Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should state their names, organization, if any, and their position. As you proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing.

I won't go through the whole list of the rules because I'm hoping that we won't need them, but if I need to, I will. I think we'll be okay with our first author. He's usually well behaved, and so I'll ask Assemblymember Wood, item 18, AB 3129. We do not have a quorum, so we'll go ahead and proceed as a Subcommitee.

Good morning. Is this on?

It should be on.

Is it-- Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. My thanks to your staff and for their work on the analysis and the amendments which I am accepting today. AB 3129, sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, requires a private equity group or a hedge fund to provide written notice to and obtain written consent of the Attorney General prior to a change of control or acquisition of a healthcare facility or provider group.

The amendments I accepted in Health Committee were to more clearly define the entities, health professionals, provider groups and healthcare facilities involved in acquisitions and changes of control by private equity or hedge funds covered by this legislation. The amendments I am accepting today more clearly define the terms private equity group and hedge fund. There is no question that trends in private equity ownership have rapidly increased across all almost all healthcare settings. It's been exponential.

A study published in July of 2023 evaluating this trend drew from a database of 1778 studies, with 55 empirical research studies that evaluated private equity owned healthcare operations. Across the outcome measures, private equity ownership was most consistently associated with increased costs to patients or payers and had mixed to harmful impacts on quality. I don't know about you, but I'm interested in our state protecting patients before they pay more for less care or lesser quality of care, no matter what the statistics.

Colleagues, I hope you know of my work. For the past nine and a half years, it's all been about protecting patients and controlling healthcare costs. That's why I've been focused on this trend for the past several years. And as a healthcare provider, I'm especially protective of state law barring the corporate practice of medicine, ensuring that providers can practice without another entity telling them how to practice. This bill reinforces that. Private equity's first interest is in making a profit, period.

The investors wouldn't risk it if they didn't think a profit would be made. We also know that timelines are short, often three to seven years. And we know that in order for them to make a profit, they look to lower costs for the entities as well as increase leverage, making them more attractive to future buyers. Is making something more efficient bad? No, it can be harmful by, for instance, reducing staff and limiting resources, or discontinuing services such as reproductive healthcare.

Private equity can take such a hold on an area that it reduces or eliminates competition, and that monopoly status can result in their ability to negotiate higher fees with plans because there is no other option. That does not save the consumer, whether that be a patient or an employer that provides healthcare coverage. This bill does not prevent these acquisitions and we can speak to the timelines for reviewing these acquisitions.

They address more urgent reviews for those businesses at risk of immediate failure, as well as timelines for typical transactions. And to address preemptively the argument that the Office of Healthcare is the remedy, it is not. The AG's authority to review market transactions is rooted in DOJ's authority under antitrust laws. Antitrust laws promote vigorous competition and promote consumers and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices to ensure that consumers have access to quality goods and services at competitive prices, and that businesses can compete on the merits of their work.

OHCA only analyzes and issues reports on transactions that are likely to significantly impact market competition, the state's abilities to meet targets or affordability for consumers and purchasers. OHCA's reporting threshold is also higher and less likely to catch problematic transactions in the first place. There's a basic question here.

Given the results shown by many independent studies, not just one, that there are harmful outcomes, how can the opposition argue that these transactions should be happening without any review? These acquisitions are currently flying under the radar and continue to grow exponentially. And our AG should be involved to understand how it will affect patients competition and the cost of healthcare. So if not us, then who? And I beat my witness here, and so I'm going to fly solo and see what happens.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Is there anyone here to speak in support of AB 3129? Sergeant, if we can have the microphone set up. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Bryant Miramontes with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 3129?

Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is John--

If you could-- Sorry, if you could move the microphone closer. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is John Steinbrun. I'm the CEO of Children's Choice Dental Care. I'm respectfully opposed to AB 3129. As I discussed with Assemblymember Wood on March 12, we believe AB 3129 will cut off a critical source of funding to the detriment of California's healthcare. Children's Choice was founded in Sacramento in 2008 and has since expanded to 33 locations in California's underserved communities. We now have 64 dentists and nearly 700 employees. Each year, we help over 130,000 children with 306,000 dental visits.

86% of those kids are on Medi-Cal. 15 of our locations opened during the COVID-19 pandemic and provided emergency care to kids. In some counties, we've served over 50% of the population of children. We've been able to expand to 33 locations with funds we raised from private equity firm in 2018. We plan to open more clinics, but AB 3129 might limit our ability to raise additional capital. In my experience, private equity investors want to back a successful, growing business with a good reputation.

