as using the word gender or race or age or anything like that. That is why it is incredibly important to use the word caste and its definition.

And there was mention of the motion with the amendments that I believe the amendments move caste into the under the ancestry category. And based upon the feedback I've gotten from folks generally, I think there'll be some folks probably on both sides that aren't too happy with that resolution.

And sometimes when making legislation, when both sides aren't exactly happy, it's sometimes the landing place that we end up at to try to understand that at the end of the day, it's not a perfect process, but it's a process where we're trying to seek justice. You know, I faith is a very communal thing, but it's also very personal. I grew up Hindu and read the Gita.

I have spent my entire adult life serving the community based upon what I learned and what was taught to me and my family. So it is very personal to me to think about. It's sad to see so much division in my community and in our California community over something that is very personal to everyone that spoke here today. I get that whether you're for or against, it's something meaningful to you for a reason personal to you.

But ultimately, there are certain things that we must do, I think as a state, to protect everyone in our state. Now, understanding that there is legitimate legal questions that are likely going to be answered in the court system, I've passed a lot of legislation, the Racial Justice Act, we can go on and on, that I believed in, that is being currently challenged in the legal system, whether it's definitions, whether it's the reach or scope of the legislation.

And I believe that's the appropriate place for a lot of those questions to be heard. I think the amendments as offered by the chair offer a very reasonable resolution to this. I do think that the author did take and even when I've spoken to opposition, the author has taken 95% of the suggested amendments, short of removing the word caste. And I understand, like, I'm not naive, I understand that it's very clear that the opposition wants that word removed.

But short of that, I think everything that has been done has accommodated many of the concerns that have been raised, even concerns that I had in terms of descriptions, what have you, things that I've talked to the author about, with the other legislators about. But ultimately, it comes down to ensuring that we're doing everything we can to protect everyone in our state.

And if this falls short of that, as the opposition believes, then that's going to be determined by the courts to tell us, no, California, you got it wrong. I don't think we got it wrong. I do think that ultimately we want to make sure that everyone's protected. Now, that being said, I do agree that there should not be any groups that are targeted in any law, whether it's Hindus, whether it's South Asians. There should be no law that specifically targets one group over the other.

And so as this legislation moves forward, I think all of us should kind of ensure that it's being put forward as intended, not as targeting any one group. And if otherwise is shown, then it will be up to the courts either interpret or for us to act accordingly, moving forward.

But from where this legislation began to where it is now, I certainly think it's a much improved piece of legislation thanks to the work of the author and so many legislators, including the Committee that have engaged on this. And so you can probably tell I'm very emotional. I wanted to speak on this because it's not easy for me.

This is my community that I'm seeing tear each other apart in social media and online, getting a lot of hate from both sides and a lot of love from both sides, whatever it might be. But what I have heard from both sides is a commitment to healing. And I want to see and take up, and those shaking their heads no can shake their heads no.

What I'm saying is I've heard from both sides that regardless of what happens, there will have to be at some point some commitment to healing. And if folks were sincere before this bill was heard about that, I hope they're sincere after this bill is heard, about healing the community. And I'm certainly committed to do what I can to be a part of that, if folks want me to be part of that.

Otherwise, the reality is that we have to figure out a way to live with one another, to love one another. And I understand that these legal issues can be very complex, especially in the workplace. We have a lot of other classifications that make it very complicated to be an HR Director in this state and in this country.

I'm sure some folks on the other side of the isle would agree. There's a lot of things that make it fairly complicated, and we have to work through those things. And it's hard to work through those things. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do that difficult work. And so I really do appreciate everyone that came out today, regardless of what position you take on the legislation. Again, I want to thank the chair and the Committee.

I do think the amendments make it a better piece of legislation, including the amendments that the author took prior to this Committee hearing and removing some of the language that was deemed offensive by some of those in the opposition. And so with that, I'll be supporting the bill today, but hope that at some point in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later, there can be some work on peace and reconciliation. Thank you.

Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I met with community and some members in the community who were opposed to the bill, of course I met with those who were in favor. But those who are opposed, they had a number of questions. There's one question that I did want to ask the author that who will be defining the terms that are listed in the bill? Who will the experts be?

Which term do you mean specifically?

In the question, they talk about the terms oppressed, oppressor, caste is another one, who will define the words?

Those particular words are not utilized in the bill except for caste. So I would need a little bit more context as to what they're specifically asking.

Very good. Thank you for that. The other thing is that I appreciated the comments of the opposition, but one sentence that was very important to me, and I had the privilege of joining a delegation with my colleague to India in 2018 and learned so much more about the caste system and so much about the beauty of India and those things that are not the beauty of India.

But the comment that was made is that caste is an ugly disease in India that hasn't come to our country. And it appeared as though, especially from those in the opposition, that it has come to our country. And if indeed it has, then it is important to recognize it and to make sure, as my colleague has said, that we protect everybody. And whatever legal issues remain, those have to be decided, and they probably will be decided by our courts. And so I will be supporting the Bill today.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee seeing? None. I want to thank all the people who participated here today. It was a model of how people should conduct themselves. Respectful, in tone, and much appreciated by everybody who participated here today. I want to thank the Committee, particularly Committee staff, for their hard work on this as well. And with that, to the author, you may close.

Thank you. One, I do want to thank every single individual that has spoken their truth to power, both opponents as well as those who support the bill. I'm very proud of this bill. This bill was something that has been brought up in so many different ways and so many different conversations. But caste discrimination is real. It is happening.

We have literally hundreds upon hundreds of people that have talked about it in my district, as well as have come and testified, have emailed you, have called, you, have talked to your staff, and no one's civil rights should be made into a political playing field. I do want to say that we in this bill, explicitly address caste discrimination. We have taken the appropriate amendments. We have consistently tried to improve the bill. And I do want to say that caste is not just part of one community.

We stated this very early on. It is not part of a single religion. It's not just for one people. It is literally spread out across. And one of our legal witnesses that's not here right now often utilizes the system of caste when referencing what was discussed by the LA City Council Members just months ago, specifically about Oaxacans. And again, that is not talked about, and you did not see that here. But that is also a caste system.

We have it across the world and in this country, I believe wholeheartedly that regardless of where you come from, who you pray to, who you love, the California dream and the American Dream should be equal to all people. So I want to thank my witnesses for sharing their lived experience, their testimony, and everybody that has followed this particular Bill. I appreciate the commitment of every single Legislator in this building that has worked and heard and met with so many people.

And I hope that with this bill moving forward and to Assemblymember Kalra's points, it's not exactly what we always want, but it is a lot of conversation and negotiation and I do not want to delay justice any further for these people. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein.

Aye.

Maienschein aye. Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly aye. Dixon. Haney.

Aye.

Haney aye. Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra aye. Pacheco.

Aye.

Pacheco aye. Papan.

Aye.

Papan aye. Reyes.

Reyes aye. Sanchez.

Aye.

Aye.

Sanchez aye. Mckinnor.

Aye

Mckinnor aye.

The Bill is out. Thank you. As people leave, please leave as you exit the room, please exit quietly. I ask for a motion on the consent agenda. Motion for Ms. Reyes. Second for Mr. Kalra. Ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Okay, we have a motion and it is second on the consent agenda. The consent agenda includes SB 235 Umberg, SB 271 Dodd, SB 455 McGuire, SB 558 Rubio, and SB 699 Caballero. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Maienschein, aye. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. This is consent. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye.

