Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, usually we have the Republicans here en masse. We have 50% of the Republicans, though, just showed up, and we're still lacking Democrats. We have three Democrats. All right, so we're going to start with, without objection, as a subcommittee. So the Senate Committee on judiciary will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street building, also known as the swing space.

I ask that all members of the committee be present in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum and begin the hearing as a full committee. Before presentations on today's bill, I'm going to announce the items that are on consent or items that have been pulled. To the extent that you are watching on TV or you're here physically present, the filing items should be noted. File item number 21, SB 1345 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, has been pulled by the author. And file item number 12,

SB 1154 by Senator Hurtado, has also been pulled by the author. Now I'm going to announce the items that are on consent today. The items that are on consent are the following. File item number seven. SB 896, by Senator Dodd. File item number 14. SB 892, by Senator Padilla. Phylum number 15, by. SB 893. Also by Senator Padilla. File item number 16. SB 1100, by Senator Portantino. File item number 17. SB 1198 by Senator Roth. File item number 18. SB 899, by Senator Skinner.

And finally, final item number 25, SB 1117 by our very own Senator Laird. All right, so seeing that we have Senator Archuleta here, why don't we go ahead and begin with SB 1465? File item number one. Senator Archuleta. We will proceed as a subcommittee.

Good. Thank you. Sit on. Thank you, Mr. President and Mr. Chair. And I know he likes that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1465, which allows any structure used for human habitation to be declared a substandard building regardless of zoning or approval use. Senate Bill 1465 also makes changes to code enforcement procedures to extend tenant protections to buildings not zoned residential, but used for housing.

California State housing laws are some of the strongest in the nation, establishing health and safety protection through building standards to ensure decent, safe, and sanitary housing for all of Californians. California has experienced a housing shortage of significant proportions, particularly in the affordable housing sector. Individuals and families unable to find affordable housing may resort to living in buildings that have not yet been zoned residential.

Despite being rented as housing, many warehouses, factories, and buildings are not in residential zones and have evaded much needed safety inspections and code enforcement. Current law provides protections for residents that live in a dwelling that is not up to code but puts the resident or the public in harm's way. However, there is an amidity in the law about whether these protections apply to buildings not residentially zoned, even if they are being inhabited by the tenants.

Tenants in these buildings are among the most disadvantaged renters in California. They do not control may they not even know the zoning of the building they're residing in. Substandard conditions and their associated dangers for tenants do not cease to exist just because of their building zoning. This bill has no opposition.

With me today to testify is Faith Borges, on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and she is here to ask any and answer any technical questions.

Thank you. If you'd like to testify, the floor is yours.

Yes, thank you. Senator Archuleta chair and members, my name is Faith Borges with Actum, proudly representing the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 1465, which will allow existing inspections and code enforcement to be applied to any structure used for human habitation, regardless of the building's zoning or approved use. SB 1465 additionally applies habitability and landlord tenant protections to these properties, ensuring that tenants have access to vital resources such as relocation assistance and retaliation.

Protections for raising capability complaints Californians have been driven into living in warehouses, sheds, and other un-permitted residences by California's housing crisis and are currently cut off for resources available to tenants and buildings properly zoned for housing. Thanks to the work of many legislators on this committee and stakeholders in this room, Californians inspections and tenant protection laws are amongst the strongest in the nation. Yet these protections still exclude many of the state's most vulnerable tenants.

Tenants do not determine whether the building they live in is zoned and used properly, and Californians should not be punished for resorting to living in makeshift, unapproved housing units due to the state's housing crisis. A lack of affordable housing is the crisis of a generation, and while there are many points that we could make about that on a macro scale, we'd like to take a moment to share the impact of these consequences of treating unsafe housing as a substitute for affordable housing.

Recently, I spoke with a grieving mother who lost her daughter in the ghost ship fire on December 2, 2016 and, out of respect for her privacy, will keep her identity anonymous. However, we have her permission to relay the following, "my daughter was a vibrant soul who loved her community in Oakland. She was one of three dozen people who passed away in the preventable fire at the ghost ship warehouse. Following her death, I toured the dilapidated warehouse and saw the alarming conditions that people were living in.

I cannot tell you how difficult it is to know that that's where my daughter died. I don't wish to attack any of the residents of the warehouse or anyone who finds themselves."

I should have announced the preliminary rules beforehand. We're going to allow two minutes to each witness for the proponents and two minutes for each witness for the opponents. I didn't announce that, but go ahead and take another 30 seconds.

Apologize. I'll be succinct. SB 1465 is about fairness to Californians who, through no fault of their own, have had to resort in living buildings that haven't been zoned residential. This bill would provide them with invaluable protections and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Before we proceed, Senator Archuleta, I'd like to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right, great. Thank you. All right, Senator Archuleta, do you have another witness?

No, I don't.

All right. Anyone else in support of SB 1465, please approach the microphone.

Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the California Building Officials, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else seeing no one else approaches the microphone. If you're in opposition to SB 1465, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches the microphone, let's bring it back to committee for questions or comments by committee members. Questions or comments? Seeing none . Senator Laird moves the bill. Senator Archuleta, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number one, SB 1465. The motion is do pass to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

7:0. We're gonna place that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Archuleta. All right, let's go ahead and. Oh, yes, Senator Laird?

I was gonna say, if it's okay with the chair, I would move the consent agenda.

You read my mind. All right, thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

All right, 7:0. Put the consent calendar on call. All right, so here's the line. Senator Becker is here. So we're going to hear from Senator Becker, who has two bills, then. Senator Blakespear. All right, Senator Becker, if you'd like, the floor is yours. You know what? Before you go, Senator Becker, I'm remiss in that I did not basically go over the rules of the road here. So here are the rules of the road.

For all the bills that we'll hear today, we will allow two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. For the primary witnesses in support, each will have two minutes, unless there's been some exemption. And same thing for the witnesses. The primary witnesses in opposition, each will have two minutes. After support, we'll hear from others who may provide their name, their affiliation, and their position on the bill. They'll approach the microphone. And the same thing with the opposition, name, affiliation and position.

You approach the microphone. So, Senator Becker, having said that, you may proceed, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here today to present SB 942, the California Artificial Intelligence Transparency act. This is a bill that takes a bold step in addressing the proliferation of AI generated content. As AI technology advances, distinguishing between human and machine generated content is becoming increasingly challenging. This ambiguity poses significant societal and Democratic risks, exacerbating problems such as disinformation, harassment, and fraud. We've all heard about recent deepfake incidents. These incidents can also, and this technology can have a negative impact on our economy.

Last year, an AI generated photo of an explosion near the Pentagon went viral, causing economic market instability. Fraudsters can exploit generative AI for scam calls. We've already seen that. The Chronicle had a story recently about a family. They got a call from their son. He just got into an accident. They were very distressed about it. He put his lawyers on the phone. They wired money to the lawyer. Turned out it wasn't their son at all. It was AI. It generated from the voice.

Only from even a few seconds of someone's voice. Now you can generate something that sounds like them, which is crazy, but true. Clearly, transparency is needed here. The EU has taken steps to address these issues through the AI act, which mandates transparency standards, including the requirement to inform users when they're interacting with an AI system, and to clearly marks synthetic audio, video, text and images as artificially generated or manipulated, both for users and in a machine readable format. SB 942 has some similarities to that.

It serves to address this growing uncertainty regarding AI generated images by requiring gen AI companies, large gen AI companies, to do a few things. Three things particularly number one, label AI generated content with visible and imperceptible embedded disclosures. Two, supply and AI detection tool for users to query whether content was created by AI and third, enforce third party licenses to the extent technically feasible to prevent undisclosed content publication.

This act serves to address the challenges posed by AI generated content, promoting transparency, accountability and trust in digital landscape. I would say we are actively collaborating. This is a complicated area, obviously a fast moving area. A lot of interest, of course, in this area, and as it is very complicated, we are working collaboratively with the opposition to address their concerns and try to ensure the bill breaks the right balance in regulating gender of AI for the benefit of all Californians.

And with me, I have Tom Kemp. He's been an entrepreneur in cybersecurity and a data privacy advocate.

Thank you, Senator Becker. Good afternoon. Chair Umberg and committee members. Thank you. My name is Tom Kemp, and I'm here today to voice my support for SB 942. As a way of background, I'm an entrepreneur that founded a cybersecurity that was one of the first companies that used AI to detect cyberattacks. I subsequently have worked with Californians for consumer privacy on Prop 24, also with Senator Becker on the California Delete act. And I wrote a book that details the guardrails needed for AI in 2021.

Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said this quote, "I view AI as the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on." But if AI is is as powerful as he claims, then it should be held to the same standards of honesty and transparency as a pack of gum that has barcodes and labeling on it. Now, we've had food labeling laws since 1906. These laws not only require standardized disclosures, but also prohibit misbranding that is false or misleading.

So here we are in 2024, and it's becoming increasingly clear that it is difficult to differentiate between human generated content and machine generated content via gen AI or synthetic content. SB 942 addresses this problem. It simply says a provider must label its content and provide a way for a consumer to ask, hey, did you create this? So a few key points here. First, the bill doesn't mention watermarking. It's not prescriptive. It simply says you have to put some sort of label.

It gives us time for standards to be set forth down the road. Second, it does not require the content providers to detect other people's it simply needs to answer the question, hey, did you create this? Yes or no? And then third, if you even ask chat GPT, it says hey, we don't know how to detect AI. We can't do that. So it's not redundant in this bill to ask the large providers to actually specify whether or not they generated this content.

In summary, thank you very much.

Oh perfect. Thank you. All right, other witnesses in support of SB 942 seeing no one approaches the microphone. Anyone wish to testify in me too? Support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 942, I see at least one person approaching.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, were respectfully opposed to SB 942 at this time. We fully agree with the intent of the bill to create greater trust in user generated content online by fostering the adoption of content providence verifications and watermarks, and we look forward to providing much more substantive feedback and working with the author to offer amendments. We've been a little backlogged reviewing a lot of bills, not only in this state but across the country.

Just want to point out a couple of issues with the bill as it currently exists in print, and that we believe present some issues as far as technical feasibility and impossibility with compliance. And first, while we understand the desire to regulate an emerging technology, and one with substantial capabilities, this is an area where we believe would benefit from federal oversight and action won't be holding our breath on that. But many of our companies and platforms are at the forefront of developing this type of technology.

But important to remember that it's still very much in its early stages. However, despite that, SB 942 enacts requirements for technology that is currently rapidly evolving, such as requiring a watermark or content provenance for text generated content, it's our understanding that's not currently possible, and so we think there are some reasonable amendments to sort of tailor this bill to what is and is not capable at this time.

Also want to point out that currently content providence and watermarking is still incredibly unreliable and in many cases very easy to break. Researchers at the University of Maryland, for example, were able to break all of the currently available water marking methods. Some of these can be accomplished simply by cropping, resizing, or screenshotting an image. More concerning, though, these researchers were also able to insert fake watermarks and credentials into images, creating false positives.

So we think that any legislation on this topic should account for that unreliability and that potential. And lastly, we believe that if these laws do exceed our technological capabilities, there is a risk for consumers to place too much trust in those watermarks.

Sounds like you're about to wrap up.

I am about to wrap up. And so for these reasons, we are respectfully opposed again at this time, but look forward to continuing our conversations with the author and sponsor the bill, thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition to SB 942.

Thank you. Anyone else seeing no one else approached the microphone. Let's bring it back to committee. committee members, questions? Comments? Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the opposition is fundamentally based upon this not being technologically possible right now. Now, California Air Resources Board has regulations that are not technologically possible either, so why not you? But I digress. Seriously, how do you respond to that?

Sure, I will comment on your first part. That's a longer discussion, but, yeah, I'd say that technology is evolving and that's why we are working with them. I'd say we agree with them, since that's why this is really focused on disclosure. We don't reference watermarking or prescribe a particular technology, and we only require a vendor that they detect AI generated content from their platform.

So I'd say, I think the way we're trying to position this aligns with the fact that this is rapidly evolving, and that's what we're trying to be sensitive to that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Niello, any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Laird moves the bill. Thank you, Senator Laird. All right. Would you like to close, Senator Becker?

I appreciate that. Again, I appreciate the comments from the opposition. This is rapidly evolving, obviously, great deal of interest, and I think we're on the right track and look forward to keep moving this forward and keep discussions going.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Becker, for your commitment to continue to work with him. Sounds like this is still a work in progress, so. All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB 942. The motion is do pass the Senate governmental organization. [Roll Call]

71. All right, we'll put that back on call. Next is item number three, SB 1223. And then after that will be item number four, SB 1066. I see Senator Blakesford is here. All right, Senator Becker.

Great. Thank you, chair Members, again. Now, we're moving from a topic that has a lot of awareness, I think, and a lot of focus to one that maybe people aren't focused on yet.

But it's a. I think, as you'll hear especially from our witnesses, who are some of the top neuroscientists in the country. This is a real and growing issue, and an important one to get in front of. This is SB 1223, the California Neural Rights Act, a Bill that amends the California Consumer Privacy act to enhance protection for California's neural data. Now, you may have heard that neural link.

It's a company that Elon Musk co founded, recently made headlines for implanting a chip called telepathy in a person's brain. For those who didn't hear, this chip reads signals from a paralyzed patient's brain and transmits them to a computer, enabling control of the computer from a user's thoughts. Invasive devices like this, like telepathy, are classified as medical products, and they are subject to robust data privacy protections under HIPAA and the California Medical Information act.

However, there's also a growing class, as we'll hear, of noninvasive neurotech products. Like their medical counterparts, these noninvasive devices record brain data using EEG sensors. But as they're not considered medical devices, they're not federally regulated, allowing companies to collect and sell user data. This unregulated collection of neural data, I believe, hope you agree with me, raises privacy concerns. Companies could compile massive databases of brain scans, potentially revealing private medical information without consent or even identifying individuals without their permission.