So that's a company that provides quality care, that complies with regulations and practice standards, and that gives patients a good experience so that they'll refer their friends. Soon it's going to be time for my company, Choice, to raise money to build more clinics. If private equity funds are not available, I don't know where the money's going to come from.

I'm afraid that AB 3129 will make it harder for Choice and other healthcare providers like it to grow, making it harder for us to provide access to care for needy kids. Therefore, I must respectfully request your no vote on AB 3129.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. I'm Lois Richardson, representing the California Hospital Association. Megan Loper is out sick today. We believe that patients deserve access to high quality healthcare, and these services depend on constant innovation and investment. For example, in Sacramento, UC Davis Medical Center recently opened a new physical rehabilitation hospital that was the result of a partnership between the University of California and private investment.

AB 3129 is unclear about when the Department of Justice must review transactions and gives it overly broad authority to deny or place onerous conditions on transactions. This slows or potentially completely deters much-needed investment in the healthcare delivery system. The bill's definition of change of control is also unclear, including the terms indirect control and sharing of control, where there even minor changes in government.

Unfortunately, the DOJ's existing authority over nonprofit hospital transactions has served as a barrier for investment and was one of the contributing factors that led to the closure of Madera Community Hospital. Access to all financial tools is critical, particularly in vulnerable communities where investments are needed to support under-researched providers so they can better serve their patients. As Dr. Wood mentioned, the Office of Healthcare Affordability currently has the authority to review the transactions covered by this bill.

OHCA is tasked with gathering data and studying the healthcare delivery system to thoughtfully and objectively review these transactions. The Attorney General's knowledge base is legal, whereas OHCA's knowledge base is the healthcare delivery system, data and objective analysis. Existing law prohibits transactions from closing until 60 days after OHCA publishes its final impact analysis, and this provides the DOJ time to exercise its additional authority to prosecute anti-competitive behavior. California has numerous policies that are designed to protect patients regardless of ownership.

For example, it was mentioned that private equity decreases staffing. California has nurse patient ratios that prevents decreasing of nurse staffing. At least five state departments conduct serious oversight of all points of care, including the bedside charting, billing, and even the billing facilities. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 3129?

Dennis Loper, on behalf of United Hospital Association, in opposition.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Marc Aprea with Aprea & Co, here on behalf of the American Investment Council, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce, here today in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Connie Delgado, on behalf of Newport Healthcare, registering concerns. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. I apologize for being out of order. We are in strong support.

Thank you.

Katie Van Deynze with Health Access California, similar to Seth Bramble, also in strong support. Thank you. Sorry to be out of order.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in either opposition or support? I know we started right on time and some folks are still making their way through the metal detectors and such. Okay, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For clarification, what type of private investment would be acceptable to you in terms of the healthcare industry?

That's a very interesting question. What I'm focusing on here is, are organized funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, individual investments I have no issue with.

Okay, accept that response. Obviously, respectfully, individual funds, you have several business partners.

I'm talking about individuals.

Individuals, excuse me. Individuals who a partnership of three business people, is that considered unacceptable or prohibited? How do you define-- That's what I'm trying to get at in a broader sense, how do you define an acceptable private investor, investment company or investment organization, investment partnership?

This is that moment when I wish I had my technical support.

And if I could, Madam Vice Chair and Assemblymember Wood. This doesn't prevent investment from hedge funds, private equity groups. It's just, it's allowing the Attorney General to have the ability to take a look at it and consent to it because of the impacts that these funds have had in many cases in closing hospitals after extracting profit from certain areas.

Now, there's some hospitals, and I apologize if I'm jumping in here, but there are some hospitals that have thrived and done very well with investment from private equity, and that's great. Well, all we're saying is that or all Assemblymember Wood is saying, and I agree, is that there should be some level of accountability, an oversight. And a hedge fund or private equity investment, it's not like taking money out of ATM. The process takes usually several weeks or months anyway, at the very least.

So it's allowing one more set of eyes on there to protect patients and protect communities.

I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Chair. My concern is it's just a chilling effect on private-- Private investment is the foundation of our American economy. Now, if there are controls in the market system of our economy, that if the direction and the market situation is not producing the desired results-- The desired results for an investor, whether it's a private equity company, a private partnership, or a hedge fund, is to grow, to be profitable, and to provide the value added services to ensure profitability and success.