Consent agenda is out. Item number two, SB 54 Skinner. Senator Skinner. You're up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Here to present SB 54, the purpose of which is to the goal is to increase the diversity of our venture capital investments in the type of startups they invest in. I want to first open with I am accepting the Committee's amendments. They are based on technical assistance received from the State Civil Rights Department. And that is the office, that our intention, would implement or be responsible for administering the Bill if it is successfully put into law.

This is not just figures for California, but across the U.S.. Venture capital investments are going to only certain startups. Female founded startups in 2020 received only 2.3% of all venture capital investments. And unfortunately, that number dropped to 1.7% in 2022. And in 2022, black startups received 2.6% of all venture capital investments. Latino startups only 0.6. Not even a percent. This lack of diversity in the capital that invests in startups is negative consequences for the economy.

First, there's lots of research that shows that when investors invest in more diverse startups, they get a higher return on their investment. Additionally, this creates a limited opportunity for businesses owned by women and minorities to access capital. And as we all know, capital is the lifeblood of your startup. What SB 54 does is simply ask the venture capital firms operating in California to report to the Office of Civil Rights or the Civil Rights Department every year, just the diversity of their VC investments.

There's no other requirement on them. And then that report would be made public and hopefully through that transparency, they would begin to improve their investments. So I have with me my witnesses are Marquesa Finch, who is the founding Member of the F5 Collective and the F5 collective is a collective of various VC firms that are mostly women owned, women and minority owned, and they're focused on investing in women and underrepresented startups.

And also Allison Byers, who is the founder and CEO of Scroobious, which I think is also a Member of the F5 Collective. Collaborators. Collaborators. Anyway, I will allow my witnesses to begin.

You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee and community members watching. Thank you for having me today. I'm here representing myself, the F5 Collective, a venture capital fund backing female founders, of which I am Chief Investment Officer and Founding Partner, and Pyrium, an equity crowdfunding portal aimed at creating a greater pool of diverse investors by allowing startups to raise from their own communities.

Both these ventures were created directly to address the lack of funding for female founders and founders of color, a problem that we've known to be real in tech and venture for decades. Currently, we are experiencing an utter obliteration of funding for women and people of color. Before the pandemic, female founders received an already paltry 2.6% of all venture funding. After the Pandemic, that number fell to 1.9%, and for black founders, it was less than 1%.

These numbers are not just bad, they are downright prejudicial. I sit here before you today in an attempt to urgently address an issue that will undoubtedly have generational effects in access, opportunity, and wealth. Without diverse founders and leadership, we can expect teams to be less diverse and also for the products and services that their companies make to fall short of meeting the needs of a diverse consumer market.

As a founder who is female and of African American and Filipino descent, that total pool of venture capital funding that is available to me, according to the data, is less than a half of a percent. And I really have to pause and say that again to let it sink in. That's less than a half a percent of all total venture capital funding that will be available to me and those like me.

Despite the data, venture capital as an industry continues to believe they fund founders based off merit, not understanding that bias, both unconscious and conscious, may be influencing their behavior even within their own deal sourcing and diligence processes. What these numbers falsely imply is that funding a founder that looks like me is a form of philanthropy and not a real disruptive and returns-generating opportunity.

It also communicates to little girls and children of color that their ideas are worthless, that their passion for pioneering innovation is a feudal pursuit. Additionally, we know that diverse teams generate higher returns than non-diverse teams because of their diversity of experiences and that they allow them to see problems from different angles.

I need you to wrap.

Therefore allowing them to create the best solutions. So I urge you to support SB 54 today and to help us gather the tools necessary to make informed decisions on equity, entrepreneurship, and venture capital. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Okay. Yeah, go ahead. That's what I thought. No worries.

Well, thank you. Thank you, Chair and Committee Members, for letting me come and testify today. My name is Allison Byers. I'm the founder of a tech startup called Scroobious. We are an AI-powered platform that connects diverse founders with investors. We've helped over 550 founders, the majority of whom identify as underrepresented, create their pitch material for fundraising, and we have witnessed the bias and injustice that they face in the fundraising process. I have experienced this personally many times, and it is why I started this company.

So we see this injustice reflected in the numbers that we've all heard today. Where of the $238 billion of venture capital allocated in 2022, women got 1.7% of that. Black founders less than a percent, black women less than 0.35% of that money. I challenge you to find another industry or resource in our country that has that level of disparity.

This data comes from trusted sources like PitchBook and CrunchBase, yet they rely on industry partners and news sources because funds are not required to report their diversity metrics. And despite an increase in public rhetoric, 8 out of 10 investors view the funding landscape as balanced. Those investors are general partners of funds, and they manage money that comes from endowments, wealthy individuals, pensions, like CalPERS and other fiduciary backers. Is that where those investors want their money going?

So we have witnessed the positive impact of other bills that require data reporting in areas like board composition and diversity in the workplace. This Bill takes a crucial step toward rectifying the inequities in the funding landscape of venture capital by establishing accurate measurement and public availability that will foster accountability and progress. California is responsible, I'm going to wrap up, California is responsible for 36% of U.S. venture funding. So this will have a global impact. I'm going to close now.

I'm testifying today because this is deeply personal to me, this issue, as a female founder representing a community of hundreds of underrepresented entrepreneurs. And I'm proud to support SB 54. I hope you will be too. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Witnesses in support? Name and organization only.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Derek Ali, and I am in support, CEO and founder of EngineEars.

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

So, love the idea. I want to ask you some questions logistically about how it works. So this is reporting on percentages of closed deals, is that right?

Investments. It's venture capital investments. So in that respect, yes, closed deals. But it isn't closed deals in terms of that startup actually started up, but rather it is the report from the venture capitalists in terms of the firms, in terms of their investments.

And is it dollars or is it number of investments made?

It's a variety of data including total dollars invested, the demographics of the firms invested in, and the dollar amounts to those firms.

Okay, just to follow up just a little bit more, what I'm wondering is are the presentations coming and being rejected or is it that they're just not coming? In which case this ain't going to hurt. I just like to know what we're dealing with.

Sure. If you don't mind, perhaps would you like to answer that?

Sure. Well, I think the spirit of the Bill is we would all like to know what's going on. There's a real lack of transparency in any of the questions that you're asking because it isn't mandated. And what we are seeing, I can tell you based on data that I've seen from all the reports that are coming out from private institutions who are taking it upon themselves to measure this is there are a lot of meetings that are being taken.

It is not an issue of people going for funding or pitching for funding. In fact, black women are starting businesses faster than any other segment of our population and receive the lowest amount of venture funding. They're not actually getting the funding and we want to measure it, right? We want to actually have some accurate data here so that we all know what's going on.

So our case may be our personal experience and the members of her collective why they formed their own firm because of their making pitches that were not successful.

But I guess my question if I may, will you be tracking actual pitches that are made that are not awarded.

In this Bill, unless the fund wants to give us that information, I believe the actual verbiage in the Bill does not track pitches but only close deals after the term sheet has been signed. Okay, so maybe that can be a next step but we'd love to have that information. But for us, we'd like to know just where the money's going first.

Okay, got it. And I'm happy to support the Bill and I'd like to move the Bill.

Motion for Ms. Papan. Do you have a second? Second for Mr. Haney. Ms. McKinnor.

I would like to thank the author the Senator for bringing this Bill forward. This is some important work. We are trying, since I've got here to the Assembly for the last past year, I've been asking for this type of data because we know that since these folks are saying that it's balanced and that it's good, they shouldn't have any problem with this Bill. They should just turn the data right on over to show how diversity inclusive they are. But this is some good work.