The CCPA protects sensitive personal information like Social Security, financial data, biometrics, but it doesn't cover this, a new emerging area of neural data. This gap leaves individuals vulnerable. Again, this data can reveal intimate data about details, about thoughts, emotions, intentions. This Bill addresses these concerns by defining neural data and neural technology, classifying neural data as sensitive personal information, and extending the CCPA protections. Terminal data regulating this emerging field.

And again, we have a chance to get in front of this is crucial to ensure ethical use, protect privacy, establish standards, and address future concerns. With me again, I have Professor Rafael Houstay, who's the founder of the Neuro Rights Foundation, one of the the world's leading experts and leading neuroscientists, and Jared Genzer, who's the international human rights attorney on the board of the Neuro Rights Foundation.

All right, thank you, Senator. First witness, please. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Chair Umberg. Vice Chair Wilkes. Senator Becker. Senators and representatives of the people of California, my name is Rafael Yuste. I'm an Md, PhD. I'm a medic. I went into basic research because we cannot cure brain diseases until we understand how the brain works. And the way we do this is through neurotechnology, which sounds very complicated. It's very straightforward. There are devices that could be electrical, optical, magnetic, acoustical. To do two things to either record the activity of the brain or to change the activity of the brain. That's the cutting edge of neuroscience.

And just about 10 years ago, I had an Oppenheimer moment. We worked with mice in the lab developing neurotechnology, and we were able to decode what a mouse was looking at and manipulate it. So we made the mouse think he was looking at things that were in there. We took over control of his perception. And that, for me, was an Oppenheimer moment, because what we can do in a mass today, we can do in a human tomorrow.

And at that point, I team up with human rights lawyer Jared Genzer, and we created this foundation. And I've devoted a lot of my time in pro Bono fashion without getting paid to alert people to advocate for the protection of brain data. Because the brain is not just another organ of the body. It's the organ that generates all of your mental and cognitive activities. Your thoughts, your emotions, your memories, your imagination, everything comes from there. So you can read and write information into the brain.

You can decode and manipulate mental activity. This is not science fiction. One of the letters in support of the Bill of Senator Becker is from one of your own experts here in California, Professor Eddie Chang. He's probably the world's expert at decoding brain activity from patients. You may have read about him in the newspaper, and he called me up a year ago in the middle of the night because they were able to decode the language and the emotions and the facial gestures of a paralyzed woman.

And he couldn't sleep because of the implication that that has they essentially cloned the woman in a digital avatar. And this is fantastic for science and medicine, but, of course, this has to be protected.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chairman Umberg, Vice Chairman Wilk, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me. My name is Jared Genser. I'm an international human rights lawyer. I'm here today because, as Senator Becker said, we're in support of SB 1223.

We are not concerned about implantable brain computer interfaces, what happens in a medical context? Because they're already heavily regulated as medical devices. We're worried about consumer neurotechnologies. And today, consumer neurotechnologies are using medical-grade EEG scanners primarily. If it was in a medical context, you would have to have had a license from the FDA. But the very same kind of scanner can be used in a consumer context with no license at all.

And unlike in a medical context, where all of the health data is heavily protected under HIPAA and state privacy laws. There are literally no protections at all for neural data that is gathered in consumer devices. These consumer devices, 30 of them that we found online that can be purchased today, do all different kinds of things, helping you with meditation, helping you with your sleep. You can fly a helicopter, drone, using your thoughts as a game, all different kinds of things.

But these are devices because they are medical grade, that are downloading from gigabytes to terabytes of your brain data. They need typically 1% or less of that data to decode for their narrow purpose. But all of this other data is being gathered now, you might say, well, shouldn't the CCPA protect this kind of data? I mean, gosh, it's medical grade neural data. But actually it doesn't.

And the reason it doesn't is because if you look at the definition of personal information and what's protected under the CCPA, the CCPA protects biometric data, but neural data is not biometric. It's not captured from outside your body to identify you. It's not biological data either, because, in fact, it's electrical. My colleague could speak more about that if you wanted to know.

But in 2018, when you adopted the CCPA, there were very few of these devices available, so nobody was thinking about it, and nobody would have imagined that there would be this massive, unintentional loophole in the CCPA that because neural data is not biometric or biological, it just simply isn't covered under any of the categories of protection, which means that today, any of these 30 companies that are out there, and we're about to pull, publish a report actually tomorrow that's very, very detailed looking at the privacy agreements of this, the.

Thank you very much. You've appropriately scared all of us. So. All right. Thank you. Right. All right, let's turn now. Others in support. All right, if you're in support of SB 1223, please approach the microphone. All right, seeing no one else in support. If you're in opposition to SB 1223, please approach.

Thank you, Mister chair. And Members Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet, respectfully opposed unless amended to SB 1223.

Our Members place a very high priority on consumer privacy and are fully committed to securing privacy and security for the consumers. We also believe that these laws deem to adapt to changing technologies, as we've just heard, and have no issue with the intent to provide greater protections for devices that have direct connections or that measure brainwaves. We have a concern about the breadth of technologies that could be included under these current definitions.

We've suggested amendments that we think appropriately tailor them to the technologies that directly measure brain activity. This stems sort of from the fundamental challenge that they include references to the peripheral nervous system. We think this could include technologies such as monitoring movements of a computer mouse or of drowsy driving monitors in cars. So, like I mentioned, we've suggested amendments that I think maintain the bill's focus on the riskiest kinds of informations, while still without unintentionally impacting some of these Low risk uses.

And for this reason, we think that being over inclusive actually doesn't benefit consumers in this way, because it will likely result in more information being classified as neural data, stuff that isn't actually measuring your brainwaves, causing consumers who receive such a notice, for example, their wearable or their watch, to believe that much more sensitive information is being gathered than it is.

We're very much looking forward to working with the author and the sponsors to try to narrow those definitions and tailor that appropriately, but at this time, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Hoffman. Others in opposition.

Good afternoon again, Mister chair. Vice Chair Members Rob Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce opposed for the same technical reasons as stated by Technet. Thank you, Artie.

Thank you very much. Others in opposition? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to a frightened Committee for questions or comments. Yes, all right, Senator Wahab has moved the Bill. Questions. Yes, Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mister chair, and I appreciate the testimony here today. I had a totally different thought in my mind about what we were talking about, so I really appreciate the information. This Bill has been in print since, since mid February. Have you had outreach from any of the opposition in regards to amendments that might be appropriate?

Yeah, I think last week we got some amendments and, well, going through them, and again, I think I'd say, as with the previous Bill, our intention is not to stifle this technology. Certainly, obviously there are very positive medical benefits to it, so we will very much work with them. And again, I think, try to accomplish the goals of the Bill while still being narrow and not stifling technology. But we're still, I'd say we're still working through them.

Okay. Because I did not see any amendments, and I'm concerned that as it goes through the process, that you're contacted early enough to be able to take the amendments that make sense so that we can understand what we're doing. This is a new area for us, and so anytime that we deal with a new area that is technical and complicated. We want to make sure we get it right. I know you work very hard at trying to find the middle ground, and so I appreciate that.

But I also want to encourage the communication so that we can, so that we can look at it and we don't have to wait till it gets over to the Assembly. And the Senate hasn't had a chance to consider it as well. So appreciate your commitment to continue working on this.

All right. Thank you, madam appropriations chair. All right, Senator. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mister chair. A brave new world. Appreciate you forcing us to recognize we live in it already. I would just. My comment, has the Bill been moved? Senator Wahhab has been moved. Okay, so bill's been moved. I'll be supporting just to keep us informed. I fear over narrowing of the definition as you move forward.

Specifically in the opposition's comments, they say this Bill should only be about technology that reveals someone's inner thoughts and mental processes. That that's the sole sort of narrow scope of the Bill. I worry that just your innermost thoughts is actually. That's too narrow. Right. That there's, that. It's all that. I don't know how to describe the data. You define it. That electrical data that's coming, that can come from the brain, that can also be detected in the rest of the nervous system.

I mean, that sort of, I don't think a consumer is going to be able to distinguish between, is this my innermost thought, or is this just generic brainwave data? And what we've heard is, I think the AI doesn't need it just needs a little bit of any of that data to then do the sort of reverse engineering that gets scary.

So that would just be a request or a comment going forward to be hyper vigilant now and then we can sort of work through the issues as they resolve. So thanks.

I appreciate that. Mister chair. Would it be appropriate, could I have my witnesses, since it is a new area for all of us? Could I ask him to address that from the sense of the narrowing versus broader definition?

Sure. Why don't we take the comments and then we'll see. We'll have a wrap up from one of the witnesses. Other comments or questions? Seeing no other comments or questions. Okay, fine. Senator Becker?

Yes. It's important to note, and I hope, I'm sure Senator Becker can get to all of you. We provided an eight page response to their letter and proposed amendments in detail to demonstrate that they just simply didn't understand the technology. I'm not aware of any medical qualifications of the people who wrote their letter. We have one of the world's leading experts here.

In short, none of the things that they're concerned about would be possible under the definition that we're proposing for neurotechnology, which is that it has to be a technology that connects directly to the central or peripheral nervous system, and it can only be processed by the use of a neurotechnology device. That data can only be processed in that way.

So if you're talking about a person who's falling asleep with a video monitor pointed at them driving a car, it's not connected to the nervous system in any way, and it can't be processed by a neurotechnological device. So we've intentionally excluded in the language all of the issues that they've raised a specific concern. And Doctor Yuste could speak further, if you wanted, about the peripheral nervous system.

But quite clearly, I think, I would hope that they take a closer look at the letter and we can provide the letter to all of you.

Right. Unless Senator Stern wants more information, I think we're okay. All right. Senator Sterns asked for the letter. All right. Senator Becker, would you like to close?

Well, thank you. I could see the expressions on some of the faces as this was when I first started learning about this. It is even representing Silicon Valley.

This is certainly brave, brave new world stuff. But as we've heard, it is here, and I appreciate you all indulging in the conversation. Look, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. It's been moved by Senator Wahab. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number three, SB 1223. The motion is do pass the Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

He wants you just to. He's thinking it right now.

Aye. I guess. I guess we're not there yet.

[Roll Call]

We're gonna put that on call. All right. Next is Senator Blakespear. Thank you, Senator Becker. Next is Senator Blakespear, then Senator Bradford, then Senator Eggman. All right, Senator Blakesford, item number four, SB 1066.

Thank you, chair. This is a much lower tech issue that we're just describing next. Do I have permission to show a picture of a pyrotechnic marine? Flare box of them.

All right, thank you.

So this is what I'll be talking about. First, I want to start by thanking the committee staff for working with my office and the sponsors on amendments. We gladly accept them. SB 1066 is a common sense measure to ensure the safe disposal of these pyrotechnic marine flares. The US Coast Guard requires that vessels that are longer than 16ft and are operating on oceans carry approved visual distress signals for use in emergencies.

Most often, boaters carry three pyrotechnic flares that are approved for both day and nighttime use. There are several brands of battery-powered alternatives, but some boaters prefer the flares due to their increased visibility during the day. These flares expire 42 months after manufacture, meaning they no longer satisfy Coast Guard requirements. Unused expired marine flares cannot be disposed of in the regular trash or the recycling. They are explosives and they must be taken to a facility permitted to accept explosives.

Flares also contain chemicals that cause pollution and harm to human health. The California Division of Boating and Waterways estimates 174,000 flares expire in the state each year, and the problem is that nearly all household hazardous waste facilities refuse to accept them. In fact, Alameda County is the only county in California that we found that could actively accept flares, and even they lack the permits necessary to actually dispose of them.

As far as we know, there's only one facility in the country that currently accepts flares for disposal, and it is over 1500 miles away in Missouri. Without viable options, boaters have reported storing them on their boat, shooting them into the air, or dumping them into the ocean. Stockpiled flares are a fire hazard. Shooting a distress signal outside of an emergency is a federal felony. Dumping unused flares can leach toxic metals and other pollutants into the water.

Expired flares can end up in the trash or left in front of local government buildings, just as this box was done. Like fire and police stations, this results in high costs worn by local governments as they then become responsible for arranging proper disposal. These costs are socialized onto local taxpayers instead of the boaters who use them.

We are actively collaborating with Orion Signals, the primary producer of marine flares, and the Recreational Boaters Association, to ensure the costs are not so high that boaters stop carrying these emergency safety devices. SB 1066 will put the responsibility for funding and operating a convenient take-back system onto the producers, with oversight by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

SB 1066 is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including local governments, park districts, teamsters, California Professional Firefighters, individual fire districts, waste haulers, harbor districts, and environmental and public health organizations. With me today, I am very happy to have Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, as a cosponsor of this bill, and John Kennedy on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, if I may invite them to come to the microphone.

Certainly.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear, chair, and members, we greatly appreciate the committee's work on this bill and the proposed amendments. I am Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council, a nonprofit organization that advocates for an equitable, circular economy. We are proud to co-sponsor SB 1066 with Zero Waste Sonoma, which will solve the marine flare waste disposal problem that is absolutely impacting our cities and counties, especially those located on California's coast.

Local governments across the state are having to turn away residents with unwanted marine flares, leaving them with no solution. Desperate for solutions, they acquired over a quarter of $1.0 million in California State grant funding for marine flare disposal pilot projects, which have included temporary collection events. We obtained the data from these grant projects, as well as other local governments, and have found the cost to manage these explosives varies widely, but as low as $10.55 for Alameda County.

A statewide program will result in greater efficiencies of scale and significantly reduce transportation, and thereby overall costs that can't be realized with siloed programs and events. We have had two meetings with Orion and the Recreational Boaters of California and have been providing the data we've collected and are eager to work with them to create the most cost-effective solution and system possible. SB 1066 will not restrict boaters choices as we are not banning the flares. Boaters will still be able to purchase flares.