There are often other factors that drive the unfortunate demise. There's obviously, we know, we've discussed another legislation, the lack of Medicare reimbursement. We've tried to adjust that and get that on a better scale. So I think to suggest that hedge funds or private equity, or other large funds, as you described them, need to be under the additional purview of the Attorney General when we just have a law that's SB 154 from 2022, I guess I would say my opinion is to let that see if it's doing the desired corrections.

And I hesitate to use the word controls of the marketplace, but that's essentially what this is. So I have concern, because I see this in other areas, is getting the government involved in how the private marketplace works. Health care is obviously paramount. We want our people healthy. We want the services world class.

And if we're driving world class medical care in this country, it takes all forms of investors. So that's kind of where I'm landing on this. But I appreciate you advocating on behalf of healthcare, and I know that's your professional endeavor. I'm just concerned about the controls over investors in all forms of business, especially healthcare. So thank you.

When you talk about SB 154, are you talking about OHCA?

Yes.

As I said in my statement, OHCA does not have any authority over these transactions. It's sort of like the horse is out of the barn. Oh, we missed it. So this is actually looking at a review in advance of a merger or an acquisition, and it's not saying you can't have it. And I would argue that. I'm sorry, venture capital, private equity, it is all about making money. It is not about consumers. It's not about protecting payers. And that's the concern that I have.

And I would just-- As a comment in regards to the importance of investment to the American economy, I would contend that workers are the foundation of our American economy. And it's obviously important to have investment, but I think the bill is about oversight. I'm going to actually-- Actually, let's take quorum really quick now that everyone or most people are here. That's fantastic.

[Roll call]

We have quorum. Thank you so much. I know that since we-- I think some of the witnesses may have been coming through the metal detector. If you would like to make any statements. We've already heard from opposition. I know it's kind of a weird order, but I think it's only fair. If you'd like to make any statement in support.

Yes, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologies for being late. Katie Van Deynze with Health Access California, the statewide healthcare consumer advocacy coalition. We're here in proud support of AB 3129. For 30 years, Attorney's General of both parties have had the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions, mergers related to nonprofit hospitals. And in those 30 years, 80% to 90% of those mergers have been approved, and mostly with conditions to protect consumers.

And those conditions, what those have looked like have been to keep emergency rooms open, to keep labor and delivery services open, to keep more services open, to not hike up prices on consumers, to not end Medi-Cal Managed Care Contracts, to not close hospitals. And those are the types of conditions that we want for consumers to protect affordable care in the affected communities.

And like you noted, Mr. Chair, this is to have the mergers go through a timely review process to look at the impacts for consumers. And as was noted by the author, the Office of Healthcare Affordability, they can review these transactions, but we want the Attorney General to have the authority now to protect consumers from negative impacts before they happen and to be able to look at what are the impacts of these private equity transactions. Thank you for the time.

We really appreciate it and respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning, Chair and Members. Tiffany Matthews, Deputy Attorney General and legislative advocate at the California Department of Justice. Here today on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is a proud sponsor of AB 3129. And we thank Assemblymember Jim Wood for his leadership in addressing consolidation in our health care system.

AB 3129 authorizes the Attorney General and to review healthcare transactions involving private equity and hedge fund groups, and it also reinforces the bar on the corporate practice of medicine as it applies to the interference of private equity groups or hedge funds in the medical care of patients. The bill focuses on private equity for two main reasons.

The first is that the private equity business model, which is designed to buy an asset, maximize profits, and then sell that asset, has negative effects on California patients, providers and their communities. We are seeing staffing cuts, price hikes and consolidation, which all leads to reductions in access and quality of healthcare for Californians. The second main reason is the alarming pace at which this is happening. These private equity acquisitions have more than doubled in the past decades.

So AB 3129 would set up oversight over these transactions where the Attorney General would have review authority and be able to approve, deny, or approve with conditions these transactions, based on whether these transactions are in the public interest. Conditions, can be used to address potential effects of a transaction on access or availability of care in California communities and potential anti-competitive effects in the healthcare market. This review process is not an automatic denial of these transactions.

The oversight is to help ensure that Californians have access to affordable health care. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from Committee Members or any motions? Assemblymember Reyes.

I want to thank Doctor Wood for bringing this. I think that at the center of all of this is to ensure that the transaction is in the public interest. When we're talking about hospitals, we're talking about schools, it has to be in the public interest. And I appreciate when we're talking about being able to make investments, we want people to invest here. We want this to be a good climate for investors to come and to see a great rate of return.