This is not asking anybody to do anything or to invest in anyone. It's just saying where's the money going? And also, being the chair of PRS, I'd love to see this data, because if PRS and STIRS are doing some of this investment, a lot of the workers, the public sector workers, are black and brown and women. And so we would love to see this go forward. And I will be supporting this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Reyes.

I support the concept, just finding out where people are investing their money. It says that we're going to collect the information on the businesses in which the covered person made a venture capital investment. What is our authority for asking a private venture capitalist to provide information to the State of California?

In effect, we give them a business license. We regulate them. And so we have the ability to, by statute, ask them to provide us information.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, we have a motion and a second. Ms. Skinner may close.

Thanks so much. One of the witnesses who came to the mic, Derek Ali, and appreciate that the Committee will keep testimony, but he is a Grammy Award winning musician who is also an entrepreneur who has developed software and other products, and he had the ability to fund himself. If he had not, and he were pitching, as has been evidenced by the research, and he were having to pitch for the investments and for the startup, he may not have been able to pursue that business.

And we see that I think we see now with Ms. Finch, with others, that those with capital, those in the Latino community, the black community, women who have some capital, are forming their own firms because they see that this capital is not being made available. And yet there's not enough capital out there from just women, blacks and Latinos, or we wouldn't have this problem. And of course, once their startups are successful, maybe there would be enough capital. But at the moment, not.

And it's a big disadvantage to us, economically and otherwise. And so I think this Bill is again aimed in a simple way to hopefully have that transparency motivate some expansion of investment. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is due pass as amended to Approps. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Maienschein, aye. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Dixon, no. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, no. McKinnor. McKinnor, aye.

Your bill is out. Thank you. And you have a second bill, so stay right there. Item number five, SB 345. Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Mr. Haney. Senator, we're back on track.

Great. Given that there's a motion, I'll be very brief. Basically, SB 345 adds some protections that while we did incredible work last year, we, the Legislature in adding a variety of legal protections to our clinics, to our providers, to our patients to expanding abortion services, to expanding reproductive health care and such. What we did, and I shouldn't say we failed to anticipate, that's not quite correct, but we didn't really fully embody in those bills the assault that we're now seeing on various medication treatments.

So we are seeing an assault on both providers and patients who get either medication abortion or treatment medication treatment for gender-affirming care. And what this bill does is provide protection for those providers in California regardless of where their patient is located. And I can explain more, but I will leave it at that for now and let my witnesses speak in support. And I have Dr. Pollock, who is a family physician who provides this kind of treatment for both reproductive care and gender-affirming care, and also Paris Maloof-Bury, who is the President of the California Nurse-Midwives Association.

First witness, please.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair and committee. Thank you for having me. My name is Lealah Pollock. I'm a family physician and a provider of abortion care and gender-affirming care at UCSF and Planned Parenthood. And I also am a trainer for TEACH, which is Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare. I think, as we all know, anti-choice legislators in other states want to make it impossible to access abortion and gender-affirming care across the country.

And failing to pass SB 345 would let them control medical care actually here at home and undermine California's goal of being an abortion haven state. In the past year, as I'm sure many of you know, we've seen a steady influx of patients who, unable to access abortion in their home states, travel to California for a simple, safe procedure or a prescription. The medical care is simple, but juggling the unknowns of the legal implications of this care is more complex.

And this does also affect patients getting procedural abortions. Most patients don't need any follow-up after an abortion procedure, but the procedure is very safe and effective. But I saw one patient recently who was very, very early in pregnancy and ideally would have gotten a blood test two or three days after her procedure to confirm it was complete, except this is straightforward and routine, except that in this case, the patient was flying home to Texas the next day.

Together, we were able to figure out a safe follow-up plan, but it wasn't ideal, and it didn't feel good to be making medical decisions based on the law in another state instead of my clinical judgment. This is the goal of anti-choice legislators in hostile states, not just to make abortion illegal and accessible in their states, but to create a chilling effect across the country so that patients are afraid to seek care and providers are afraid to provide care. For California to be a safe space for patients to access abortion and gender-affirming care, providers need to be protected by the laws of our state. As a California healthcare provider, I urge you to vote aye on SB 345.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Hello, Chair Maienschein and committee. Thank you for having me today. My name is Paris Maloof-Bury, I'm a nurse midwife with Sutter Health and President of the California Nurse-Midwives Association. As a nurse midwife, I'm a reproductive health care provider across the lifespan, and as such, I provide compassionate early abortion care and miscarriage management for my patients.

As leader in my state affiliate, I can also tell you that without a doubt, our midwife members, and for that matter, our physician colleagues, are doing whatever it takes to ensure that any person who needs an abortion can access that life-saving care. California reproductive health care providers are stepping up to fill the breach in this post-Dobbs world where thousands of women will seek care by California providers. We are also well aware that anti-abortion advocates will not be satisfied with denying abortions only in their state. They want to make abortion, birth control access, and gender-affirming care extremely difficult for anyone to obtain, even in states where such care remains legal. That means that California healthcare providers, like myself, are targets.

In fact, even as I sit here now, having said my name aloud for the cameras in this room, I can't help but wonder who might hear my testimony and what that means for my practice, my livelihood, and my family. This thought looms large in the minds of abortion care providers, and although not a deterrent for me, this concern would be a strong deterrent for other midwives, nurse practitioners, and physicians, especially for those doing telehealth abortion.

Robust abortion access will only remain a reality if providers are able to care for their patients without the fear of retribution and without the very real fear that their lives could be upended by one very zealous prosecutor in another state. I urge you today to vote in favor of SB 345 and stand with healthcare providers across California like us, who continue to provide this life saving service even in the face of such risks.

We at the California Nurse-Midwives Association championed many of the FAB Council bills from 2022 that ensured continued robust access to abortion in California. Now, in 2023, the obvious next step is to enact provider and patient protections against potential civil and criminal proceedings. I thank you for your time and strongly urge your aye vote.

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

Craig Pulsfer on behalf of Equality California. Proud co sponsor, in support.

Izzy Simner on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Erin Evans on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California, a co sponsor, in proud support. A proud co sponsor in support. And secondly, I've been asked to express support of an additional co sponsor, the Black Women for Wellness Action Project. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Estrada on behalf of California Latinas for Reproductive justice and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Grace Glazer on behalf of Valor and the California Partnership End Domestic Violence and Support.

Good afternoon. Elena Chavez of the Teach Program, proud co sponsor and in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Molly Ripson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. No questions, really. Just wanted to say thank you to the author for not just bringing this Bill forward, but for your work in this space. I think this is a well crafted Bill. I think it's important that California truly be a sanctuary for folks around the nation, or world, for that matter, in terms of being able to seek abortion services and reproductive health. We sent a strong message with the passage of Proposition One.

I think SB 345 will be an important part of this, and I would like to be added as a co author.

Mr. Kalra

Second that. I'd love to be added as a co author. Thank you. Senator,

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none Senator. Skinny, you may close.

Yes. Thank you. And I see that we do have a motion, but I did like also to point out that, look, many of us, we go to another state because we have a job assignment for a year or two, or we have relatives who are studying, whether it's grad school or undergrad, and their Doctor is in California.

So independent of our other motivations for being a sanctuary state, we have people that their health care is here, but they're in another state and they want to be able to rely on their health care here. And so their healthcare professional needs to be protected. And with that, I ask for your I vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. It is due pass to public safety. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Mainshine, Aye. Connolly, Aye. Dixon, No. Haney, Aye. Kalra, Aye. Pacheco, Aye. Pappin, Aye. Reyes, Aye. Sanchez, No. Mikinor, Aye.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Next is item nine, SB 553. Cortese. Senator Cortese. Senator Cortese. Welcome. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee for their Thoughtful work on this Bill. I will be accepting all Committee amendments, and I'm very pleased to be here presenting SB 553, which, as you know, is a workplace safety Bill. The Bill happens to be sponsored by UFCW United Food and Commercial Workers and is code sponsored by AFSME AFLCIO.