However, the cost of disposal will no longer be paid for by all ratepayers, whether they own a boat or not. SB 1066 follows California's 16-year history of shifting responsibility for the end-of-life management of product waste to producers to ensure these costs are no longer inequitably distributed. Thank you for your leadership. Senator Blakespear. Chair and members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC, the Rural County Representatives of California. We represent 40 counties of the state's 58 counties, Sonoma being our largest member. First off, we recognize the importance and the life-saving value of marine flares, but we strongly support SB 1066. Local government's responsible for solid waste management, including management of hazardous waste and household hazardous waste. We run HHW collection facilities, both permanent facilities and temporary events.

As you've heard, marine flares are very difficult for us to manage and costly. In our experience with some of our members, it's been about dollar 43 a flare again, many times the cost it costs the consumer to buy these at the point of sale. We see these come into our facilities. Sometimes people try to bring them by. Sometimes they will come through and load check programs where they just get thrown in the trash. We have a really difficult decision to make as local governments.

If we turn them away from our facilities, there's a pretty strong chance that someone's going to dump them illegally on the side of a road or somewhere else where we will have to take ownership of those and then manage them regardless. And as I said, they're difficult, they're costly to manage. So we support 1066 because it requires the establishment of an EPR program.

The producers bring these marine flares into the stream of commerce for very valid purposes, but they're not concerned with the end-of-life management costs or challenges of disposal. A pro will be able to coordinate and facilitate the collection of events across the state, offer safe and convenient disposal opportunities for boaters and for others, and it will reduce costs for local governments and our HHW management programs. So for those reasons, we're very pleased to support 1066. Thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you very much. Others who wish to testify provide their name, their affiliation, and their position.

Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksmer on behalf of Waste Management in support.

Thank you. Matt Broad on behalf of the Teamsters in support, thank you.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross on behalf of the town of Truckee in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy, on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

David Krieger for Waste Connections in support, thank you.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of ReThinkWaste in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

-- here on behalf of a few clients, Stop Waste, Western Plaster Waste Management Authority, Solid Waste Association of North America, Legislative Task Force, all in support. And then on behalf of the California Products to Stewardship Council, we're in support and concept. Thank you.

Josh Gauger on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara, in support, thank you.

Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support, thank you.

Chris Grogan on behalf of Republic Services in support, thank you.

Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support, thank you.

All right, I have permission from the following organizations. The North American Hazardous Materials Management Association, Zero Waste Sonoma, our co-sponsor, Serious Signal, Save Our Shores, Clean Water Action, Marin Sanitary Service, Ban Single-Use Plastics, Northern California Recycling Association, Sea Hugger, Zero Waste USA, the City of Thousand Oaks and Napa Recycling and Waste Services.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Mister Chair Luis, I just. On behalf of the California Waste Haulers Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1066 please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members. Jim Lights on behalf of Orion Safety Products, we appreciate the engagement we've had with the author and the sponsors of the bill to this point. We look forward to those continued discussions. I think our biggest concern is the scope of the proposed program. As your analysis points out, total sales for 2023 of the largest producer marine flares were only $465,000. Presumably, the price of the product will have to go up to fund this type of program, and we're concerned about how much that increase may be to Fund this program. Not all flares are created equal. Hand-held flares are easier to burn off after their expiration date than aerial flares.

And so we look forward to working with the proponents to find a program that is appropriate in scale and effective. We've also found that ongoing programs, when they start, tend to have a fair degree of collections. And as they continue, because the flares last for at least four years, those collections tend to go down. And so we think periodic programs that might have lower costs to the producer might indeed be more effective in the long run. So with that, we do again look forward to continuing to work with the author to find a solution here. Thank you.

Chair and members, Jerry Desmond, with Recreational Boaters of California coming from a slightly different perspective, as has been mentioned by the sponsors and the author and others, public safety is paramount here. You have to have three flares if you're going off the coast in your boat.

And we want to make sure that as a program is established, it is not a deterrent to a boater to purchase a new flare that would have the embedded cost of an EPR program. We have to get to a number that works. At this point, we're not there, but we are working collaboratively. Some of the information we're finding is very interesting.

The boaters have paid through state monies for Boating Clean and Green to put these programs out there, have encouraged our constituents to go to these programs, and some of the data that's coming out is very interesting. Like, what does a boater do with his flare? The Alameda survey that was conducted found that 53% of all the 153 boaters that participated had an average of 48 flares each.

The San Francisco event that was held of 53% of 62 boaters said they keep their flares at their homes or on their boat as spares and supplies. So there's a pent-up inventory of flares that will have to be addressed as well. And then we compound it with the fact that the company that produces the flares is almost dominant in California. So if it's going to be able to raise the costs, and it will, where is that impact on voters?

So we're trying to thread that needle. We're involved collaboratively with the sponsors and the Senator, and we're hoping we can get there, but at this moment, we're not there yet. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition, please approach the microphone.

Mister chair, Members Sara Noceto, on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Others in opposition, seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to the committee. Yes, Senator Laird.

Let me say first that I think that it would be great if Senator Allen's extended producer responsibility were adopted. And I wouldn't be doing propane canisters, you wouldn't be doing this. But that hasn't happened yet. On point.

When I was elected to the Assembly, there was a highway safety flare plant in Morgan Hill that had turnout, had released things out the back door for 30 or 40 years. There was a seven mile plume of contaminated water with perchlorate. And when people talk about costs, it was millions and millions and millions of dollars. And there's one that existed in Senator Stern's district, and there's one that existed in the Inland Empire.

And what it required, water treatment at the surface in a way that when people were worried about really small costs, it was the government that actually inherited the really large costs. People in one area were for years delivered bottled water and could not use the water that was in their neighborhood. And so it is not just these being piled up somewhere.

It is not just a smaller cost if we do not address this, it's a massive cost that falls on local governments and state governments in a clear way. And so I think it's very important to reach the agreement. I take seriously the opposition's comments, but there's much more at stake in this if these are not properly disposed of. And so I salute you for bringing the bill and I would move the bill.

Senator Laird has moved the bill, seeing no further questions or comments. Would you like. I'm sorry. You put your hand up. Okay. All right.

Sorry about that, mister chair. All right. All right. So I think. Yeah, so I think this is a great bill. I think those people should be paying the cost of it. And if the flourish costs more, the flourish costs more. Because they shouldn't put those costs on other people. I'm sorry, but if you can afford a boat, I think you can afford flares. I didn't think there was a very good argument, just for future reference. But Senator Laird had a great point, too. I've got a similar situation where we had a munitions company on the plateau overlooking Santa Clarita. Was there for 70 years, and all they did was just dump stuff out the back.

It's been 22 years, and we finally just cleaned up most of it. But we still have to continue to filter the water because of the perchloride plume in the Saugus aquifer. So there's a lot of costs down the road if we don't do. And I don't know why we haven't done this sooner. So I salute you for doing this bill. Happy to support today.

Thank you. All right, seeing no further. There we go. All right, Senator Blakespear, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird. And thank you, Senator Wilk, for your comments on this. And also to all the supporters who came and also the opponents, we're continuing to work together. I think the point about the externalities are there, somebody is paying them. So the question is, who? And also, what are the risks we're taking by having those externalities? A boat that has 40 flares on it, marine flares.

If there is a fire, the explosives that could happen on that boat are really substantial and serious. There's a reason that these don't go into the recycling and that they are not supposed to be set off and thrown into the water. So they are toxic. They are explosives. They need to be treated as such. And so this is a program that will hopefully handle that. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Blakesbury. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number four, SB 1066. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

Put that on call. Thank you very much. All right, next I see Senator Egmond. Senator Eggman has two bills. Then we'll turn to Senator Bradford and then Senator Glazer. All right, Senator Eggman, item number eight, SB 1238.

Thank you very much. SB 1238. So last year, many of you may remember, we passed SB 43, which redefined what it means to be gravely disabled in California. And we knew that there would have to be some cleanup after that because we've expanded the population, we also know we need to expand the facilities. And so what we have found is, you know, I think folks thought we couldn't get this done, and so we were kind of late getting some technical assistance.

And so now we're finding, as we're trying to implement, there are, you know, some laws that you can't admit somebody with a substance abuse only diagnosis, which now we've said that can be. So we need to change that law. So what this bill does, in effect, is to try to, in addition to still needing more beds. We all know that, but to make use of the ones we have.

So, first, what it does is it authorizes psychiatric health facilities and mental health rehabilitation centers to admit patients with standalone substance abuse diagnosis, as we made the law say. Second, it disbands the definition of a designated facility to include a SRF, a social rehabilitation facility, as long as that facility has the appropriate services and staff. And we're saying that the county gets to designate those.

So no facility has to be designated unless they work with their county to become designated because some places may be able to handle it, whereas others may not. So what we're saying is the county has that ability to decide who and who doesn't. And then third, to ensure there is adequate reimbursement where it's appropriate, the funding has to be able to follow. Facilities need to be able to bill, counties need to be able to get reimbursed.

So, again, nothing in this bill demands that a puff or a SNF provide these services, but that they may become a designated facility if they want. And we know that every community has different existing pools of already existing housing. We know more needs to be done. We think this will also help us get our arms around what counties, what some counties may lack. And that's what somebody else asked at a different committee.

Like, if my county doesn't have adequate and everything gets sent over here, how does that make sense? But again, this is also designed then to try to get an inventory, if you will, of where these are. So we don't have all the facilities we need right now. We're continuing to build that. We pass Prop one. More will be constructed at our last round of b chip.

But this will help free up emergency rooms, get folks moving in the system, and get them settled to an appropriate level of care sooner. With me here to testify and support is Randall Hagar with the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California.

Mister Chairman, members of the committee, Randall Hager, representing the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance in California. We were proud co-sponsors of SB 43 and we're proud co-sponsors of this bill. When we surveyed our members after the passage of the last bill, what we found that we heard back uniformly from our psychiatrists who are around the state, and in particular their psychiatrists who are also medical directors of facilities, was that everybody was vexed by the issue of where do you put solely substance using individuals who have become grievably disabled. So that's really the crux of the problem.

And I think the easiest way through that is, as we looked into this, we found that things like mental health rehabilitation centers and psychiatric health facilities were prohibited by regulation from accepting the solely diagnosed SUD gravely disabled individual. And so the easy way to try to get this process kick started, by no means a final solution is to allow counties to, at their option, to designate those facilities so that they can accept those individuals.

I will say in relation to that, that our psychiatrists who are in those facilities already treat people for their substance use disorders. But these are individuals who have co-occurring disorders. So they have a severe mental illness, they have the substance use disorder on board, and they're receiving treatment for that substance use disorder in the psychiatric health facility and in the mental health rehabilitation center already. So we know this is a clinically sound way to get started. We think this offers an immediate solution.

Again, the question from all the counties is, what do we do with these folks? This offers a way forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses and support, SB 1238.

Thank you, chair and members, Tim Madden, representing the California chapter at the American College of Emergency Physicians. We're also a cosponsor of this bill. And just to share a little bit from the perspective of the emergency physicians, largely when folks are placed on a 51-50 by police, they're brought into emergency departments.

And our job is to stabilize the patient, and then they either release them after they've been evaluated by a designated individual or transfer them to a facility that can treat those individuals. With SB 43, as Senator Eggman outlined, there are not facilities that just take those with substance use disorders. This leads to long delays for individuals who are stuck in the emergency department because we'll have no place to send them.

So we believe SB 1238 is a great step forward to allow the counties to designate those facilities to take these patients and help us move them to the care that they need. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Others in support.

Leah Barros, on behalf of California Hospital Association, in support.

Mister chair and members of the committee, Brandon Marche with the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members. Moira Topp, on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, as well as the full Big City Mayors Coalition, which is the coalition of mayors of the 13 largest cities in the state, I'll ask for your vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rachael Blucher with Nielsen Merksamer, on behalf of the County of San Diego, in support.

Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support.

Thank you very much. Others in support of SB 1238, please approach. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1238, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and members. Lisa Gardiner with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. We represent the leaders of the public behavioral health safety net in 58 counties and two cities. And we respectfully have an opposed, unless amended, position on this legislation. We recognize that SB 1238 would ultimately leave it to counties to designate these facilities.

But as multiple folks already mentioned, nearly all of these facilities named in this bill are inappropriate from a safety and quality of care perspective as currently licensed or certified, whether unallowable by law or regulation for purposes of detention under the LPS act, or because they are unlocked, lack appropriate medical staffing, or are inappropriate to serve clients who might be in the process of withdrawal from substance use.

We believe this bill is currently written, is an inadequate solution to the facility's discussions, and the change is so critical to successful implementation of SB 43. In short, we simply, we believe it's not simply appropriate to place individuals in these facilities without taking a deeper dive into the legal, regulatory, staffing, medical staffing and security issues around these facilities. Instead, we are requesting an amendment that DHCP convene a working group so that we can have a larger discussion.

And that working group, we're hoping would include behavioral health departments, providers, and consumers to review these facility types and the kind of significant regulatory and fiscal changes that are needed. We are committed to the timely and thoughtful implementation of SB 43 and to creative, thoughtful and workable solutions that get there and look forward to continued discussions with the author. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, others in opposition.

Mister chair, Senator Eggman, committee members, Debra Roth with Disability Rights California. We are the federally designated protection and advocacy system for our state. As Senator Eggman stated, this bill is intended to aid implementation of SB 43, which expanded civil commitment criteria to include individuals with standalone substance use disorder. The bill authorizes placement of individuals with SUD in a range of facilities, including nursing homes and social rehabilitation facilities, which, as my colleague at CBHDA noted, facilities that are not appropriate or safe.

We see problems with the bill because involuntary SUD treatment is not as simple as opening the doors of existing hospitals and other facilities and welcoming the SUD population. We think it's risky to implement SB 43 that way. Data does not support involuntary SUD treatment, so implementation really ought to be done with extra care. And I saw from the analysis that the Senator is taking an amendment to allow informal implementation processes. Until there are regulations, we're not sure what else might be needed. For example, federal approvals.

We think that what the behavioral health directors are proposing by way of a robust stakeholder process is an important step. And I just wanted to say that with the population of the SUD population being so much larger than the mental health population, it's important to note that one study found that individuals who received involuntary treatment.