But that cannot be our number one concern. The number one concern has got to be the public interest. And I think having this oversight, and as was mentioned in the testimony for the nonprofits, 80% to 90% are approved after review. And it's either an approval, a denial, or a conditional approval. And sometimes those conditional approvals are the best, because now you have your marching orders or the parameters under which you can establish this health facility. That's really important.

Again, it's what is in the public's interest that has to be at the top of our list. Mergers are fine. All of these things are fine. But if it's not in the public's interest, we've got to put the parameters around it.

We have to find ways to make sure that in the end, the people who most need it, and in rural areas, when you have these mergers and they then sell, and the anti-competition issues that we're just discussing, these all have to be addressed. And I would rather have an expert from the AG's office look at this and determine what needs to be done to protect the public. So with that, I would move this bill.

Great. Is there a second? Any other further comment? I want to thank Assemblymember Wood for his many years of service and focus on protecting patients, protecting consumers. This is a bill and a long line of legislation you've authored over many years, and you should be proud of your work. This right here is critically important. We certainly see it.

I see it in San Jose with one particular company that shut down the women's health center, prenatal, neonatal, all that in East San Jose during the pandemic. Then in the other hospital by San Jose, moved to shut down the psychiatric beds, and now, in the process shutting down the only trauma center in East San Jose. Not because there's not a demand, there's a huge demand, but because it's not enough of a profit center for them. So I think this is fair. It does not stop investment.

It just puts the same kind of oversight that nonprofit hospitals have to go through as well. And as mentioned, 90% of them go through, and we want them to go through. We want this investment. But the investment shouldn't be solely for the purpose of seeking profit. If these are, this is an investment into hospitals, that's a public good. We want to make sure that it's providing the services that are being promised when these investments are made. Or new wing is opened, those are great things.

But at the end of the day, we want to make sure that they're not just being used to kind of take profit out of the community and then shut them down after. The community is now relying on that service after many, many years. And so I think this is a fair, balanced and reasonable piece of legislation that allows our Attorney General to have that oversight abilities. I want to thank Senator Wood, I want to thank Attorney General Rob Bonta for bringing this forward.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, Members. And thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, we started looking at healthcare consolidation years ago. The Attorney General's Office did in particular, and really over concerns over Sutter Health and their acquisition and subsequent market dominance over healthcare in Northern California, which has led to the fact that we pay almost twice as much for health care in Northern California than we do in Southern California. The Attorney General intervened in that.

There was a lawsuit and a settlement where Sutter agreed to pay $500 plus million in settlement, without admitting any wrongdoing. And subsequently, we had been working to try to find a way over time, to draw more attention to this ability to acquire entities and create market dominance. And so this bill actually focuses on smaller entities that are kind of flying under the radar, the small ones.

And so if you gather up enough, suddenly you have the ability to dominate a market area, and with that leverage, you can command higher rates from payers. And that's what this is all about. And if it's for the good of consumers, then great. If it's providing more services and more access, then great. I have no issue with that. But if it's not, we should know.

And if it looks like it's going to lead to things like the loss of access to reproductive care for women, I am-- I'm sorry, there are so many red flags here, you know, I don't even know where to go. So I appreciate the opposition and their concerns. Happen to disagree. This isn't about new entities that are striving to build something new. This is about the acquisition of other entities. So thank you for your attention and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Call the roll on AB 3129, please.

Motion's due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call].

All right, we'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

File item one, AB 1825, Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. I think I was 1 minute late for file number one, but thank you for taking up Assembly Bill 1825, the California Freedom to Read Act. So last year, I, like many Americans across the country, I was listening to an NPR show that was talking about the nationwide movement on book banning, and it was a California or it was a national freedom to read week that the American Library Association was sponsoring.

And, you know, they discussed this alarming trend that's been happening not only across the country, but especially here in the State of California, where there's been a 65% increase in the number of book challenges across the country, the highest ever recorded by the American Library Association. So last fall, after I listened to this NPR show, I reached out to the ACLU, and I reached out to the American Library Association, and we worked very closely to draft the first draft of this Bill that we are presenting today, the California Freedom to Read Act.

This is a Bill that seeks to put the decision as to what books to acquire and to provide and in what manner to provide to librarians rather than to small, vocal minorities that we've seen in our state and communities like Huntington Beach, like Fresno, where they have attempted to ban books because of their content. We know that, as your analysis points out, the right to read, the right to receive information, is a fundamental part of the First Amendment.