SB 553 will strengthen existing laws related to workplace violence by expanding the ability of employers to protect their workers workplace safety and creating additional enforceable protections for employees. OSHA has clearly identified workplace violence as the second leading cause of fatal occupational injury at the workplace, and estimates that nearly 2 million workers are affected by workplace violence each year.

As you may remember, and I know my colleagues from the Bay Area clearly remember, on May 26 of 2021, a VTA employee entered the Guadalupe Yard of the Valley Transportation Authority in my district and killed nine of his coworkers at the facility before taking his own life. I surveyed that scene almost immediately afterward and left me profoundly impacted. In response to that tragedy, we were able to get SB 1294 signed into law.

That Bill promoted employee wellness and safety in high stress industries by creating a path to expand worker wellness centers. That was a good first step, but our work is obviously not complete. Unfortunately, workplace shootings are becoming more and more common. In June of 2022, a Safeway employee in my district, San Jose, Manuel Huzar Cornell, was shot and killed during a robbery inside the store. The Legislature has made some impressive strides on reducing workplace violence.

In 2017, after the passage of what was then SB 1299 by then California State Senator Alex Padilla Cal, OSHA officially adopted pivotal violence prevention standards, but applied them at that time only to healthcare workplaces. Yet these standards only increased protections for healthcare workers, excluding most of California's workforce. Six years ago, OSHA circulated a General industry workplace violence discussion draft, outlining workplace violence prevention standards for everyone else.

However, that draft has significantly weaker protections in a couple of areas, including weaker protections compared to the workplace violence standards in the healthcare industry. I acknowledge that six years of planning is not due to inaction, especially with what we just went through with COVID but we need to accelerate a standard with robust protections we can't stand by.

While incidents of workplace violence continue to rise, SB 553 will expedite workplace violence prevention standards for non healthcare workers, meaning the rest of all employers in the State of California and offer all workers the same quality of protections. That they enjoy through articulated workplace violence prevention plans, data collection on workplace violence incidents, effective training and expanding employee protections. SB 553 will help ensure accountability.

It's been unfortunate to see the degree of disinformation circulated regarding the Bill, some going as far as to say that on the retail side, the Bill is legislating shoplifting. SB 553 clearly states the need for not only shoplifter training, but acknowledging that certain environments may require security personnel. Furthermore, non security personnel should not be put in confrontational situations. So we've really created two worlds in the Bill those of employees who are dedicated security personnel.

And that the plan in IIPP that we're calling for would say who is a security personnel and which employees are not. We think that's good for employees to know. It's good for customers to know on the retail side, ultimately for their own safety and good for us to know as well. We have adopted amendments to further clarify definitions listed in the Bill to discourage misinformation. And I think that demonstrates our commitment, our commitment to continual dialogue in the Bill. And more amendments will come.

I don't want to recite all these. You have a long docket today, but we have a page and a half of amendments that have already been adopted. If there is at some point any question about those, I can certainly cite those by date, by Committee, and obviously by subject matter. Here to testify we have Samantha Webster's, Hercules grocery worker and Steve Jovell, President of ASME Council 57 and rank and file Member and President of Local 111 at Santa Car Valley Transportation Authority.

Thank you very much again for your help with the Bill, and at the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for your eye votes.

Thank you. First witness.

Who's going to go first? Go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Samantha Webster, and I work at Safeway in Hercules. Thank you for having me here today to talk to you about workplace violence. I've worked at Safeway for 21 years now, so I have plenty stories to tell, but I'll keep it quick with just three incidences. Back in 2001, when I started as a checker, I had a customer come through my line with her teenage daughter.

The customer's debit card wasn't working, and the customer got aggravated and started cussing at me and threatening me. Her daughter became enraged and spat at me because she thought I was intentionally messing up a transaction. Other customers got involved, and eventually my manager pulled me away from the customer, insisting that I stay hidden. The day after Christmas in 2016, I was working at a check stand at the time. The company had us asking customers if they wanted bags.

A customer came through my line with two gallon jugs of juice, and I asked if she wanted bags. The customer said, of course I want bags. Are you stupid? I told the customer not to speak to me in that way, and the customer then grabbed a bottle of water that was on display, removed the cap and proceeded to throw the water at me and then the bottle. Lastly, one day I was in the Dairy Department. I saw a man stealing cheese and other items.

I went to him per Alberson's shoplifter policy, which is to engage a suspected shoplifter and perform customer service, asking if he needed help. I offered him a handbasket, and the customer then pulled up his shirt to flash a gun that was in his waist and told me to back off. I was so scared. I didn't know if I was going to make it home to my five year old son.

There's no real security in our stores, and if there are guards, the guards can't really do anything but call the police, and they tend to take their own time to show up. Workers like myself didn't sign up to get shot, harassed, threatened or insulted. We should not have to wake up each morning afraid that we will be assaulted or killed while at work. We want to be able to stock shelves and just work without Fearing for our lives.

But there's no safety precautions in place for us at all. If we defend ourselves or do anything the company doesn't like, we are the ones under investigation, not the customer who instigated it. Even if you walk away from a situation, the aggressor often feels like they're being ignored, and it escalates the situation. I am here today to ask you to value grocery workers lives. We have families.

We are someone's daughter, someone's mother, someone's son, someone's father, and we deserve to be valued as much as everyone else. Please vote yes on Senate Bill 553 to implement basic protections intended to keep workers safe while at work. Because every day our lives are at risk. Thank you.

Next witness. Thank you, chair and Members. My name is Steve Javelle. I'm President of the American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees Council 57 and Rank and File Member and President of Local 111 at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Thank you, Senator Cortese, for working on this Bill and your leadership in ensuring workers are protected at the workplace. This Bill is particular importance for absentee Members. Workplace violence has greatly impacted our Members.

From paramedics to workers at the California agencies, transit workers, librarians, and more Members from various sectors have shared their stories of physically being attacked, verbally abused, and sexually harassed at the workplace. On May 26, 2021, asked me lost a union brother in the Bay Area's deadliest mass shooting when the gunman who worked at Santa Clara, VTA opened fire at the workplace, killing nine of our coworkers.

We lost 18 brothers in this incident as well, and later losing one additional employee to suicide, which was a direct impact to this violence. We are not under any false pretense that this Bill will prevent all workplace violence, but we believe that SB 553 will give employers and employees the tools to keep themselves safe from assaults and more serious tragedies. It may come as a surprise to some of you that but calocious workplace violence regulations currently apply only to healthcare industry.

California can lead the way in applying a standard for industries most at risk for violence and empower both workers and employers to come together and to protect themselves and their communities and help workers find the help that they need following a traumatic event. For these reasons, we urge you to support SB 553 and I'd like to thank all of you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

Thank you. Witnesses in Support

Howard, USCw Co sponsoring please to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Witnesses in Support name and organization only please.

Hello. Nick Cruz, California Labor Federation. In support.

Jasper Graywell, USCW Western States Council proud co sponsor. In support,

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in strong support.

Ellie Griffin, asked me, proud co sponsor.

In Support witnesses in Opposition

thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Robert Mutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce, and we are in respectful opposition to SB 553. First, I want to upfront thank the author and staff and sponsor UFCW for repeated and ongoing meetings on this. We have been able to come to some very small cleanup pieces and they are appreciated, but we haven't addressed the core issues.