You could wrap it up, please. Thank you.

Were more than twice as likely to die from an overdose after release than individuals who received voluntary treatment. Thank you.

Thank you. All righty. All right. Others who are opposed to SB 1238, please approach the migrant. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Hi, chair and Members, Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action. We align our position with the previous two witnesses. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Others saying no one else approached the migrant. Let's bring it back. committee members, questions, comments? Move the bill. Senator Stern has moved the bill. And by the way, Senator Egmond, you've accepted the committee's amendments, is that right? Thank you. All right. Yes, Senator Caballero.

Very briefly, mister chair, I just want to recognize and thank Senator Eggman for her work in this area. There has been a lot of controversy over exactly how to treat mental health issues, and I really appreciate. I trust your judgment. I think this is a really good, bill, and I'm going to support it today.

Thank you very much, Senator. Caballero. Let me echo her comments. Senator Eggman, you have been a champion in this space, and I think all California is grateful for your passion. Thank you. All right. It has been moved by Senator Stern. Would you like to close? Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate the opposition, and we will continue to work with everybody. It is not our intention to put people where it is inappropriate. That is the farthest thing from what I want to do. And again, we're leaving it to the counties. The counties in the last hearing said they would then feel pressure from the public to designate.

I don't think that's true, and I think we all feel pressure to be able to really, you know, move the system along in the most expedient and safe manner. And so I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

This is file item number eight, SB 1238. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

You have eight to zero.

8-0, all right, we'll put that Bill on call next. Senator Eggman, SB 1491. And then we'll hear from Senator Glazer. SB 1424.

Senator, thank you very much. 1491 is designated to protect our LGBTQ plus and female students in the higher education arena. All too often, people go off to college thinking they're going to have a great time and then run into some issues while they're there. So this Bill does three things.

One, we asked years ago, 15 years ago, for everybody to have an authorized person that if someone felt Lgbt Folks felt like they were being discriminated, they could go to somebody that has never been, like, an actual person. Now, we've given them all this time. They haven't been able to do it. We're asking them to now designate one person, make sure that person is a confidential person.

Secondly, we're saying before any student goes to school, the Student Aid Commission then would make sure that they knew that they were. That that school was exempt from providing them protections for LGBTQ or anybody else because they were a small private school, making sure that everybody knew that before they went. And then third, to require the LAO to conduct an assessment of the community colleges, the CSUs, and the UC systems with respect to quality of life around these issues. With me here today is Craig Pulsipher with Equality California and Kaviya from. This is a student from and a Director of policy for gen up.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, chair Members. Craig Pulsipher from behalf of Equality California, a proud cosponsor, appreciate the Senators work on this Bill. According to the US transgender survey, nearly a quarter of Trans college students reported being verbally, physically, or sexually harassed, with 16% of those who experienced harassment having left college. Because the harassment was so bad, Trans students of color were more likely to report leaving school for that reason.

In 2016, EQCA was proud to sponsor legislation which required college and universities to disclose if they permit discrimination against lgbtq students. Specifically, the Bill required schools that claim an exemption under either title ix or California's Equity and Higher Education act to disclose this information to the California Student Aid Commission, as well as to both current and prospective students and staff.

Unfortunately, some students continue to be unaware of these exemptions and what the potential consequences might be if their identity does not align with their college or University's policies. Today, at least nine institutions are exempt from title ix and at least 20 are exempt from the Equity and Higher Education act. And students deserve to know which schools have a license to discriminate and ignore state and federal civil rights protections.

We appreciate the staff from the Assembly Higher Ed Committee and Senate Ed Committee for their report, which included a number of recommendations, including this one, and it will build on existing law by requiring the Student Aid Commission to provide a written notice to students who receive state financial aid regarding whether their institution claims a religious exemption to state and federal nondiscrimination protections.

SB 1491 is an important measure to ensure that all students, especially Trans students, who are facing a barrage of hate and violence in California and across the country, are aware of their rights. Any recourse they may have to address discrimination and harassment and I respectfully urge you, I vote.

Oops. Thank you very much. Others in support.

Mister chair Committee Members Assembly Member my name is Kaviya Chidambaram. I'm a freshman in college and a policy organizer with generation up. Gen up is an entirely student led organization that advocates for educational equity through the legislative process. I am honored to be here today to represent genup, the students of California, and testify on behalf of Senate Bill 1491. As a proud co sponsor of SB 1491, Gen up seeks your support today in standing with queer students. We deserve to be recognized, informed and supported.

The current ED code limits the definition of sexual orientation to heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, but queerness escapes categories. It is so much more than three checkboxes can encompass, and when my identity is not accounted for in the definition, I cannot expect to be protected by the policy.

Queer students deserve definitions that reflect us one in every five LGBTQ students will experience bullying, harassment, or harassment during their time in college, but of those, only a fifth said their college had clear procedures for reporting gender or sexuality based discriminatory acts. Today, you have the opportunity to ensure all queer students receive vital support. SB 1491 would ensure that providing a confidential point person to be there for queer students is not a recommendation but a requirement. Our safety cannot be an afterthought.

Queer students have the right to be informed when their higher education institutions are not required to grant them title ix protections by helping students understand what resources are available to them as well as providing necessary avenues. Support for queer students who are facing discrimination SB 1491 is one step in making California schools a safer place for students. All students deserve a learning environment in which we are recognized and heard. All students deserve a learning environment in which we are safe and supported.

All students deserve a learning environment in which we are informed and accounted for. Please take this opportunity and stand with all students. On behalf of generation up. I respectfully request your I vote on SB 1491 today. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone.

Pricilla Quiros on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support.

All right, others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone. If you're opposed to SB 1491, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches the microphone. Questions by Committee Members. Comments? No questions. No comments. Is there some. Senator? Caballero, Senator Lehrer just moved the Bill. Senator Caballero.

I just want to thank the individuals that testified here today. We hear you, and it makes sense to get this done. It never was intended to be a suggestion. It was always intended to be a commitment. And since that didn't happen, that's. I think you'll see this Bill get out of here with a lot of support. So thank you, Hardy.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, Senator Laird has moved the Bill. Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

I couldn't be more articulate than our witnesses. I asked for your I vote.

All right, thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number nine, SB 1491. The motion is do pass to Senate appropriations. [Vote].

All right, 6-2. Although Bill has enough votes to get out of Committee, we'll put it on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, so following our playbook here, we would have Senator Bradford, Senator Glazer, and I don't see Senator Grove so we're going to turn to Committee Members for their presentation. So if Senator Allen would like to present SB 1143. Oh, here's Senator Bradford. Okay, just under the wire. Senator Bradford, item number five, SB 1050. Sure. Senator Bradford, item number six, SB 1331.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SCP 1331 establishes a fund for reparations and reparative justice. During the last two years, I had the honor of serving on the California Reparations Task Force, the first in this nation. The work of the task force documented in great detail the history of slavery in California and the patterns of systemic racial injustice that continue long after slavery ended.

We documented the racially motivated taking a black land through eminent domain, over-policing, mass incarceration, and the denial of homeownership through practices such as redlining, restrictive covenants, and on and on and on that created generational harm that still exists to this very day. People will often say, why should California provide reparations? California was a free state. A free state in name only. California practiced every, this had the same practice of every slave state.

If you came here as a slave, you were treated as a slave. If you gave birth here, your child was born a slave. If you ran away, we had a fugitive slaves act that returned you back to the plantation that you escaped from. People also say, I don't own slaves, or I didn't own slaves. Why should I have to pay? And I say to them, if you can inherit generational wealth, you can inherit generational debt.

This is a debt that's owed to the people that helped build this country. Reparations is a debt owed to descendants of slavery. This is not a handout or charity of any sort. It is what is owed. It's what is promised. And what is 160 years overdue. I have had the privilege of serving in the Legislature for 13 years, and we have voted on dozens of bills about wage theft. Slavery was 250 years of wage theft of African Americans.

The harm from the wage theft still exists today. The cost of reparations will be high, but so was the harm done to African Americans. And that harm and those disparities created continues to this day. Now, how will California pay for reparations? SB 1331 would authorize the state comptroller to transfer 6% of the funds that would be placed in a state budget Reserve Fund, special Fund for economic uncertainties, into the Fund of Reparations and Reparative Justice.

If there is no funding to set aside for the Budget Reserve Fund, there would not be a deposit in the Fund for the Reparations Reparative Justice. If the budget is a reflection of our values and priorities, reparations has to be funded. Here to testify with me today is Don Tamaki. Mr. Tamaki is a managing partner in the law firm of Minami Tamaki LLP.

Mr. Tamaki was a leader of the movement to gain reparations for Japanese Americans who were interned during World War Two and has served on the reparations task force as well. So without further ado, I would ask Mr. Tamaki. Mr. Tamaki, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. And thank you, Chair Umberg and Committee Members. I served on the task force, and I also co-counseled Fred Korematsu in reopening his infamous Supreme Court case which upheld putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Korematsu's vindication boosted our bipartisan effort for Japanese American reparations. Senator Bradford deserves high praise for his strong leadership role on the task force.

Two years of work, 20 days, 27 days of hearings leading to its groundbreaking report connecting the dots between the racial policies of the past and their cascading harms today. Reparations is not just about slavery. While the nation's racial divide began with 246 years of enslavement, a fact that means Black Americans as a people have been longer enslaved than they have been free. What haunts California is its full-throated support of racial exclusion right into the 20th century.

When you compare the redlining maps of the 1930s to the 1970s against today's maps of the most impoverished, the most underserved, the most polluted neighborhoods, they align exactly. Between 1934 and 1962, billions in home loans were issued, creating America's middle class. But 98% of those loans went to white families. By 1940, 80% of the homes in LA had deed restrictions barring black people. The policies of the not-so-distant past created our present. As a result, white households have nine times more assets than black households.

Black Californians have an almost eight year shorter lifespan. In San Francisco over the last decade, black infant mortality was five times that of white babies. And huge disparities persist in just about every other metric that matters. To talk about these things is unpleasant.

Alrighty. Thank you, sir.

We didn't want to talk about Japanese American reparations, but we ask you to consider black reparations now. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next witness. Senator Bradford, other witnesses.

Primary witness. So I don't know if they're confused.

Let's go ahead and ask those who are in support of SB 1331 to approach the microphone. Give us their name, their affiliation, their position.

What an honor. This is Chris Lodgson, Coalition for a Just and Equitable California, American Redress Coalition of California Sacramento, American Redress Coalition of California Bay Area, Lineage Equity and Advancement Project out of LA, California Black Lineage Society out of the Inland Empire. All in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Raphael Plunkett. I am a board member for LEAP, Lineage Equity Advancement Project and I've traveled here from Diamondbar to express our support. Thank you.

Yes, good afternoon. Darlene Crummity. I am a Member of the Coalition for Just and Equitable California, CDEC, as well as American Redress Coalition of California Bay Area, ARC Bay Area, and I am in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Kim Mims. I'm with the Coalition for a Just and Equitable California CJEC, American Redress Coalition of California, ARC, Sacramento branch, and Amend the Mass Media group in strong support of 1331. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Marie Mazzone Bend the Arc Jewish Action California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Richard Ehrlich, constituent of Senator Roger Niello in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Samantha Johnson for the Greater Sacramento Urban League and the California African American Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you.

Dr. Kridikel Truth Bay, interim prime minister for the Republic of the Country of Haiti. And I'm in strong support of SB 1331.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown with CFT a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here in support. Thank you.

Hi Chair and Members, Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU, California Action here in support.

Thank you.

Jonathan Johnson, Alameda County Mental Health, strong support.

Thank you. All right, others in support of SB 1331, please approach. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're in opposition to SB 1331, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches the microphone, let's bring it back here to Committee for questions, questions. Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion? Senator Laird moves the bill. All right. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Thank you. The reparations task force has painstakingly documented California's role in slavery and the decades of systemic discrimination that followed. People can choose to ignore it. They can be uncomfortable with our history, but you cannot deny it. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

All right. Thank you. It's been moved by Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number six, SB 1331. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Five to one.

We're going to put that on call. Senator Bradford. Senator Bradford, next. SB 1050, file number five.

Thank you, Mister chair. I'm proud to present SB 1050. This Bill will create a pathway to return land or provide restitution for Californians who've had their land or their property taken by by the state or local governments for racially motivated reasons. Many Californians are familiar with the name Bruce's beach, the history of the beachfront property, parcel land in Manhattan Beach.

I was honored to author the Bill three years ago that helped return the property to the heirs of Charles and Willa Bruce, a black couple who, in 1912, started a beach resort in Manhattan Beach for African Americans to recreate and visit. But the City of Manhattan Beach resented the Bruce's success and popularity and wanted to put them out of business. The city used the power of eminent domain to take the Bruce's land and to do so for less than fair market value.

In 2022, as stated, I opted a Bill that allowed the return of the landowners, the LA County, to return the land to the descendants of Charles and Willard Bruce. Just like the Bruce's beach, SCP 50 will provide a broad pathway to justice for others who were harmed by similar racist policies and practices of the distant and recent past. We know Bruce's beach is not a single story of racist government actions.

The power of eminent domain has been repeatedly abused to move black and brown people off their land, destroy homes, to devastate the opportunity for families to build intergenerational wealth through owning land. We all know about the recent story of Section 14 and Palm Springs. We know about San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Colima, and Russell City, just to name a few. Let's talk about Russell City. This was a black and Latino community that's now part of the City of Hayward in the East Bay.

In the 1920s through the 1950s, Russell City was a thriving community of homes and businesses. But the town was annexed by the City of Hayward, and then eminent domain was used to evict the residents in order to build an industrial park. SB 1050 will create a way for the state to review claims of abuse and determine whether compensation is warranted.