And so this Bill seeks to align the law, this Bill, with, of course, the Constitution, the First Amendment, while at the same time making sure that we allow communities to be able to raise concerns with their librarians to, to leave to the judgment of professional librarians in terms of how to display books that are age appropriate, that are developmentally appropriate. And so I'm proud to present this Bill here today. Here, I believe, just was able to make it past those metal detectors. Cynthia Valencia with the ACLU, and also Craig Pulsipher with Equality California.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I am a Legislative Advocate with the ACLU California Action, and up until very recently, I've been a resident of Huntington Beach for the past 13 years and a public library cardholder here to support AB 1825, The Freedom to Read Act. Public libraries are a cornerstone of our communities, ensuring that people, regardless of age, income, education, race, or geographic location, have free and open access to information so they can meaningfully engage in civic life.

They are also bound by the First Amendment, and we, excuse me, we must protect the fundamental right of access to diverse and inclusive information at our public libraries. Thank you. Assemblymember Muratsuchi for introducing legislation that would prohibit public libraries from refusing to procure books in a manner that would discriminate against or exclude materials based on race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status. Over the past year, more than 3000 books have been banned in libraries across America.

These books disproportionately feature stories about LGBTQ plus communities, people of color, and historically marginalized communities. Book bans to this effect are not only discriminatory, they are a violation of people's First Amendment right of access to information. Politically motivated censorship has no place in California. We have seen local municipalities introduce legislation that aim to restrict access to library books and materials protected by the First Amendment.

People who use libraries, including young people, have a right not just to express themselves, but to learn from a diverse range of materials, including library books, by and about LGBTQ and BIPOC communities. We commend librarians who have rejected these censorship campaigns. We must protect the fundamental First Amendment right of access to diverse and inclusive information at our public libraries, and we urge you to vote yes for AB 1825.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California. Proud to be here in support of AB 1825 to ensure that our public libraries remain committed to intellectual diversity and grant all Californians to see their own - the ability to see their own stories and communities reflected in the books they read. As we've seen in recent years, California is not immune from growing efforts to suppress free expression and intellectual freedom.

National campaigns to restrict the freedom to read, learn, and think are coming to our state, resulting in harmful policies like recent attempts to ban books that reference LGBTQ civil rights leader Harvey Milk, or speak truthfully about race and systemic racism in the US. According to a recent Pan America report, books that include diverse characters, primarily characters of color and LGBTQ characters, were overwhelmingly the subject of book bans, and at the same time, most book bans primarily target female, people of color, and LGBTQ authors.

We've also seen an uptick in bans that weaponize alarming rhetoric and misleadingly characterize books as age inappropriate or obscene to censor materials that humanize LGBTQ people and experiences. These policies all contribute to the current spike in bans targeting LGBTQ people, leading the American Library Association to report that the majority of books challenged since 2021 drew complaints because of their LGBTQ content.

AB 1825 is an important and timely measure that will protect intellectual freedom in California by requiring public libraries to have written policies on the selection and use of library materials and prohibit excluding materials in a way that discriminates against LGBTQ people, people of color and other groups. Very appreciative of the Assemblymember bringing this Bill forward and respectfully urge your I vote.

Thank for you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1825?

Hello, Board. Chynell Freeman, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California strongly supports this Bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1825?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm Christina DiCaro, lobbyist for the California Library Association. As the analysis notes, CLA currently has an opposed unless amended position on the Bill in print. But I want to sincerely thank the author, his staff, Tom Clark of your staff, for working with CLA so diligently in a manner that it addresses our issues of concern.

The Committee analysis is absolutely excellent and it lays out our major issues, the private right of action and then tying things to the ALA Bill of Rights. These two issues are being stricken from the Bill and we are so grateful to the author for that commitment.

The final major piece is just trying to shape the development of the library collection policies in a way that's comfortable for the libraries and does not get into the granular decisions and put those in the hands of citizen groups and other mechanisms. But I do think we can get there. The engagement between CLA and Mr. Muratsuchi has been incredibly positive and productive over the last few weeks. We want to thank him for his help, his leadership on this incredibly complex issue. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1825? All right, let's bring it back. And as we bring it back to the Committee, Assemblymember Muratsuchi, do you accept the Committee amendments?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments, motions? We have a motion and a second and no other comment. Thank you so much, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. It's the kind of thing we wish you didn't have to do. But we do need folks in our Legislature to lead on issues like this to protect our community and especially places that are so special to us, like our libraries. So thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Take roll on AB 1825, please.