Before I get to the substance of the Bill, I want to be clear about what we are not in defense of. We are certainly not here in defense of workplace violence. And those stories are tragic and I'm so sorry to hear them, because this Committee is viewing just a limited piece of the Bill, and I think the analysis notes this. But I want to make clear for the Committee there are two very significant differently pieces here.

The one is the changes to when a temporary restraining order is available and that piece has very different thoughts on the opposition side. So I want to clearly separate the two pieces and identify the limited scope of this Committee separate from the entire Bill. I will say on behalf of the Chamber, the section of the Bill changing the TRO standard and allowing TROS around workplace violence to be sought by unions as well as employers. The Chamber is not opposed to in many business groups or not.

I do want to flag, I think, and I don't want to speak for them, but one correction, I think there was potentially a misunderstanding of the analysis. I believe I've spoken to some public entities who have concerns about the feasibility and function of the TRO measure. I can't get into detail, but I just have spoke to them and heard that. So I want to flag that for knowledge. But that is not the piece that the Chamber is opposed to on the Bill.

The remaining piece of the Bill, the workplace violence standard at Calocia, is where our focus is. And I just want to flag why. As the author correctly noted, Kalosha passed a healthcare workplace violence standard six years ago related to hospitals and has been working since on one, applied for all industries, and that's included changes to language to make sense away from hospitals and various streamlining changes in those six years.

I've spoken to Kalosha staff on it and basically where we're coming from is not all employers are hospitals. Hospitals are 500 or 1000 or 2000 employees and the vast majority of California businesses are not in that range. So that is where opposition comes from. Glad to answer any questions about either portion and clarify. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition,

Mr. Chair Chris Mckayley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce for the reasons that Mr. Mutrie stated. Thank you.

Brett Glad Pelty on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California and San Diego chapters in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association. We're opposed to SB 553 Mr.

Chair Members. Carlos Guterres on behalf of the California Groceries Association and the American Council of Engineering Companies. California in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Also here on behalf of the Association of California School Superintendents in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Kaylin Dean on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, also the California League of Cities and the Rural County Representatives of California in opposition.

Okay. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition questions or comments from the Committee, Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to move the Bill and just thank the Senator who's really made this his mission since the tragic BTA shooting in our district and really is the workers that went through the pain and the families that have really urged us to act.

And so I'm very grateful to the Senator and the workers that have had the courage to come forward and tell their stories similarly with our grocery store workers, if those are customer facing, we've seen particularly during the pandemic and since how much harder it's been to be in those positions. I mean, we need to do everything we can to make those workplaces as safe as we possibly can.

And so I've meant to do this during labor Committee, but I would love to be able to co author the Bill as well. So we'll take that as a motion for Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms.. Reyes. Ms.. Papan.

So I'm going to support the Bill today because of the we are here for a limited purpose and I feel terrible about what both of you have been through. I'm hopeful that you all can work together and try to figure out some pretty workable safety measures. It is a terrible State of our society that you're working at a grocery store and you have to endure what you endured or likewise at VTA. I'm from San Mateo County, so some of your employees certainly live in my county.

So in any event, I would love to see you all work together and you get to a position where you're in support of the Bill because like you said, nobody can be opposed to safety in the workplace let's make it happen.

Ms.. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I made this comment during labor, and I'd make it again, that this is regarding a plan. It's a workplace violence prevention plan. It's not telling you everything you need to do. It's just saying put together a plan. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. The plan. We already have an IIPP and injury prevention plan that's required by state law for employers, and this, in effect, embeds or adds a workplace violence prevention plan within it. But I think your real point is this is a plan. A close reading the Bill will make that very clear. There are not specific mandates, given that it's industry wide, for what someone might want to include in that plan.

But there is language that says that the environment of that place of employment needs to be taken into account when writing the plan. There's basically seven points, and I've made this General point before seven points. If you were to look at the fact sheet on the Bill, I think they're accurate as to what should be in the plan.

And honestly, it is not a matter of being either facetious or snarky in any way, shape or form, but we have middle schools in Santa Clara County on their own and have accomplished these seven steps. There's been questions about wellness referral and so forth. Certainly, we have mental health crisis out there, but we have no shortage of ability to refer somebody to a wellness center. And that's what this Bill encourages as one of those items that's included in the plan.

And I also want to appreciate, if I may, Mr. Chair, the amendment, the recent amendment to delay implementation, since Calocia is working on this. And I appreciate that that was something that was brought up so that we're not doing double work. If we have Kelosha putting something together, then the implementation will be delayed. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you. And I also want to comment that I feel bad for both of you who have dealt with workplace violence. I know that the opposition does not want any workplace violence. It's terrible that this has happened and is happening. But I'm just curious, is there still continued conversations between the opposition and the author?

Yeah. In fact, we have our ends coming, and I stated this on the record at the last Committee. And the goal is to have additional amendments ready for appropriations around the size of the businesses that would be governed by this legislation. And we've been working on a regular basis with the opposition. There's a series 1234, including this Committee, what will be 5 and 6 future amendments, but four taken already. And I don't think they're minor technical amendments.

For example, we redefined what dedicated safety personnel are for the retailers, particularly to make sure that people that they use, like loss prevention folks who are not the checkers or the baggers are specifically called out as satisfying the requirement in the plan for dedicated security personnel. So it's been helpful to have eyes on this from different segments. It covers every employer in the State of California.

So while we've had a few, as you can see, in particular employment sectors that still have concerns, it's gratifying at this point that we're closer and closer and closer to satisfying everyone's concerns. That's where we're at. But we'll keep going on it.

And I think opposition also wants to mention something.

Zero, no. I would agree that we are in talks. We are continuing to talk to try to address the difference between the Kalosha version, which they have worked on, and the present text. But we are in talks on that and appreciate the talks.

Thank you. And I look forward to the outcome. And I'm glad to hear that you're both working together.

Thank you, Ms.. Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. I'm glad to hear that there's continued conversations. Obviously, we all want workplace safety. For many, many years we've all worked with Cal OSHA or Federal OSHA. So employers are clearly following a stringent, rigorous set of rules, state and federal rules on workplace safety. I think we all know that the elephant in the room on this subject is that our society is changing and violence is becoming systemic.

And my concern is that we're putting safety for public safety, mental safety, mental illness safety protections on the backs of small business, on retailers. You said on every employer in California. This is a huge imposition. I will personally be pleased if we could find a happy medium where retailers and business owners, small business owners, can be protected. No one wants to see hear these stories of horrible behavior, whether it's caused by mental illness or just rude people. But how do you legislate against rudeness?

I don't know, but if we could find a way extreme rudeness. That's terrible what you went through. I just abhor that. But I don't know if more laws are going to cure bad behavior. But I hope that we can find a happy medium. I will not support it now, but I hope when it gets to the floor, we could have see these amendments that can really work to help change behavior, I guess, is what we're talking about in society. It's a real tough order. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, we do have a motion. A second. Senator, you may close.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate all the comments. Also, in terms of concerns, we'll be clear that there's nothing in the Bill that preempts OSHA from continued rulemaking. Should that be what they want to continue doing our understanding as they continue their work? But this is something we can do right now with what we have and what we're able to do as a Legislature to put plans in place to address these kinds of issues. We've all been impacted by them.

And we understand employers are oftentimes victims themselves of the kind of behavior that we see out there, but perhaps all the more reason to have plans in place. So again, I thank the Committee staff for excellent work, especially in the area of the restraining orders and in some other areas where we got excellent feedback from the Committee. And Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

Mainshine, Aye. Connolly, Aye. Dixon, No. Haney, Aye. Kalra. Pacheco, Aye. Papan, Aye. Reyes, Aye.Mckinnor, Aye.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, proceed.