The Bill is designed to have a similar structure of the California Victims Compensation board that has the closest correlation as it provides restitution to Californians who have been harmed through no fault of their own. Testifying with me today in support of 1050 is Jessie Johnson. Jessie lived in Russell City before being forcefully removed from her home. She is joined here today by her son Jonathan and her grandson Christian. I'm honored to have the Johnson family here to share their story. Also testifying today is Kavon Ward.

She is the co founder of the organization where is my land? And was instrumental in artwork and returning to Bruce's property. And her work focuses on securing the return of formerly black owned land that was unjustly taken. I respectfully ask for I vote.

Thank you very much. Miss. Floor is yours.

Good evening, Senator Bradford and the hearing Committee. I'm glad to be here and represent that. I was a resident in 1963 when we were forced out of our land, that we owned both my mother in law and my grandparents, which was Bernie Patterson and Cassie Patterson. My mother in law was Jesse May Henry, and we were forced off of our land. Forced out of our land. You can't see pain, but you can feel it.

You can feel it, but you can't see it. It did hurt, and it hurt very badly. So my husband served our country during that time in the navy. When he came home, people land had been burned, houses had been burned down, and our homes were devastated. And to see my grandparents have to drive away from the homes that they had, had groceries and had animals and had all those wonderful things that kept us alive.

And so I'm very happy that you're here to hear the hurt and the pain that I would like to express, but it's expressed from the heavens now, from my grandparents, who are speaking through me now. Please give us our land back. We want to be paid and compensated for the hurt and the loss. And now that the businesses are thriving, they are thriving and receiving monies. Please give us our land back. We want to be paid and compensated. Thank you very much.

Thank you for eloquent testimony. Others in support. Senator Bradford.

Kavon Ward. She's going to be speaking now.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kavon Ward, and I'm the founder of justice for Bruce's beach. And where is my land? Both organizations created to support black people in their quest to reclaim land stolen from them through the guise of eminent domain and other racially motivated policies and practices. Senator Bradford, thank you for the opportunity to present before this Committee.

Today, I had the honor of working with Senator Bradford to push forward SB 796, a Bill created to make it possible for the land to be returned to the Bruce family. His determination, his grit, and his passion for reparative justice are in direct and alignment with mine. So I feel privileged to share time and space with him and his team to ensure the passage of SB 1050. Approximately 20% of current Where is my land?

Claims in the pipeline cite eminent domain as their source of their land loss, according to eminent domain and African Americans a 2007 report for the Institute of Justice, it states that between 1949 and 1973, 2,532 projects were carried out in 992 cities that displaced 1 million people, two thirds of which were black people. So how do we heal a harm like that? We provide compensation, like the Senator is proposing, and we give land back. The initial Bill is a great first start.

I look forward to seeing the Bill evolve to include land returned to the victims of racially based imminent domain, similar to the justice afforded to the Bruce family, especially if the land taken is used for private use, like in Santa Monica, where Ebony beach club owner Silas White's land was raised in 1958 so that the City of Santa Monica could build a parking lot. The Viceroy Hotel now stands on that land.

And like in Russell City, where approximately 250 families were forced from their land, well, now multimillion dollar companies utilize that land and profit significantly from it. Most Members of Russell City's descendant for restorative justice want and deserve more than compensation. They demand land back. Jessie Mae deserves her land back. I thank you all for your support on this Bill and for understanding that racially based harm requires racially based repair.

And I thank this Committee for their support to Senator Bradford around the passage of this important and historical legislation. We made history with SB 796. Let's make history with SB 1050. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, other witnesses in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Thank you, Mister chair. And Members, Tristan Brown, CFT here, in support.

Hello. Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California action in support.

Hello. Marie Mazzone and the Arc Jewish Action, California, in support.

Richard Ehrlich, constituent of Senator Roger Niello, in support. Thank you.

Josh Galler, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Samantha Johnson for the Greater Sacramento Urban League and the California African American Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Thank you.

Hello again. Raphael Plunkett from Leap in support. Thank you.

Christian Johnson of ABC News, in support.

Thank you.

Jonathan Johnson, Alameda County mental health and support.

Thank you.

Darlene Tremony from CJEC and Our Bay Area in total support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Mims with CJEC, AHRQ and ETM Media Group in full support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Doctor Truthbury, interim prime minister for Republic of Haiti, in full support of 1050.

Thank you. All right, others in support. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1050, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee for questions, comments by Committee Members. Questions or comments? Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion, Senator Durazo has moved the Bill. All right. Senator Bradford, would you like to close? Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Niello.

Sure. I feel it important to explain my position. When I first heard about this Bill, and I was familiar with the Bruce's beach injustice and happy to see that fixed, my initial reaction was, this is a piece of legislation that I could support, but you made it the responsibility of all of the taxpayers of California for the injustice of local jurisdictions. Manhattan Beach was responsible for what happened, not Modoc county and anything else that's going to be reviewed through this process.

There will be no responsibility on behalf of the entity that caused the injustice in the first place. Los Angeles County is in support of this. So to the extent that issues like this happened, excuse me, in Los Angeles County, if they were to be responsible for it, I don't know if they'd be supporting the Bill. So my concern is that the injustice is not going to be cured by those who committed the injustice, and I can't support that.

To the extent that a local jurisdiction commits that injustice and then the taxpayers of the entire state have to pay the damages, that seems to me to be a bit of an injustice also. So an entirely supportable concept that I can't support.

All right, thank you, Senator Niello. Whoops. Senator Stern, did you want to.

I think I'm shorting the entire electrical.

All right, Senator Stern has a little.

Let me just ask a technical question, and then I'll come clean this up. Just the 6%, the transfer. Just wondering from the stakeholders, how'd that number get arrived at and sort of how to look down the road a little bit at step two, step three in this and that special Fund for economic uncertainty.

So you're speaking to the last Bill that we just passed.

Oh, that's 1331.

Yes.

Okay, that's in.

That's 1050 we're on right now.

Got it. Understood.

And just to answer the question, the 6% is based on the African American population here in the State of California, the population we don't want no more than what we represent.

Okay, understood. Thank you. Sorry.

All right, other questions? I think Senator Durazo has moved the Bill. Is that correct? Senator Durazo has moved the Bill. Would you like close, Senator?

Yes, and I would like to just answer. Senator Niello. The obligation doesn't fall on the state in and of itself. Local jurisdictions will be responsible if they played a direct role. And a prime example again is the property of Mister Silas White. That was taken in 1958 and you have a four star hotel that sits on government owned land. The City of Santa Monica owns that land, and they collect that rent every month on property that should still be in the white family. And we have example after example where you go down to Julian in San Diego.

You can even look at one of our state parks, Allensworth, which was a thriving town in 1908, and because of the racist community, poisoning the wells, cutting off the water flow, and diverting a train stop it all but bankrupt that town. And it's now a state park. But it's no state park that any of us would be proud of because of its dilapidated condition. That's why I was able to secure $40 million a year ago to make sure that we invest in that park.

So the damage is real. And not only should local agencies be responsible, but the state as a whole and the nation as a whole. Because we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for many of the racist policies that still exist here in California and America. And I respect ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. It's been moved by Senator Durazo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number five, SB 1050. The motion is to pass the Senate appropriations. [Vote].

All righty, six one has enough votes to get out of Committee, but we're gonna put that on hold.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members.

On call rather not on hold, on call. All right, next I see Senator Glazer. Senator Glazer, item number 10. SB 1424.

Thank you, Mister chair. Thank your Committee staff for their work with us on this Bill. Members, you'll recall that last year I authored SB 644. It was the first in the nation law that guarantees consumers that they have 24 hours to cancel their reservation with a hotel or short term rental or third party website, as long as they booked at least 72 hours in advance of the stay.

I want to thank all the Members of the Committee, all the Members of this Committee who voted for that Bill last year, and that Bill only applied to in state facilities, not out of state facilities. I was given advice in the course of that legislation last year that said there was some questions, legal questions, about whether or not it could be applicable. And based on that advice, I removed that provision of the Bill that would apply it to facilities outside of California.

And you all supported it, actually, in the original form that had both, but we ended up narrowing it when it was in the Assembly, and I thank you all for that. However, a recent Supreme Court decision made it clear that other states must comply with California's laws and standards when they're providing goods and services to California residents.

So California is now able to, and based on the feedback from the Attorney General, able to extend protections to our consumers when they book hotel and short term rental stays out of state. So, look, it's no doubt that when you're on the Internet trying to book your stay, that you're trying to be careful and meticulous, but sometimes mistakes do happen. It just does happen. So this Bill expands on 644 by applying that 24 hours cancellation agreement to out of state properties.

If a consumer, a California consumer, is booking there, this will create consistent protections for consumers. Whenever they're looking to book a hotel or short term rental, they can rest assured that if they make a mistake, only 24 hours, very narrow, that they can repair it and not be charged for it. And finally, Members, as you recall from the legislation you all supported last year, if you're booking it within 72 hours of going to that establishment, you can't do it.

You don't get the protections of the Bill. Okay. And as you may have recall, we exempted opaque listings like hot wire and non public rates for, say, special events. So the Bill provides that one day special window in case you do make a mistake. It's good for consumers whether they're booking in California. The law today under this Bill would apply to out of state properties. With that, I would respectfully request your support today.

And, Senator Glazer, you've accepted the Committee's amendments?

Yes. The Committee has asked me because of some concerns that have been raised about the ability of the platforms, and this is mostly platforms, not established hotel companies, the platforms to adjust their systems to account for the provision of this Bill. I've been asked to do an 18 month grace period, and I've agreed to those amendments, sir.

Thank you. Those in support, SB 1424, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Even me, too support. Seeing, no, me too support. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1424, please approach.

Good afternoon, Chairman Umburg, Members of the Committee, my name is Rob Schnitz. I'm with the law firm Cabot, Chapman and Osborne, representing the California Hotel Lodging Association. I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today here in opposition of Senate Bill 1424 and to discuss why the measure violates the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The dormant Commerce clause has three distinct prongs of analysis to determine if a state or local law violates the commerce clause of the constitution.

Each has its own analysis and line of cases. If a law violates any of the three prongs, any of those three analyses, it is unconstitutional. Our analysis of 1424 is based on the third prong, the direct regulation prong. The direct regulation prong provides that a law violates the DCC dormant commerce clause to the extent it directly regulates extraterritorial commercial activity or business outside of the state.

The direct regulation prong does not involve a balancing test as does the second prong, which is the prong that is mentioned in the is the basis of the Supreme Court case referenced before the national pork versus Ross case. Rather, even if a state law property regulates to some degree conduct within its state, it nonetheless violates the commerce clause to the degree it directly regulates out of state commercial activity.

Even in part, the focus of the direct regulation prong is to look to the underlying commercial activity that's being regulated. In other words, where are the goods and services being consumed, used, or delivered? In the case of SB 1424, it violates third prong because it imposes a condition on the terms and conditions of the room stay or the short term rental stay outside of California. There's ample 9th Circuit precedent to support this, due to time constraints,

I will not go into those details, but I'm happy to provide the Committee with citations to the 9th Circuit cases. I'm also happy later to address any questions regarding the Ross decision. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Others opposed to SB 1424.

Thank you Chair and Members Amelia Zimani with the California Travel Association. We represent the travel and tourism industry in California. My membership includes destinations, hotels, resorts, booking sites and amusement parks. We continue to strongly oppose SB 1424 despite the proposed amendments in the Committee analysis. First, this Bill goes back on good faith negotiations made to move our coalition to neutral on SB 644 last year, including to limit the bills provisions to properties in California. SB 644 doesn't even go into effect until July 1 of this year.

The Bill before you today expands the scope of refunds for cancellations from properties located in California to any property advertised to Californians, excuse me, and booked by Californians. This is a significant expansion for companies that operate not just nationally, but globally, and create several challenges. First, there's no way to ensure cooperation from properties outside of our state, let alone international hotels or short term rental properties.

Constitutionality aside, properties outside of California or even the United States are much less likely to refund travelers due to a requirement from outside their jurisdiction. This will create false expectations for California consumers that they can receive a refund on a cancellation of a reservation booked anywhere in the world. Second, basing eligibility on the location of a consumer is prone to fraud, especially for online bookings.

Fraudsters could easily provide unverified California addresses or use California VPN proxies to obtain a refund where they would otherwise not be entitled to one. SB 644 is less defraud because it's easy to identify eligible bookings, those made at California properties, and process refunds accordingly. Third, the Bill does not recognize how national advertising buys work. An ad buyer, not the company, uses a wide variety of analytics, such as budget, market reach, timing and types of media, to reach potential customers.

It's possible that the company itself wouldn't know which markets, in what format, when and for what duration ads appear. The Bill does not distinguish when advertising must occur in California for the refund policy to apply. We do thank you, chair and Committee, for delaying the implementation of this Bill to July 12026. But there are no amendments that will move our coalition to a neutral position or remove our opposition to this Bill. For these reasons and more, we urge a no vote on this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Others opposed to SB 1424, please approach the microphone.

Mister chair, Members Beverly Yu. On behalf of Booking Holdings, we are in respectful opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Mister chair. And Members Robert Mutrie, California Chamber of Commerce, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others saying no one else approaching. Let's bring it back to Committee for questions or comments. Questions, comments. Senator Niello and then Senator Stern, then Senator Ashby.

Senator Glazer, I supported your Bill last year. I have concerns about this one, though. How are you going to enforce this to a bed and breakfast in Oregon that advertises in California and then doesn't comply with the details of the Bill?

Could you just expand a little bit more on this piece that you can see we're all struggling with? I think it's reasonable, the assertion that somebody could basically change their mind and cancel within 24 hours. But I don't think that's the piece that's hard to agree with. What I'm having a hard time with is all of those ramifications around other states. So can you just help me with that a little bit more?

According to advice from the Attorney General and, and even the analysis that you have in your Committee work, it can be enforced in our courts. They advertise in California according to that Supreme Court decision. Seems that that is a key answer to the third test and would be enforced in that fashion.