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

Can I just ask you a question?

Yeah.

So you are working on the amendments?

Yes. I want to make it clear that I'm fully committed to, you know, my original intent was, you know, to have a bill supported by the ACLU and the librarians, you know, to make sure that we were addressing the first amendment issues while at the same time making sure that it's workable for the librarians. As you heard from the lobbyists, you know, I think we've addressed the most significant issues that they flagged and we're continuing to work together to make sure. Thank you very much.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you. That Bill is out.

But we still have to hear the Bill. I'm just putting that out there for folks. It was heard twice in a different Committee, and now we'll bring it back to Assemblymember Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. As you just indicated, this Bill just passed out of the Natural Resources Committee yesterday where the environmental concerns were addressed. And here the Bill originally had a private cause of action, but that was taken out to be replaced with administrative penalties. And so.

But just real quickly, this Bill arises out of a coastal resort in my district, the Terranea in Rancho Palace Verdes, and it highlighted, UNITE HERE conducted a study together with environmental voters that highlighted the tremendous environmental impacts of these major coastal resorts on the surrounding coast, on the surrounding sensitive environmental ecosystems.

And so this Bill seeks to support the efforts of the Coastal Commission to ensure that major coastal resorts, which are defined as resorts with 300 or more rooms, together with a golf course within a coastal zone, that they comply with the environmental protections that we need to make sure that we have to protect our coast. Addressing issues like fertilizer use, like pesticide use, like single use plastic use.

This Bill would require the resorts to submit a compliance audit and through this, amendments taken in the Natural Resources Committee, impose administrative penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. The measure also adopts anti retaliation whistleblower protections to protect workers who cooperate with the resorts Auditor. Here to testify in support of the Bill is representatives from UNITE HERE.

Hi, good afternoon, or, sorry, good morning. Honorable Chair Kalra and the Committee Members. My name is Andy Seymour. I'm a researcher with UNITE HERE Local 11, representing over 32,000 hotel and food service workers in Southern California. We're also the sponsor of AB 3192. So we want to recognize Committee staff for their hard work preparing the Committee analysis for AB 3192. The Bill improves the enforcement rules that major coastal resorts are already supposed to follow by moving enforcement from a solely complaint based system to an audit based system.

The Bill also reduces the use of synthetic pesticides and single use plastics in close proximity to sensitive coastal habitats. So one of the properties that would be covered by the Bill is the Terranea, and Rancho Palos Verdes has already mentioned. We have provided you with a report issued by UNITE HERE Local 11 Sunrise Movement Los Angeles, also, California Environmental Voters titled 'How Green is the Terranea?'.

As reviewed in the report, data indicates that between 2017 and 2021, the Terranea, which features a nine hole golf course, used 43 different types of pesticides, herbicides or plant growth regulators, including one whose safety data sheet states that the chemical is, quote, very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. End quote. So we have taken an amendment to move all enforcement mechanisms, including those related to non compliance with audit requirements and whistleblower protections, to administrative penalties.

In 2016, 3 employees at the Shore Hotel in Santa Monica alleged that management of the Shore Hotel illegally terminated them. All three of these employees had testified at the California Coastal Commission about issues at the hotel in the months preceding their termination. Because hospitality workers are one group most likely to witness environmental problems at a major coastal resort, AB 3192 includes important protections for whistleblowers. So we're proud to stand with Assemblymember Muratsuchi as the author of this Bill and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Honorable Chair and Members. So sorry. Fatima Iqbal-Zubair is on a bus trying to get here right now, so I'm just gonna read what she would have said. So I'm Amy Hindsheik and I'm representing right now Fatima Iqbal-Zubair from - the Legislative Affairs Manager for California Environmental Voters. Our organization co authored the report titled 'How Green is the Terranea?' with UNITE HERE Local 11 and Sunrise Movement Los Angeles, which illustrates the deep need for AB 3192.

Authored by Assemblymember Muratsuchi. California's coast is the site of some of the world's most treasured and sensitive habitats. Yet portions of the coast are occupied by large golf resorts like the Terranea Resort, located along an environmentally sensitive stretch of the Pacific Ocean. As reviewed in the report, Terranea prominently marks itself as eco friendly, but the report suggests Terranea's public claims of environmental benefits and priorities may be overstated.