I'm presenting 310 SB 310 pertaining to cultural burning. SB 310 would recognize tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning practices, defined as the intentional application of fire by cultural fire practitioners to achieve cultural goals and objectives. The Bill would vest authority in the Secretary of Natural Resources to decide if, in recognition of tribal sovereignty, certain state approvals for cultural burning may be waived. Tribes and Native people have retained control and sovereignty over cultural burning for thousands of years. The State's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force has established it would support enable the expansion of cultural burning for the health and well being of all communities. Pursuant to an agreement with the State Resources Secretary, Native American tribes would not only be able to continue their cultural burning practices, but also benefit from the protections granted to certified burn bosses and have access to this prescribed fire liability pilot program which was established by my SB 926 last session. The Bill is supported by a number of organizations, including the Pacific Forest Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Farm Bureau, and the Humboldt Redwood Timber Company, among others. With me today is Jenna Archer, representing the Karuk tribe. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. My name is Jenna Archer and I'm an attorney at Shute, Mihaly & Weinburger, a public interest law firm that has been working with the Karuk tribe on cultural burning for a number of years. We asked for your I vote today on SB 310. Tribes and Native American people have been practicing cultural burning since time immemorial. It is used to steward plants and used for basket weaving, food and medicine. It is used to create and maintain habitat for important species, and it reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire by reducing fuel loads and creating resilient ecosystems. Tribes are knowledgeable about this practice and have never ceded control over cultural burning. SB 310 would formally recognize tribal sovereignty regarding cultural burning. It would enable the Secretary of Natural Resources to enter into agreements with federally recognized California tribes to coordinate cultural burning activities on their ancestral territories. Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to find that state permits issued by Cal. Fire and air districts would not be required for cultural burning programs. Instead, health and safety issues would be handled by tribal law in coordination with state regarding air quality issues. Tribes would work with the Secretary of the EPA, which oversees carbs and local air districts to ensure coordination around smoke impact. And SB 310 includes a small but very important expansion of 2021 legislation on prescribed fire liability. SB 332, also authored by Senator Dodd, made it less likely that private landowners and nonprofits would receive suppression cost bills if they needed help with an escaped prescribed fire, so long as they were following best practices. SB 310 would allow federally qualified burn bosses to rely on this same liability standard, which is needed to address workforce issues. So, again, we request your aye vote and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Witnesses in support? Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Half of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support?

Thank you. See? No. Witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition?

We're actively advocating for prescribed fire at the federal level by engaging with US. EPA as it considers the federal PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, because we're concerned that, should the standards be promulgated without consideration of the emissions from prescribed fire, that California will be prevented from continuing to use it to mitigate the negative impacts of wildfire and wildfire smoke.

Air districts, in partnership with the California Air Resources Board, CALFIRE, federal land managers, tribes and others work closely to ensure that emissions from prescribed fires do not significantly impact downwind communities, and the current permitting process considers factors such as meteorological conditions, fire suppression techniques, and location to the nearest population centers, among others. And the permits also include public notification and smoke modeling requirements to help inform potentially affected areas. Consistent with the US.

Constitution, districts don't require tribes to obtain permits for cultural burns on federally recognized trust lands. However, because of the definition of ancestral territory in this Bill, with the sign-off of the Secretaries of Natural Resources in CALPA, cultural burns could be allowed anywhere in the state. Without the safety measures I described, SB 310 would override local government's ability to protect public health and safety by shifting authority for making burn decisions to the state. Burn decisions are made using a highly localized data in real time.

I'm wrapping up, Mr. Chair, and it is our concern that without this data, prescribed burn decisions will be based on incomplete knowledge and risk jeopardizing public health and safety. So we're asking that the amendments limit exemptions to federal trust land and retain local permitting to ensure public health and safety is protected.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kalie Bonomo, and I run the prescribed fire program at the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. I am just here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you for the witnesses in opposition. Name and organization only, please.

David Quintana, South Coast Air Quality Management District. We align our position opposed unless amended, with air pollution control officers.

Thank you. See no further witnesses in opposition. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes?

I understand that one of the concerns is that notice will no longer be given on the burns. Is that still an issue?

So notice may be an issue in some cases, but that should be addressed at the agreement stage, not in the legislation. In order for tribes to be able to conduct cultural burning without permits. They would first need to, of course, enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Natural Resources when it comes to air quality, that would involve CALPA, it would involve CARB. And CARB speaks every day with local air districts. And so any issues about notice and those local control or local concerns we believe would be able to be adequately addressed in the agreement. Thank you.

Do you have any further questions or did that answer your question? Okay. Thank you. Answer the question. Any further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Move the Bill. Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Mr. Haney. Senator Dodd, you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is due pass is amended to the appropriate due pass. Just due pass to approves. I ask Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein aye. Connolly. Connolly aye. Dixon. Dixon aye. Haney. Haney aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco aye. Papan aye. Reyes aye. Sanchez. McKinnor. McKinnor.

Your Bill is out. Thank you, Senator Bradford. Members. You're welcome, Senator Bradford. SB 700.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present SB 700, a measure that strengthens the existing law to protect employees and applicants from employment discrimination based on legal cannabis consumption. Last year, the Legislature made it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or conditions of employment simply because a person's off the job cannabis consumption. However, some employers continue to employ zero tolerance policies on cannabis use and ask applicants whether they have used cannabis recreationally prior to employment.

This practice not only dissuades candidates from applying for these positions, but also leads to situations in which individuals respond dishonestly honestly to get a job. Many are prevented from moving further in the application process simply for using cannabis in a legal and responsible manner, which was legalized in 2016 by Prop 64. SB 700 explicitly makes it unlawful for employers to request information from an applicant relating to their prior use of cannabis.

This Bill preserves the provisions of AB 2188, including the exemption for employees subject to the federal background check in the construction industry. It does nothing to change the existing law pertaining to testing for cannabis and prohibiting cannabis use on the job, ensuring employers can maintain a drug free workplace. So I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you. First one, we had a motion for Ms. Papan. We have a second for Ms. McKinnor. Thank you. May proceed.

Pamela Lopez. On behalf of California Normal, I will keep this short and sweet. We are so grateful to Senator Bradford for introducing this Bill. We sponsored AB 2188 last year because cannabis consumption is legal in the State of California and employees do not belong to their employers when they are not at work. We're so happy to have this further legislation to clarify that in addition to not discriminating against employees who consume when they are not at work. Employers may not ask about their previous cannabis use. Thank you

Thank you. Further witnesses in support.

Kristin Heidelbach on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support.

Thank you. See no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. We do have a motion and a second. Senator Bradford. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is due pass Appropriations Committee. Ask Clerk to call a roll.

Maienschein aye. Connolly. Connolly. Aye. Dixon. Dixon. No. Haney. Haney. Aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Pacheco aye. Papan aye. Reyes aye. Sanchez. McKinnor. McKinnor. Aye.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members. We are waiting on authors. Thank you. We're waiting on Senators Eggman, Portantino, Limone, Newman, Alvarado, Gill. Wow. Well done. Were you just right outside the door? Like, literally? Right outside. Good. Well, welcome, Senator Eggman. You may proceed. We just concluded our Health Committee. All right. Don't have the Bradford. Okay. Ready? Okay. Good afternoon, everybody.