Keep in mind that all we're talking about, this isn't about, this is not a massive reform in the business of tourism and hotel stays. This just says if you make a mistake, you have 24 hours to correct. So it's very, very narrow trying to deal with. I mean, I'm sure you're a wizard on the Internet and you can go and go through.

No, I'm an old guy.

Okay. I don't think your comments are on the record there. Maybe they should be.

But any case, it's really easy to make a mistake. Certainly at the third party websites versus the, you're going to a Hilton hotel, they usually give you cancellation 24 hours before you even get there. This just says when you make the reservation, if you make a mistake, you give that little narrow window.

I don't think it's going to be a big litigious opening here for suits against a B and B in Oregon that decide that they want to hold someone accountable when they said they made a mistake and they wanted to cancel in 24 hours.

Yeah, it would be up to the individual business, obviously. I certainly respect the Attorney General and his legal expertise. I'm not a lawyer, but I played one on TV one time. Just kidding.

But I know a bit about legal opinions and you can ask 10 attorneys a particular question, particularly about this, and I suspect you'd get a couple, three different answers. So I'm just not convinced that the attorney general's is authoritative on this. And I would hate to see it dive into a bunch of litigation over an issue that I think would be, I still think would be difficult to enforce. So that's the concern that I've got with it.

All right. I think I said Senator Stern next.

Thank you. Actually, I really like the policy you've been pushing for these past few years, and the 24 hours turnaround seems eminently reasonable and don't have a lot of sympathy for the sort of, or concern about the hotel industry nationwide being able to comply with this. It seems like it should be something that's sort of adopted as common practice. My bigger concern, because we're in Judiciary Committee here, has to do with the paranoia I think we all have to have around the litigation risk.

And I know we spoke, it's sort of hard to guess what courts will do. I'm not as worried about the personal jurisdiction issue that was mentioned in light of the California Supreme Court precedent within our state, Stony versus Harris. It's more the national pork producers impact and that in order for this Bill to be upheld, say the Attorney General has to go defend it.

We're going to have to argue for a version of federalism or an interpretation of the dormant Commerce clause that I worry would be precedent setting in other arenas for other states where we would sort of have to reciprocate and recognize Arizona's jurisdiction if they wanted to pose conditions on our businesses from people in Arizona wanting to travel to California and how, what I view as a rogue Supreme Court federally could have some unintended consequences here. So that's my biggest concern.

I want to see you keep moving along and working this, but I would love some way to have some reassurance that should this have to get litigated and be upheld, that we're not going to be precedent setting for, again those other states on things that don't have to do with hotels, that, you know, a citizen of Florida traveling in our state would have to adhere to Florida law.

And sort of, it becomes this whole battle of states rights that, I worry, sort of becomes a slippery slope. So appreciate taking that consideration. You can comment if you'd like.

Through the chair. Look, in so many ways we'd love to have national policy in a lot of these places where we wouldn't need to do these things. We passed bills on junk fees last year, has the same issues that you're raising about this Bill.

So we have done this as a practice to try to protect our consumers. We'd love the national government and they've spoken about it. The President Biden has spoken about junk fees as an example, but you have to follow that through and there has to be enactment. But the Attorney General has looked at it and said we can defend the analysis here it says, quote, provides a solid grounding that California has a basis for enforcing this law in many scenarios.

So you never can foretell how it all gets resolved if there's litigation. I guess I would reinforce and say this is the narrowest of narrow provision that we're trying to create here. This isn't some broad based reform of any industry. It just says if you make a mistake, you can correct it. So I don't think it's going to be the basis of that full examination that you speak of.

And I think it's worthy to put it in the mix with other things this Legislature and their wisdom has done to protect Californians.

All right. Yes, Senator Ashby, then Senator Allen.

Sorry, I have to share with Senator Allen.

There are worse things that can happen.

Yeah, there are. So I have some of the same concerns as Senator Stern and chair. I just wanted to ask if it's okay if I could ask the lead opposition witness to come back so I could ask him a couple questions. Would that be okay?

Sure.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the question that is, the concern about multiple states regulating is exactly what the third prong of the commerce clause analysis is all about. I think there's a fair amount of misunderstanding about what the national port case, which was the Supreme Court case involving Proposition 12, how that applies to other potential commerce cause cases, or in particular SB 1424, it is just simply not applicable. It doesn't.

There was a lot of talk about the Ross case, the national port case, and that it was the death knell for commerce clause cases. That really isn't accurate either. But regardless, that case involved the second prong, which is a balancing test. It does assess questions of fairness about the particular statute and its impact.

But that is not the issue when you're dealing with the third prong, the direct regulation prong, because what it's trying to do is address the very issue you're talking about is to make sure that states aren't trying to regulate each other. Or in National park, for example.

The issue there was and the reason the court upheld it and didn't even get to the third prong, the direct regulation, because it's clear that that Prop 12 only addressed the sell and the purchase and consumption of pork within the State of California. It did not address the seller consumption of pork outside of California. Conversely, 1424 imposes a condition on a reservation involving a room stay or short term rental stay outside of California.

That's the problem. That's the problem. I think at least the three of us are sort of trying to mull over. I mean, I know your lead opposition here, but play devil's advocate with me.

Is there a way to achieve what Senator Glazer is trying to achieve, which is basically to say to Californians, if you accidentally book an Airbnb and you want to switch it to a different one, say, thought you were in one county and you just looked little bit farther away than you thought, how do we help them do that?

Yeah, it's a thorny question because, again, the goods and services we're talking about are outside the State of California. So even though this particular statute may be viewed as not overly expansive or aggressive, it may be viewed as minimal, I think, as it was somewhat described, that's not really the issue when it comes to violating the commerce clause.

It's just a question of, are you regulating something outside the state, commercial activity outside the state? And here it's not really possible to divorce the concept of imposing a term upon the reservation. That's really the crux of the problem. And so I would say, I'm not sure how you could separate that out.

Right.

Because I've thought about it, too, and been approached by it. I know this is like the travel, Cal Travel's really concerned about the spill and reciprocity and what that would mean to us. And the only thing I could kind of come up with was the idea that some of these online platforms, the intermediary platforms, would hold Californians reservations for 24 hours before actually booking, which, of course, runs a whole other risk of losing the site.

But the 24 hours would exhaust, and then you would book it. But, I mean, it's an extra layer of work for those third party intermediaries, and it, you couldn't guarantee holding the room at the same rate over that period of time. So I guess I'm just at a little bit of a loss here.

I appreciate what he's trying to do and think that it is good for Californians if we could find a way to give them the opportunity to change their mind and counsel in 24 hours. But I am troubled by the legality of it outside of the State of California.

Thank you, Mister chair. Well, I just want to associate myself with the comments of Senator Ashby. Obviously, this is a good thing. We supported the Bill, it's good for consumers, but the applicability, the implementation, and I also recognize that it's modest. And I guess. Well, let me start with devil's advocate. Question to the advocate. So if this were make it work, do it the devil, by the way. Yeah, sure. That was someone else earlier.

No, but if you. We're just talking about a 24 hours kind of cure period. If you were asking for more. But what he's asking, if you're so modest, how would you. I know. I'm sure there's implementation issues. I'm sure, and I know you guys will make a robust and compelling case in court, distinguishing this from the national poor case. But given how modest and reasonable, and quite frankly, what a good idea this ask is, 24 hours cure period. Is this not worth, is this not a good test case, I suppose for National board?

Well, there's not any precedent in the direct prong analysis, the third prong analysis, and again, the 9th Circuit actually has the best developed law on the third prong than any of the other circuits. So the case law there is actually fairly well formed, and there's not any precedent for evaluating the severity of the regulation.

The issue is simply, are you regulating, is the underlying commercial activity within the state or outside the state? Right. And the severity of it is not a controlling determination, unlike if you're in the second prong, where again, that's the national park decision.

Isn't that your problem here, Senator? This is literally a commercial activity taking place outside of the boundaries of the State of California. The actual.

Right. But they advertise here in California. That's a direct connection to a California consumer is that they say, hey, come and make a.

But when Thailand advertises tourism, you don't expect to go to Thailand and then be governed by California.

I think that what we're trying to say here is that to protect California consumers, if you advertise in our state for a lodging establishment, that if a mistake is made and 24 hours later they want to cancel it, they should have the right to do it.

You're not going to go to Thailand tomorrow. You're going to go to Thailand months from now. And it's a modest thing that, listen, we think these establishments should act responsibly and just provide it.

Let me ask when you say, what do you define as advertising.

Senator Allen, I think that. I'm not going to say it's in the eye of the beholder, because that's too easy. But I would say that anything that's in a public space that promotes the type of contractual agreement that would be advanced for. So if I get an email.

You know, if I sign up, if I went on a trip to Florida and I signed up on this is.

You know, as, you know, as an attorney, a lot of this stuff is a fact based analysis. So even what I might tell you today in this testimony, it would be potentially more narrow or more expansive.

Of course, I would assert as an individual that anything that advertises to a California consumer that would fit the definition that applies to this Bill would constitute that. Now, by the way, based on the suggestion of the Committee, we're giving them an extra two years to go and do their litigation. If they really want to litigate on this narrow provision of protecting California consumers, they can go do it. I know this is the Judiciary Committee, and this is the time to have these debates. It's fair.

But as I said, we have passed other bills in the last year that go way beyond what I'm proposing to do in this Bill that has plenty of opportunity for those forces of commerce to claim that we've disadvantaged them and it should be changed. There's so many other things that we've done, but the Attorney General has looked at it and given us comfort that he can defend it. And I think that's a reason why we should just look at the merits of this Bill.

Should consumers in California be granted an ability to say, I made a mistake for 24 hours on these platforms that are very complicated? I was joking with Senator Niello a moment ago, but I've also had personal challenges of, did I do that? And that I see everything. Do I really know where it's located? And I just, I didn't really mean to click it. And it's gone. That you paid, it's gone to some image processor in some other place, and you're done. That's the rule today. That's the jungle world of the Internet in making a reservation.

But what if the platform, you're potentially covering this incredible range of platforms, and I think you're thinking of it very much in terms of the Internet. But as I say, if, I mean the way you have it set up now, if I get an email and I happen to receive it when I'm physically located in the State of California, then the law kicks in, even it's from a real mom and pop operation.

If I happen to receive. It seems as though there's some details that need to be really fleshed out here to test applicability. Unless you just want to kick it to the courts because you're anticipating.

Well, no, I don't want to kick it to the courts, if I may, but keep this in mind. The vast majority of reservations that you make in this space are established enterprises, Hilton, Hyatt, that all have incredibly generous cancellation policies.

So you're now saying the ma and pa in Oregon, or are there going to be some examples? Yes, but keep in mind that in terms of protecting California consumers, that 95% of it are places that if they had just booked directly, they would never even be an issue because they already provide generous cancellation policies. It's only through this new evolving enterprise called platforms that this. Is there a way that you can really zero in on those platforms with the Bill moving forward?

Because I agree, there are some pretty wild brokers online now that I've gotten a chance to experience your points well taken. You book through the main hotel. They're usually pretty, pretty generous. I don't know what Airbnb's policies are, but I would presume that would be relatively easy for them to address. But it seems that there's some narrowing that needs to happen here to really focus in on your goals. And you're still going to face a lot of. I'd be opening challenges.

You heard from opposition? They have no amendments. Listen, I agree with you. You know, my practice in the lawmakers.

Because I think they feel pretty confident that they're going to, they're going to have a really strong chance in court.

I'm not so sure that that's-

Because of the third prong analysis.

Well, as I said, we have professionals here in California, Ben, that represent consumers that think we have a very strong case, and that's been to defend other laws that you have voted for and passed in the previous years.

They feel that are much more substantial than this. But, of course, if the opposition has any suggestions on to narrow this in a way, but you haven't heard that today, they say.

I think the problem you're going to have is that they're not going to be inclined to try to fix the Bill that they're going to work hard to defeat in court.

I guess what I would invite you to engage with Members, I suppose, on that analysis because I don't think it's in their interest to give you amendments, quite frankly.

All the reason to allow me to continue to move the Bill forward and to work with all of you, if you have suggestions. We obviously want to, to have a law that can stand up, that's in all of our interests to do that. And so if there's ways to do that as the Bill moves forward, I'm certainly open to that. And taking advantage of your insights and others. Sure.

More or less. We're going to go in alphabetical order. Senator Ashby.

Sorry. I just feel like Senator Allen's questions are giving me more questions, like the advertising component. I mean, you know how this works. We all work with these visits. So what does that even mean? So if Florida does a. Florida's visit Orlando does a massive ad campaign, is that Hilton and some individual AirBnBs advertising in California, or is that visit Florida, visit Orlando's advertising, do they intermingle? Is a billboard the same as something you saw on the Internet?

And if they advertise, you know, the Internet advertising might not be so targeted that they're specifically looking at California, but somebody is lodging. I know it's like beach destination. Just because I put that in, and I live in California, that doesn't. Now they're advertising to me because I put up the red flag on my computer that I'm looking at beach destinations.

And by the way, every algorithm on my phone and my Alexa in my house and whatever else is listening to me is going to send me every beach destination in the United States of America, which, by the way, for the record, I like because it just helps me remember what I was trying to do in the first place. But there's so much of that advertising that is, like, controlled so differently moving forward. And I actually really like the idea of a 24 hours cancellation.

I just can't wrap my mind around how it's legal outside of California. If your Bill was to make everybody inside of California do that, it'd be an easy yes for me, and I wouldn't even be talking right now. But I'm not understanding how we do that to Florida without letting Florida tell us their people can carry guns and concealed weapons into our state, or they can force their laws on us. And I'm having trouble with that piece, given what I know about pork law. That's. I'm struggling mightily with that. Yeah, national pork law.

And if I may, I mean, that's a great. You could see yourself in front of the Supreme Court now arguing both sides on the points that you've just made. And that would be something that we leave to our highest court in the land to wrestle with those big issues. Obviously, 24 hours cancellation doesn't seem like the biggest issue or the fact situation. They might want to make these challenges. I suspect they would come in other ways and other laws that have been enacted.