The Terranea's claims regarding its efforts to improve wildlife habitats may be undermined by a disturbing record of raccoons and other mammals being trapped at the resort by commercial trappers. The resort and the golf course's operation has also coincided with a drop in the estimated local population of a sensitive bird species, the coastal cactus wren. The resort also has allegedly used single use plastic beverage bottles for banquet events and allegedly has not consistently segregated recyclable plastics and food waste from the resort's ordinary garbage prior to collection. We have taken an amendment to move all enforcement mechanisms, including for the use of pesticides and plastics, to administrative penalties. This amendment represents a significant compromise by environmental groups. For these reasons and many more, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 3192. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 3192.

Mister Chair and Members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 3192? Yeah, feel free to come up.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Armand Feliciano, on behalf of the California Hotel Lodging Association, we appreciate the author's amendments. However, CHLA remains opposed for a couple of reasons. Number one, as pointed out in the analysis, there's ample protections for situations that AB 3192 is trying to address. You have the California Coastal Commission, you have the Department of Pesticides Regulations.

Two regulators are overseeing this situations that AB 3192 is purportedly trying to address. Second, the expansion of the laws of the anti retaliation laws and whistleblower. You're correct, it is for employees, but it also expands it to job applicants. So that is kind of a - I'm not a labor lawyer, but you can imagine that the losses that may come out of it or the penalties may come out if somebody doesn't get a job because they were part of an audit. Third, it's worth reiterating, and I want to be careful to use the word, it appears to unfairly target a small set of businesses in California. For those reasons, we remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce. In respectful opposition. We continue to struggle with the intent of this Bill. Going after just six resorts along the coast. There are thousands of different land uses, from universities to public parks, all along our beautiful coastlines.

And we are not aware of any violations that would precipitate the need for a Bill that targets just six resorts, many of which are environmental leaders who win awards every year for environmental sustainability. The Terranea is 102 acre site. They only use 25% of the land. The rest of it is all preserved. There's no known violations that we're aware of of The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, The Safe Water Drinking Act, The Federal Clean Water Act.

We're not aware of violations of the NPDS permits. This is a heavily regulated area of California. Single use plastic packaging, specifically, the bottles are recycled at 76%. If you don't believe that the stewards of these institutions have environmental sustainability, they definitely have a drive to ensure that they have beautiful resorts to attract business. So they have every need and desire to actually collect and recycle these bottles. And so we're not finding single use bottles all over the Terranea or other resorts.

We find that to be a mischaracterization, in fact, just false statements, candidly. And we believe that this Bill is unfairly and potentially unconstitutional to target six when we're not aware as to why they're being treated differently from the rest of all land uses along the coast. And for those reasons, we must remain respectfully opposed, although we do appreciate the private right of action being eliminated. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 3192?

Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association in opposition.

Max Perry on behalf of the Pest Control Operators of California, also in opposition.

Beverly Yu on behalf of the International Bottled Water Association, respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of American Beverage Association as well as several agricultural organizations such as California Seed Association. In opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Roe with the Automatic Vendors Council, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Taylor Roschen, on behalf of Western Plant Health, Crop Life America, and RISE in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Niagara Bottling, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I just want. I mean, I heard this yesterday, Natural Resources.

A few hours ago.

Another day, another Bill. So I just wanted to point out that, I mean, I raised serious concerns with the natural resources implications of the Bill, but that's not the jurisdiction of this Committee. And so, you know, the PRA being removed obviously makes what is in this Committee's jurisdiction basically, as I see it, null and void. And the constitutional concerns. I mean, I asked this question yesterday, but one of the.

Because my concern really was we didn't go far enough with the environmental protections, which I know is not the opposition's concern. But, you know, I did actually feel like the author's response that these are, you know, plastics right on our coast, putting at risk, you know, the wildlife on California's beautiful coastal communities. And obviously the impact of that is gonna be more significant at larger resorts than at a smaller facility, did satisfy me from a constitutional perspective, and I hope a court would find the same. So I think for purposes of the jurisdiction here today, there isn't much left. And with that, I'll be happy to support it.

Is that a motion?

Oh, yes.

Okay. We have a motion. A second. And any other further. Yes. Senator Pacheco.

I had a question, and I know opposition brought this up, but I did. And I know we talked about this, but there's only six resorts that are being singled out. Why only six resorts? Why not other land uses? Why aren't we looking at other, other resorts and other land uses?