It's nice to be here today, and today I'm presenting AB or SB SB 244, the Right to Repair. Some of you who have served with me for a while, this may sound familiar. I think I first started working on this in 2018. And here we are, hopefully going to get it across the finish line this year. We know there's been a movement across the country working on these issues around right to repair.

I mean, if you buy this, do you own it or does a company own it? Because if you own it, you should be able to get it fixed where you want to get it fixed, and you shouldn't be tied back somewhere else. Because if I'm going to lease it, tell me I'm leasing it, and then I'll follow the rules.

But if I'm going to buy it and own it, then we should be able to have the right to have the parts, the schematics to fix it, and the tools to be able to do such things. So that's what this Bill will do. Make the parts, tools, documentation and software needed for consumer, electronic and appliance repair accessible to independent repair shops and consumers. It has been kind of a market developed strategy to tie us back to the producer of our devices. We're all tied to them.

We use them every single day. Californians throw away 46,000 phones a day. And we can just think about what that does to our waste stream, what that does to our precious resources around the world as we have kids, sometimes mining parts that we don't necessarily care for. As we become more and more dependent, of course, the amount of money that we spend every day, every week, every month continues to go up. So we've amended this Bill in both houses.

We think it is in a very good space. You'll see for the first time, we don't have the vigorous opposition that we've had before when it just died without even a hearing, or it died in the dark of night. We are now in our final Committee hearing and making good progress so far. And with me today is Rebecca Marcus on behalf of CALPIRG, as well as Chao Jun Liu from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Thank you, first witness.

Good afternoon, Chair Maienschein and Members of the Committee. My name is Rebecca Marcus, and I'm here today representing Calperg, a statewide consumer group and a proud co sponsor of SB 244. Our state and country has an electronic waste problem. Californian households alone produce an estimated 772,000 tons of e waste each year, which leach toxic chemicals into our environment. This number is so high in part because manufacturers of devices ranging from smartphones to refrigerators restrict access to necessary repair materials.

As a result, consumers are forced to go to the original manufacturer, who can set repair prices so high that it makes sense to just buy a new device. SB 244 would bring more competition and consumer choice to the repair marketplace. With more options for repair, consumers can more affordably fix their devices, which is expected to save each of us, or the California households total $5 billion per year. SB 244 will also provide more opportunities for small businesses.

Small local repair businesses across the state are struggling, with 59% of shops surveyed indicating they might have to close their doors. If manufacturers continue to restrict access to repair materials, opponents may bring up concerns related to safety, trade secrets, and cybersecurity. The FTC investigated these and other concerns and found, quote, scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions, unquote. They also stated that the changes we seek are well supported by comments submitted for the record and testimony provided. The right to repair is an idea whose time has come, and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Chao Jun Liu. The Electronic Frontier Foundation testifying in support of SB 244. In a brief to the US. District Court of Massachusetts, EFF and other leading repair advocates and academics defended Massachusetts recent right to repair law by debunking the claim that granting access to device owners is somehow a threat.

As we stated in the brief, because of the high relative realistic risk of data breaches, cybersecurity experts disavow the security through obscurity systems that rely primarily on secrecy of searching information to prevent illicit access or use. These experts likewise support increasing consumer access to data and enabling independent repair. As noted, the FTC itself found that independent repair shops aren't any more or less likely than authorized shops to leak or misuse data. And the truth is, the information security field is absolutely reliant.

Upon independent security researchers probing systems and disclosing what they discover, companies may claim that giving consumers what they need to repair their own devices will force them to divulge trade secrets. But the Bill is clear that all companies need to share is what's necessary for repair. We're not asking for trade secrets or source code, just the same tools, parts and documentation they are already providing to authorized shops.

Also, just because a company wants to treat something as a trade secret, does not mean the law ought to let them. Food companies may not want to divulge nutritional facts about their foods, but the law makes them do so for societal betterment for repair companies. Restricting repair and limiting competition increases cost to consumers. With SB 244, we can step in and say that that is not okay. Giving consumers access to their own devices information is not a threat.

Courts and Congress agree that here companies IP rights do not trump consumers property rights. SB 244 is necessary for consumer rights in California. That is why we urge we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Further witnesses in support. Name and organization only please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste, a proud co-sponsor of the Bill, in support. Also voicing support from Sierra Club California Friends Committee on Legislation of California and Consumer Reports.

Izzy Swindler with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange. On behalf of the list, I do apologize. Stop Waste. California Product Stewardship Council. Solid Waste Association of North America. Legislative Task Force. California Chapters Western Placer Waste Management Authority. National Stewardship Action Council, City of Beverly Hills. And finally the City and County of San Francisco. All in support. Thank you.

Mara Eger on behalf of breast cancer prevention partners. The Queen sees lobbying coalition and Rethinkwaste in support.

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

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Dean Tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We very much appreciate the numerous conversations with the author and staff as act related to the very specific issues raised by our membership.

Despite these conversations and the rationale supporting the amendments and asks that we have been brought forward for the Bill to address some of these issues, they still have not been accepted by the author. So for us in membership that are completely within scope of this, we find ourselves in a position where even the best amendments with the intentions and transparency required are not sufficient for us to remove our opposition.

Respectfully, our members are the international leaders in innovation and technological development of autonomous vehicles, aerospace and defense systems that operate globally, satellite and GPS technology utilized by our military and everything else included within the manufacturing spectrum in California. For industry right to repair frameworks have been ongoing in California and nationally for many years now.

The legislative body's role in this debate is balancing the consumer interest and having the right to repair with the sometimes proprietary and technological innovations of industry as well as personal security and consumer safety. From our membership perspective.

Even with the amended language and Committee dialogue, this Bill still requires OEMs to provide the know how to diagnose and repair a product, but does so without adequate consumer protection that is afforded by our repair networks, who are oftentimes federally regulated, trained in competency and potential risks, or puts data privacy and security at risk. The state must satisfy this requirement and keep proprietary and competitive engineering from being disclosed to the public, causing potential harm to consumers and businesses alike.

California manufacturers are making significant investments in developing products and services and protecting our intellectual property as a legitimate concern to sustain future innovations in a diverse technological industry, this Bill would force manufacturers to make significant redesigns to their product roadmap and supply chains. Even with these concerns, CMTA's membership is still unclear as to what products are and are not. Within the scope of this Bill, a specific and narrowly crafted right to repair Bill is needed. And while we appreciate the liability language coming out of the last Committee, we still are not convinced this is narrow enough. We remain opposed.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Lia Nitake with TechNet, and we have an opposed unless amended position on SB 244. I'd like to start by thanking the author and her staff for the amendments that have already been taken, including critical language that provides liability protections for manufacturers, and that acknowledges the importance of protecting trade secrets and intellectual property.

We do still have a few remaining concerns that, if addressed, would remove our opposition. First, SB 244 is retroactive to July 1, 2021. Requiring existing products to meet retroactive repair standards imposes new, unanticipated costs on manufacturers, and creates an unfair competitive landscape. In order to comply with the Bill, manufacturers may need to renegotiate completed supply contracts or create new and costly supply chains for discontinued products. Companies have already made strategic pricing decisions based on cost assessments and other past business considerations.

Second, if a manufacturer lacks an existing repair network, the Bill would also force manufacturers to provide their in house offerings. In many cases, these diagnostic or repair services are offered exclusively in house. The diagnoses and repairs are conducted under controlled environments and may require extensive technical and safety protocol. Manufacturers should not be required to treat in house repairs the same as those that are arranged with an authorized repair provider.