This is a modest one. It protects California consumers. The legal issues are legitimate concerns to be raised. I can't settle them. I can speak to what our legal authorities in California have said. The Attorney General of California said we can defend this. So I respect that office and I respect the people that have come to that conclusion. I certainly shore up my view that they're willing to go out and defend California consumers on this Bill and others that you all have supported over the years.

And that, to me, should give you, I hope, the confidence to support the Bill today.

Yeah, well, I'll just. I'm willing to. I'd love to see the letter from the Attorney General's Office. Love to take you at a word to engage with our office and others on trying to make some refinements. So, in that spirit, willing to give you the courtesy of allowing you to work continually on this.

But I do think there is a number of these third prong issues that we really should, in good faith, try to get addressed if we're going to move this Bill forward.

And speaking of that, Senator Durazzo just moved the Bill. So with that, if there's nothing else, allow Senator Glazier to close.

Thank you for the robust conversation today. I'd love to find more ways to accommodate the concern of the opposition. Y'all were there last year in trying to protect California consumers for in state reservations. This provides that avenue for out of state. The Bill will be heavily scrutinized, I'm sure, as it goes. If it gets out of the Committee today. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote so, thank you.

With that, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Two to two. We'll leave that open for Members to add on. Senator Grove, you've been very patient. I tried to help you out, girlfriend, as best I could, but. Okay.

I thought you made a total error when you said Senator Oswald moved the Bill. I go, she's not even in the room and you were hiding behind. I couldn't see you behind Senator for leisure, who passes in the.

All right, so up next is item 11 by Senator Grove, and the recommendation is do pass and send to labor, which I will see again with that. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'd like to thank Chair Unberg and the Members of the Committee. Existing law took effect January 1 of this year prohibits employers from asking certain questions of off duty about off-duty or prior cannabis use. I want to thank the Committee and the chair for their feedback on this Bill, and I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments to remove the prior use language that was added in the statute last year with SB 700 by Senator Bradford.

As amended, SB 1264 would exempt law enforcement agencies from a statute governing employment practices of off-duty cannabis use, allowing employees to be tested for cannabis use. The Bill is narrowly the Bill. This Bill is narrowly drawn to provide a targeted exemption for just those law enforcement employees who are undertaking duties directly related with law enforcement.

This is the same exemption given to the construction trades currently that they have in statute, and also law enforcement agencies that operate both law enforcement individuals that carry a firearm, but then also operate at heavy-duty trucks and those kinds of things. The truck drivers are exempted, but the law enforcement officers are not. And we're just trying to align that. The work of both professionals has important implications for the public safety and responsibility.

Peace officers are expected to overcome intense physical challenges and make split seconds decisions in life and death scenarios, and these responsibilities are generally incompatible with those effects of cannabis use. SB 1264 will ensure departments retain the ability to test employees for cannabis use to ensure the highest professional standards are met in the law enforcement environment. With me today to testify is Corey Salzillo with the California State Sheriffs Association and Jonathan Fieldman with the California Peace Officers, excuse me, Police Chiefs Association. Corey/

Thank you and under the rules of the Committee, primary witnesses get two minutes. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Corey Salzilla, on behalf of California State Sheriff's Association, pleased to co-sponsor the Bill.

I'm not sure I can say it better than the author did, but I will note that as these bills, AB 2188 by Assembly Member Quirk, and then subsequently SB 700 by Senator Bradford, it was generally presumed, at least by us, that by virtue of the language in those bills, that law enforcement agencies were not included in either bill's reach. In the wake of the bill's passage, their subsequent implementation, and then some more refined legal analysis, it's less clear that that's the case.

So this Bill eliminates any uncertainty in that regard with a target exemption for law enforcement applicants and employees who would be or are undertaking duties directly related to law enforcement. As the author noted, we are happy to accept the amendments discussed in the Committee analysis that brings this exemption in line with the exemption that exists in current law for the trades. Both professions obviously have public-facing implications for safety and responsibility, and so we're happy to sponsor the Bill.

Happy to answer any questions and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Alrighty. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Any me too testimony? Yes.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members. Darryl Lucien here on behalf of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, representing the now 9,000 officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jared Maas, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs in support.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1264, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, Dale Geringer here for California NORML, National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws and a cosponsor of AB 2188. This bill is a step backwards from the employment protections that were established by AB 2188 in 2022.

Basically, AB 2188 just bans the use of outmoded and unscientific drug urine tests that have no relation to actual job performance. SB 1264 repeals these protections for actually a broad spectrum of workers in law enforcement, effectively preventing their use of marijuana off the job, even for medicine. We're concerned that 1264 undermines confidence in law enforcement. It re-establishes a wall of mistrust between law enforcement and the cannabis community that was built up under years of prohibition but finally removed by our legalization law.

This Bill implies that law enforcement officers, unlike other workers, can't be trusted to use cannabis safely off the job. Let me just say that nothing in current law prevents law enforcement from maintaining a strict, drug free workplace. AB 2188 allows employers to use oral swab, blood, or breath tests, or performance tests that are actually sensitive to impairment. Let me say SB 1264 is excessively broad. It includes a host of civilian positions with no enforcement duties, such as communications, record keeping, animal control corners, public administration.

It's been pointed out that the construction trades got a special exemption from AB 2188. This was done at the union's insistence, on account of longstanding contractual obligations.

Thank you, sir. If you'd wrap it up.

We therefore urge you to reject SB 1264 the cannabis community would like to be assured that law enforcement is not excluded from our ranks. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition to SB 1264, please approach the microphone.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Members. Beth Malinowski with SEIU California. Apologies for the late opposition. Did the opportunity to have some light initial engagement with the author's office and the Committee. We are proud to represent thousands of unsworn staff that might be impacted by this Bill. Second, the comments made by our colleague at Cal NORML. Look forward to continuing conversations.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kristin Heidelbach, United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, also in respectful opposition. Apologies for also late opposition, and happy to engage in conversation to get where we can. We represent thousands of workers in the State of California and are looking to step forward and not back.

Thank you. Others in opposition? Seeing no one else approaches the microphone. Questions by Committee Members. Senator Allen.

Do you want to give us some response to some of the opposition concerns that have been raised, particularly the idea that it's going to wrap in a lot of non-sworn officers within law enforcement world?

You could start and I can finish.

Mister Salzillo, go ahead.

Thank you. Through the Chair, Senator, we tried to target the definition in the statute as clearly as possible. It does include some non-sworn civilians, but it doesn't belie the fact that some of those non, or all of those, in our opinion, those non-sworn positions deal with very serious and vital law enforcement functions. So record supervisors, for example, dispatchers, right? A dispatcher, they're not out in the field necessarily.

They may not have a gun on their hip, but they're controlling the response to a situation and so having that ability to make sure. Clearly, we know impairment is not addressed by this, but just the sort of long-term effects by cannabis use and the sort of trust and responsibility that's expected. So we tried to focus this, and again, as you know, sheriff's offices and just sheriff's offices, but have a whole host of duties, animal control, coroner functions.

There are deputy coroner investigators who are out on the street, public-facing so.

Okay, I'm willing to support this today, but you have obviously quite a bit of work ahead in terms of some of the concerns that have been raised from opposition. So.

And we weren't aware of the opposition until, I think, late last night or we would have worked with them, you know, I work on my bills, I would have worked with them to address their opposition and the questions that they had. We simply looked at the piece of legislation as their sheriff's officers and law enforcement officers were like, look, these guys carry a gun, these guys do this, these guys drive a truck. These guys are exempted, but these guys are not, or girls.

So we just aligned it with what the builder's trade language was, and then we took the Chair's amendments and the Committee's amendments to make sure that everybody was comfortable with this situation. And then late opposition came last night, but I'd be glad to work with them. Thank you, sir.

All right, other questions? Comments? I'm sorry, Senator Stern. And then Senator Durazo.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate, yeah, this all happens late. I just want to acknowledge, I know we have the associations here. My, one of my local police chiefs, Chief Shorts and then our Ventura County sheriff both raised this issue last year.

So I actually appreciate you trying to come forward with some solution, because we want to make sure that especially law enforcement agencies just have a culture where they have trust and that there's not too many, you know, hidden issues that may actually affect the ability to carry out a very, very difficult job. But I think the prior use amendment is a good step in that direction. I hope you'll keep working on it, but I'll be supporting the measure today.

Thank you, sir. Absolutely, sir. We are, we did take the prior amendment. We talked to the police chiefs and the sheriff's officers, and there are a number of individuals that are very qualified to be law enforcement that maybe had a five-year stint where they smoked pot or whatever, and so they were excluded before law enforcement.

And the sheriff's office, the California State Sheriff's Association, recognize that that is a question that doesn't need to be asked, but they do want to reserve the right to be able to make sure that anybody that carries a gun that performs these specific duties, interacting with the public is not, is not in current use of cannabis.

Senator Durazo?

Yeah, I misunderstood a little bit here in terms of the organizations that were in support and in opposition, and I'd like to hear from the impact that it's going to have on rank and file. So I'm really concerned about that. I don't know if you all have had any conversation at all. If we're. Can I ask some, either SEIU or UFCW?

Sure. Whoever liked to come to the microphone first.

Do you think? I guess the question is, do you see a path to amending this in such a way that would represent the rank and file, or do you see this as sort of one of those unfixable?

Senator Rosso, if you don't mind, could I ask a question along the lines of yours? What employees are you specifically concerned about that you represent? Does that work for you, Senator Durazo? Yes. Right.

Happy to start there. Again, Beth Malinowski with SEIU. In terms of, from our perspective, think across our public sector bargaining units in particular, thinking about the workforce that we have there. Some of the job classifications were actually acknowledged by the sponsor and appreciate that acknowledgement. But that could be someone who is a Clerk at a sheriff's office. It could be someone handling files. It could be someone in animal control, maybe, who's, you know, out engaging with the community on things like animal control.

I can put together a fuller list of job classifications if that's helpful, both for the author and for certainly the next Committee hearings as well. I don't have that prepared today, but we do believe it's thousands of rank and file members across a variety of local jurisdictions.

All right. I'm sorry, Senator Durazo, go ahead.

The question was, do you foresee that there's, can you tell if there's a fixable pathway here, or is it so hardcore difficult that you don't see it?

We're always open to conversation. Admittedly, we have not brought forward any amendments yet to the author, so certainly always happy to have conversations.

Do want to as well, though, the more global concern that has also been raised in terms of the extent to which a piece of legislation that was just implemented, the extent to which we could be rolling things back here as we first get our handle on it.

I think the other thing I'll just acknowledge, when you think about some very large bargaining units, you have both kind of unsworn rank-and-file members in department that we're talking about today side-by-side in the same bargaining unit as other departments, be it a health department and other functions. And just this tension we could be unintentionally creating within those broader bargaining units have kind of different sets of roles for different members of that bargaining unit.

All right, Senator Durazo, is that answered your question? Okay, is there a follow on?

Sorry, I can be really quick. Kristin Heidelbach again with UFCW Western States Council. We don't actually represent workers that are covered, although the folks that are covered. It's not just people that are bearing arms, it's a large group of folks. Our concern is because we worked so hard on AB 2188, Quirk's Bill, that changed the testing standard. Nothing in current law allows or prevents an employer from making sure that their workforce is drug-free.

But this kind of adds a carve-out, which we already had worked really closely with the building trades to make sure they were happy and so this is a real slippery slope in a legalized, regulated state like California, where if someone's going to go on a Friday night and enjoy a glass of wine and they can go to work on Monday and not get in trouble. We live in the State of California. They can legally buy the product.

And so we really are aligned with the thoughts that Dale brought forward with Cal NORML. But we're completely open to working with the author and making sure we can get there.

So there's none of your, none of the folks you represent, but you're worried about the slippery slope?

I am. Because once we add that carve-out, then we're going to have more and more groups that are going to hop on and say, we don't want our folks covered by this. So right now, in from a labor perspective.

Got it. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Wait a minute. One second here.

From a labor.

One second, one second here, Senator Durazo, have you finished? Senator Durazo is finished. Others with questions. Senator Stern, did you have a question?

Just a perspective from rank and file officers. That's what I was hoping for, too. I know we have PPL here.

Thank you again, Committee Members. So Los Angeles Police Protective League is the largest bargaining unit of 830.1 peace officers in the state.

And by far, it is a very deep concern that is causing, I think, a lot of tension internally as of right now and frankly, confusion within the union in terms of how we really roll this out and how we live up to the accountability standards that the Legislature has desired and imposed upon peace officers, while at the same time really trying to make sure that this is clean. So from that bargaining unit perspective, we are strongly, strongly supportive of this measure, and we find it clarifying.

And it's going to, not that you want to be in the weeds of internal operations of how labor unions work. It is going to, I think, give us a lot of clarity. It's going to give us a lot of legal clarity on what we cover for our members in terms of legal defense and things of that nature. It's just going to be very helpful. So we appreciate your support.

Thank you very much. All right, Senator Stern, finished. Other questions, comments? Seeing no other questions or comments. Is there a motion? All right, Senator Ashby moves the Bill. Thank you very much, Senator Grove, for taking the amendments we suggested.

Thank you, sir.

All right, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. I do agree with the law enforcement representative that did say this will provide clarity, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide that clarity to our law enforcement.

All righty. Madam Secretary, there's been a motion by Senator Ashby. Please call the roll.

This is file item number 11, SB 1264. The motion is do pass, as amended to Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. [Roll call] You have seven to zero,

7-0. All right, thank you. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Grove. All right. Senator Ochoa Bogh. I see. Senator Ochoa Bogh here. Item number 13, SB 1040.

Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes, thank you. And good afternoon, Mister chair Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this Bill. I'm pleased to present SB 1040, which would facilitate the serving of court documents to incarcerated individuals by allowing the process server to leave the documents with the facility's litigation coordinator. This Bill will allow the effective delivery of court documents without a process server being denied access multiple times to the incarcerated individual by prison or jail staff.

Existing law is unclear whether serving court documents to a sheriff or warden constitutes personal service of court documents. Because the law is ambiguous, a county judge may find that delivery of court documents to a sheriff or warden does not constitute personal service and can require the exercise of due diligence to effect the service.

Frequently to show due diligence, the process service will make multiple attempts to deliver the documents to an incarcerated individual, even when the jail or prison staff indicate that they are unable to present the individual who received the documents. The negotiated April 8 amendments address the ambiguity in the civil service process of an incarcerated person by explicitly codifying portions of the CDCR's Department operations manual to ensure delivery of service for both in person and mail delivery.

I work closely with the California Public Defenders Association to improve the Bill. Joining me is Mike Belote, who represents the sponsor of the Bill, California Association of Legal Support Professionals.

Thank you, Mister Belote.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members, Mike Belote, on behalf of the California Association of Legal Support Professionals. This has been a part of an effort we've been on for several years to normalize, regularize the service of process in penal facilities where practices differed greatly. Some prisons, for example, were sending our Members away at the gate and saying, just mail in the documents, which is not, in our view, very good service. So we're really working here.

You know, an incarcerated person both deserves and is constitutionally entitled to do process. We're trying to make sure they get the documents in a reliable way. At the same time, we shouldn't have to go back multiple times to be told the same thing by the prison, that you have to come back two more times. But we're not going to produce the incarcerated person. So we appreciate the efforts of the California Public Defenders Association and working with us, we've also worked in continuing dialogue with the ACLU.

We appreciate the hard work of the Committee and Mister Dougherty on this. And so we think this is leading to better service, more reliable service that incarcerated people deserve. And with that, we'd ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? SB. Whatever SB 1040. Getting tired. Thank you. No one else in support? Let's turn to opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1040, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Here we go.

Not actually opposed, but Rachel Bahgwa at ACLU California action. We currently don't have a position on this Bill, but wanted to reiterate that we've been working with the author's office and the sponsors on outstanding issues and want to thank them for the good faith conversation so far.

Thank you very much. Anybody else that wishes to express their no position saying no one else approaches the microphone. All right, let's turn to Committee Members. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing none, I will skip the war story about. Or stories about trying to depose people in prison. Questions? Yes. Senator Allen moves the Bill. Are you moving the Bill, Senator Allen? Yes. Yes. All right. Senator Allen moves the Bill. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Get it done.

This is file item number 13, SB 1040. The motion is do pass to Senate Public Safety. [Vote].

We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Ochoa Boga. I see Senator Skinner here. So here's the rundown. Next, we'll hear from Senator Skinner. Then we'll hear from. If Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is available, then Senator Wiener. So, Senator Skinner, item number 19. SB 906.

Thank you very much, Mister chair Members. SB 906. As you, I'm sure aware, California was the first state in the nation to give our student athletes their name, image, and likeness rights. That was a Bill I carried. I don't remember what year. But anyway. Anyways. And I will give this little editorial that in watching March madness and seeing that the women's games broke all records for all basketball games ever, not just women's basketball games, but there was more viewership.

So, you know, why did we watch those women more? Because there are ads all over the place. They're being sponsored, so, you know, we're paying attention more. And I think the NIL really helped that. I was a little disappointed to see the amount of money that Caitlin Clark, the number one pick in the draft for the WNBA, is going to get paid, but that's a different story. We're going to have to work on that in another way.

But anyway, so we know that nil has helped our athletes, we know it's helped women. But is it being fair? Is it. Is it an equitable? Is it being used equitably? It's hard to legislate for that. But what I'm trying to do now with SB 906 is to try to get some transparency and some information so we can determine that.

So first I want to say that I am accepting the Committee suggested amendments that clarify the Bill and add further protections for student privacy, completely accepting those. Okay.

And with why we need to get this information is we have now this rise in this thing called collectives, and what the collectives are, are boosters. Now, we know, unfortunately, in the past, part of why NIL was needed, that there were a lot of. There was some corruption in college sports where boosters would pay under the table to athletes to try to attract them to a college. And, you know, some of that was exposed and busted.

But now we have these collectives being formed for certain colleges to give that college an advantage in attracting students. And these collectives are, in effect, being the entity to give you an NIL deal. They're not arranging NIL deals elsewhere. They're like being the NIL deal. But anyway, so we want to see whether not just these collectives, but the generic use of NIL, is it highly, highly disproportionately benefiting male athletes versus females, or is there at least some level of equity in it?

So what we ask colleges, this information requires the collectives and other NIL entities that do deals of 5000 or higher to provide that information to the college that the athlete attends. The college would then only make anonymous, aggregated data public. Now, my main witness in support would have been Betsy Stevenson. She's the former athletic Director of UCLA.

However, she was unable at the last minute to come, so I will not have a key witness in support, but I've now laid out to you exactly what the Bill does.

Those in support of SB 13, excuse me, SB 906, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mister chair, Members of the Committee, Brittany Barsotti, on behalf of the California News Publishers Association, California Broadcasters Association, and Media alliance, and strong support.

Thank you. Others in support. All right, seeing no one else approach the microphone, those in opposition, if you're in opposition to SB 906, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches microphone questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions, Senator Stern moves the Bill. Let me just comment. Senator Skinner, I can't imagine the fear that was struck in the hearts of college administrators throughout the country.

When they saw the name Skinner associated with the caption, collegiate athletic student athlete compensation, there must have been heart palpitations throughout the country. So, bills. Would you like to close?

Too bad I don't have a few more years to give those student athletes collective bargaining rights as they have been given at carton.

Now you've just upped their palpitations.

Well, then they should be really happy with just letting this one out. Anyway, I appreciate your support, and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, Bill's removed. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Eight zero. We'll put that on call. I am told that Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is about to enter the room, so we'll take a break in place. So after Senator Smallwood-Cuevas comes Senator Wiener, then Senator Allen, then Senator Rosso, then finally Senator Wahab and. All right, sure, go ahead, Senator Wahab. Go ahead.

This is item number 26, SB 1356, with the. I suppose the. Senator Allen and Senator Durazo, you're okay with that? Hearing no objection, all right, go ahead, Senator Wahab.

Thank you. Chair, colleagues, and members of the public, I want to thank committee staff for their work. I know they worked really hard on this particular bill. SB 1356 requires judicial counsel to consider the role of gender in court proceedings and meetings, the needs of litigants in unique situations of vulnerability when developing trainings. While training regarding domestic violence is covered under existing law and training on gender bias exists, there are still gender discrepancies in judicial decisions. To accomplish equality and non-discrimination in the justice system, this bill would expand upon the existing training to ensure gender perspective is incorporated across the court system. I would like to introduce my first witness, Miss Ann Ravel. Ann has served as an elected governor on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, a member of the Judicial Council of the State of California, and chair of the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.

She was also nominated to the Federal Election Commission by President Barack Obama on June 2013 and served as chair of the commission for the 2015 and Vice Chair for 2014 before leaving in 2017. She's also a former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. My second witness will be Rosa Calderon. So, with your permission, I'd like to ask Ann up to the lectern.

Thank you very much, Miss Ravel, floor is yours.

Thank you very much, committee, for hearing this really important measure. In order to have confidence in the California Justice System, it's crucial that judges make decisions that are impartial, fair, and not discriminatory against women or minorities. It's essential that our court system must always result in equal treatment under the law. And I want to mention I'm President of a group in Santa Clara County, the Silicon Valley Ethics Roundtable. And judicial impartiality and comprehension of inequities in our society is a significant ethical issue.

And to assure impartiality in the judicial decision-making, judges have to receive training that includes gender sensitivity in court proceedings in the elimination of gender stereotypes, understanding the inequity of power relationships for women, and recognizing needs and remedies for groups in vulnerable situations. As was indicated by Senator Wahab, SB 1356 expands the scope of existing judicial training programs to broadly address the issue of gender bias.

And presently, the Judicial Council does not do that kind of training for the judges, and it is extremely important that they do so. And I have had conversations with judges and from members of the Judicial Council, and they agree with this, the need to have more training for judges on these issues. So this judicial training, and I don't. Am I going on too long?

Well, you've exceeded the two minutes, so go ahead, wrap it up. You support the bill?

Yes, I'm please asking for the support for this bill. And I also wanted to mention to you that the group, the Ethics Roundtable has, which consists of a lot of very well known people in Silicon Valley, support the bill as well.

Thank you so much. All right, next witness.

Hi, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Rosa Calderon, and I am the Executive Director of Future Generations, and I support SB 1356. As a Latina refugee who accessed higher education and also became a small business owner, I found myself unable to evade the pervasive biases of our justice system. This Bill is a lifeline for countless individuals who have experienced the harsh realities of gender and racial bias within our courts.

We have a two tiered system where some individuals with means hire private attorneys and can keep their matters out of the public court system, while others plead out, many out of fear, without ever consulting an attorney. A 2023 report by UCLA found that lengthy sentences for women functioned as a punishment rather than rehabilitation. Additionally, it found that women entering the criminal legal system had survived multiple forms of racialized, gendered, and sexual violence directly or indirectly tied to the charges that they faced.

California has more than 100 separate penal code sections that prosecutors can use to enhance, extend sentences based on current charges, or without past conviction records. California also has the distinction of a state with the highest rate of women sentenced to life in prison. About one in four. And despite our state's commitment to racial equity, blacks and Latinos bear the disproportionate burden of comprising 66% of county jail and 74% of the prison population, while only representing 47% of our state's population.

Our judges are our best and final line of defense in a system that is inherently skewed. They hold immense power to shape the outcome of our cases by recognizing the unique vulnerabilities faced by marginalized communities. I want to thank Miss Ravel and Senator Wahab for bringing this issue forward, and I ask you for your aye vote on SB 1356.

All right, thank you very much. Okay. Others in support, please approach the microphone seeing no one else approaching. If you are opposed to SB 1356, please approach the microphone seeing no one approach the microphone. Let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members have questions, concerns, comments? Senator Ashby has moved the Bill. All right. My last comment is, I support the Bill. I believe in several things. One, implicit bias exists in our culture, and it has many, many forms.

Two is that it's useful, in fact, very important that judges recognize and address implicit bias, and, I suppose, explicit bias as well. And three is that the only concern I have is a separation of power is concerned. Judicial Council has not voiced any concerns with the Bill so far. Be it from me to throw my body in front of it. But if the Legislature were told how we need to be trained by the judiciary, or if the Administration told us how we need to be trained.

We would say, hey, we are responsible for our own qualification, our own training. But Judicial Council has no concerns, and so, therefore, I support the Bill. So. Madam Secretary, Senator Ashby is moved. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

All right, this is file item number 26, SB 1356. The motion is do pass to Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll put that on call. All right. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is here. Thank you for your patience, Senator. Item number 20, SB 1340. Yes, should be.

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues. I want to. I'm excited to introduce SB 1340, and I want to start by thanking the Chair and the committee staff for your amendments, which I have accepted. And I look forward to continuing to work on this important policy. SB 1340 would support the implementation of last year's SB 150 Bill, which we all supported and got to the governor's desk and was signed.

This helps to guide the state's use of incoming federal funding, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act funding, and our Chips and Science Act investments. We want to make sure that as we are using these funds to build workforce in California, that we're doing so to create good quality careers and community benefits for our communities. And I want to thank my good colleague, Senator Durazo, who was a partner in getting that historic legislation passed in SB 150.

But we have to be clear that President Biden's Administration has been very, very clear about the ways in which these dollars are to be used and the expectation for, in terms of our competitiveness for these funds. The number one thing that the Biden Administration has lifted up as a guideline is ensuring that these are good careers, meaning that these are jobs that pay sustainable wages and protect workers and that underrepresented populations have access to these jobs.

And in order for us to do that, we have to address existing barriers in the infrastructure space; where currently, when we look at construction alone, 93% of that sector is made up of men, and over 60% of it is made up of white men. So SB 1340 authorizes the Civil Rights Department to partner with local agencies to be able to have a proactive enforcement model to investigate employment discrimination and to remove that workplace barrier.

According to our Civil Rights Department's most recent annual reports, in 2020, they received over 23,000 employment discrimination complaints, and in 2021, they saw a record increase in that number. The high volume of complaints, in addition to the department's responsibilities, leaves CRD overburdened and understaffed. This as we are expecting billions of dollars to come into our state to build the this new workforce and our climate-resilient economy.

The Los Angeles Civil Rights Department, for example, in my district, has trained staff that is ready and is addressing claims. But existing law preempts them from investigating the majority of complaints and requires that they forward those complaints to state departments, which only serve to increase the backlog that our current Civil Rights Department has. We have to make sure that CRD is up to the task.

We have to make sure we have more boots on the ground to address employment discrimination in a way that builds partnerships, and that ensures that all workers have access to quality jobs in our state, particularly as we look at this infrastructure sector. This bill would additionally require that contractors report demographic data to the Civil Rights Department, which will be tracked and reported on publicly.

And lastly, SB 1340 would establish a public infrastructure task force made up of community and labor and workforce experts to act as intermediaries with the state and contractor and labor to ensure that recommendations strengthen recruitment, retention, and protections for our most vulnerable workers. Tens of billions of dollars are coming to California to create good jobs. There are new opportunities on the horizon. We want to make sure every Californian has access across the state.

SB 1340 ensures those dollars and those jobs reach our most vulnerable and historically disenfranchised communities. With me today is Saba Waheed, the Executive Director of the UCLA Labor Center, and she will be my only witness today, and I'll proceed after that.

All right, thank you, Senator. All right, floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Saba Waheed. As Senator said, I'm the Director of the UCLA Labor Center. California leads the nation in protecting workers from discrimination but lacks sufficient boots on the ground to make these protections a reality. This bill does three key things to combat systemic discrimination and the lack of access to good jobs. First, this bill will allow local governments to assist the state civil rights division. We've already successfully lifted state preemption in wage and hour laws.