By removing this requirement, the Bill would still retain the parity it creates between what manufacturers provide to authorized repair networks and what they are also required to provide to the General public. Finally, we ask that the fair and reasonable terms language in the Bill address parts, tools and documentation. At the moment, they only cover tools and documentation. Again, we're very appreciative of the author's office for their continued work with us on these remaining concerns, and we respectfully oppose SB 244 unless amended. Thank you. Thank you.

Further, witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chairman. Members. Stephanie Morwell here on behalf of the Consumer Technology Association. Appreciate the conversations we've had and look forward to discussions. Thank you.

Meg Schneider, on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Opposed.

Thank you. So we have a motion and second. The motion is due. pass to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll. Maienschein aye. Connolly. Connolly.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, any questions or comments from the Committee. Mr. Kalra?

Just just wanted to ask if you had it as a co-author.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, do we have a motion? Motion for Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Reyes. Senator Eggman. You may close.

Thank you very much. And thanks to the opposition and we're always glad to work with folks and have stressed that repeatedly throughout the process. We're not talking about spaceships here. We're talking about personal devices. I got a brand new dishwasher that went out again. Third time that I have to have a repair person come back. I got standing water in my dishwasher as opposed to my 1954 Wedgewood oven that I've got.

The repairman come back all the time and they can just fix it. That's what we're talking about doing, creating more middle-class jobs, making sure people have the right to be able to fix their things, providing these parts, and reducing our waste. I ask for your aye vote. Pass it. Senate. I'll say 38-0 bipartisan support.

Aye. Dixon. Haney aye. Kalra aye. Pacheco aye. Papan aye. Reyes aye. Sanchez aye. Mckinnor aye.

Your Bill is is out. Thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Members of the Assembly Committee. Senate Bill 716 simply authorizes an organization representing a state-excluded employee to request arbitration after they've filed agreements with California Human Resources.

Currently, these disagreements are often filed in the Superior Court, which can take years to resolve and incur large expenses to the state. Binding arbitration is a useful tool that can hold both sides accountable during the process and helps to resolve issues in good faith and in a timely manner. This Bill has passed through the process unanimously and is dedicated to its original sponsor, the late John Lovell. Here to testify in support is Brett Barrow representing the California Corrections Supervisor Organization. Thank you. First witness.

Mr. Chair Members, Brett Barrow with the California Correctional Supervisors Organization here today is the sponsor of SB 716. I just want to point out a couple of points in the analysis that deal with the governor's veto of a similar Bill that came through this Committee unanimously but ended on his desk.

And those points are the first he made was that somehow arbitration would go contrary to the state policies of the state and their decision making, when in fact, there are already 21 rank and file bargaining units who have been granted binding arbitration through their contract negotiations with CalHR. And the second point was the cost of adding an extra step. Well, the extra step now is Superior Court and we were recently awarded a grievance that ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

This case could have been settled within six months and at magnitudes much cheaper costs. So with that I would urge your aye vote. And I have with me Paul Curry, also with the CCSO. Thank you for any questions.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Paul Curry with California Correctional Supervisors Organization and I've been with the organization for over 14 years and the case that Brett referred to was gone going when I was selected to represent them.

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

This matter could have been resolved and would have saved the States hundreds of millions of dollars plus the organizations. And let's not forget the workers, just the right. And the issue at point was decided by the US Labor Department in 1940 and CalHR has not made any moves to try to resolve that with them unless we went to Superior Court. So I ask for you aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee. Motion for Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Reyes. With that Senator, you may close.

Thank you. The motion is due pass the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Maienschein aye. Connolly. Connolly aye. Dixon. Dixon aye. Haney. Hane aye. Kalra aye. Pacheco aye. Pacheco aye. Papan. Reyes. Reyes aye. Sanchez. McKinnor. McKinnor

Your Bill is out. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Senator Portantino. Item number six, SB 357.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, SB 357 would provide doctors with more discretion to report conditions they believe would impair a patient's inability to drive, including epilepsy. Epilepsy is the fourth most common neurological disorder, affecting more than 425,000 Californians and 3.4 million Americans. In 1957, before the chair was born, a state law was passed that mandated physicians to automatically report these drivers to the Department of Motor Vehicles. And we are trying to correct that extremely outdated approach.

We believe that if doctors have discretion, more patients will get better care, be safer drivers, and less people going untreated. And so that's why I'm here. And with me, I have Rebecca Hollywell from the Epilepsy Foundation of Los Angeles to testify and support, and at the appropriate time would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And for the record, it was long before the chair was first witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Rebekkah Halliwell, Director of the Epilepsy Foundation, Los Angeles. Thank you to the chair and Members for the time to chat with you guys today. So every person in this room likely knows someone who's had a seizure. That may come as a surprise, because people often don't like to talk about their seizures. With good reason.

Outdated laws like the one we're trying to change right now make people with epilepsy afraid to talk about their seizures with their own doctors for fear of losing their license, which can mean losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their independence. California is only one of the last of six states that continues to require the mandatory reporting of a lapse of consciousness. And mandatory reporting does not make our roads any safer.

The few states that have similar laws to ours have the same crash rates as those states that do not mandate physician reporting. Mandatory reporting is rooted in discrimination and perpetuates old stigma. In 1957, the California Vehicle Code prohibited licenses from being issued to anyone, and I quote, who was insane, or feeble minded or an idiot, imbecile or epileptic. Mandatory reporting is not right for the 427,000 individuals in California, especially for the nearly 70% of people with epilepsy who may achieve seizure control through medication.

But due to external circumstances, such as the medication denial, may have a breakthrough seizure. Mandatory reporting discourages patients from being open with their doctors when they have a change in their seizure frequency. And doctors can't properly care for people in our community if there isn't open communication. SB 357 doesn't do away with the existing process. Doctors can and will continue to report for the purposes of public safety, which we support. This Bill, however, allows doctors the same discretion to not report when the situation isn't warranted. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association Of California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Dixon. Wait. Do we have a motion for Mr. Kalra? Second for Ms. McKinnor. Ms. Dixon.

Hi. Thank you, Chair. I think this is a commendable Bill for the reasons you stated, but just help edify or explain to me. Department of Motor Vehicles has statutorial authority to determine if someone is safe to drive. So by bringing the medical community into this, I just wonder how broadly this will go. Are you saying you'll limit this? I don't think you're limiting this to epilepsy necessarily, are you? Or does it limit it? I should be addressing the Senator. Does it limit it to epilepsy or to any decision from a Doctor?

The neurological disorders, it's encompassing all of them, and it's giving the doctors the discretion of whether they should report or not. So the doctors have the discretion to report, and then the Department of Motor Vehicles is the enforcement agency based on that report from.

Does the DMV have a discretion as to whether to accept the Doctor's recommendation? I mean, don't they have further means tests to decide if someone is safe to publicly drive or drive on public streets?

There are further classifications, for lack of a better word, that the DAV does scrutinize. However zero, shoot. I almost lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. So there is that discretion. However, it's just unnecessary. We're finding that our community has to go through that process because it's essentially getting something in the mail. It could be a 30 day process just to get that determination back from the DMV, is our understanding. And so at that point, how are you getting to work?

I see.

All of that.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Ms. Reyes.

On the question of liability, I know it's addressed. So the Doctor would not be liable for allowing that person to drive.

Correct. We're giving the Doctor discretion about reporting something to an agency.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Senator, you may close.

For the record, 1957 was before I was born as well. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, good. The two of us youthful people will be supporting this bill today. Senator, the motion is due. Pass the appropriations, Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein.

Aye.

Maienschein aye. Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly aye. Dixon. Haney.

Aye.

Haney aye. Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra aye. Pacheco.

Aye.

Pacheco aye. Papan.

Aye.