Yes, thank you for the question. I mean, we're not targeting any resorts. What we're doing here is identifying, you know, major coastal resorts that have the biggest environmental impact on their surrounding environment. And so, you know, the Bill, it doesn't identify any resorts by name. It just defines major coastal resorts as resorts that have 300 or more hotel rooms that operate a golf course. I mean, it's pretty simple and straightforward. And I think there's. Yeah.

The intent is to focus on the biggest coastal resorts that use the most fertilizers, pesticides. I mean, we know, and golf courses are very intensive land uses as far as the use of chemicals. And so having that type of intensive land use right on the coast, you know, I mean, for folks that have lived in Palos Verdes, you know, you know how beautiful and pristine that coast is. And so the intent of this Bill is to focus on the major coastal resorts, not on any particular resorts.

And is there evidence of, like, golf courses, like, just not, not just resorts, but maybe also golf courses that may be culprits? And the second question would be, is there evidence of these resorts being culprits?

Yes, I think it's well documented that golf courses use a tremendous amount of fertilizers and pesticides. But I do want to emphasize that because we heard, and, you know, I've been meeting with opposition, and I will continue to meet with opposition to address the concerns, but with the last round of amendments to allow golf courses to use non organic pesticides where there are no organic alternatives, as well as some other amendments that we took, the Golf Course Superintendents Association, the Southern California Golf Association, and the California Alliance for Golf, they have removed their opposition to the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Reyes.

Just, I appreciated your comment at the very beginning that had the discussion happened earlier, we wouldn't even be hearing this Bill, just as my colleague has said. So I think, again, for the purposes of this particular Committee, this is, there's no reason to oppose for this Committee. The other committees can continue to hear all of the other issues, but thank you.

Thank you. And to that point, I believe, given how small of a time window we had. Senator Muratsuchi, I believe that there are amendments that Natural Resources had asked you to take that didn't have time to process there that are here before us today. So would you accept those amendments?

Yes, I do.

Thank you so much. And I think it's an example. I think this is one of many examples where our staff turns things over, like, literally in hours. And so I want to commend Nick and our entire staff, and of all Committee staff, frankly, for doing this time and again, especially during this very, very busy time. And so this is one of those examples where we couldn't pull the Bill because you remove private right of action.

But the good thing is that we are getting some work done in the sense of getting those Natural Resources amendments approved today so this Bill can continue forward if it gets the votes. So, again, thank you so much Assemblymember Muratsuchi for your work on this. Would you like to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, if you could take a roll call on AB 3192.

Due passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, that Bill is out. Thank you. Oh, actually, we need one more, but we still have a couple more folks yet to vote, so we'll put that on call. Thank you. All right, up next, we have Assemblymember Bonta. Item four, 2239. Yeah, AB 2239. That's correct. Item four. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Alright, up next we have Assemblymember Bonta. Item 4, 2239.

Yeah. AB 2239. That's correct. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Chair and Committee for working so actively and diligently with my office on this legislation. I accept the Committee amendments, which address the opposition's concerns regarding an enforcement mechanism, remove income level as a basis for liability, and articulates a remedy that includes and addresses the declared need from the opposition for a safe harbor.

AB 2239 addresses a critical issue in our digital age, ensuring equitable access to broadband internet services for all Californians. As you will hear from my witnesses, Californians that live in areas with predominantly low-income residents and people-of-color are disproportionately disconnected.

In light of the increasing reliance on digital technologies for education, work, health care, and communication, it is imperative that we prevent digital discrimination and promote fairness and access to essential services here in California. In order to be able to do this, AB 2239 does several things. First, it adopts the FCC's definition of digital discrimination, which establishes a clear definition for digital discrimination of access. This definition provides a framework for identifying and addressing discriminatory practices and broadband internet provision.

In addition, AB 2239 expressly prohibits internet service providers from engaging in digital discrimination of access, which is defined as policies or practices that disparately or differentially impact consumers access based on factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Here to testify is Paul Goodman, legal counsel at the Center for Accessible Technology, and Oscar Magaña, Senior Programs Officer from EveryoneOn.

Thank you.

Good morning, honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Oscar Magaña. I am a former educator, having educated students students in Los Angeles for over 18 years. But currently I serve as the Senior Programs Manager in Los Angeles County at EveryoneOn and I am deeply committed to ending the digital divide in California.

I stand before you in my professional capacity, but as a product of Southeast Los Angeles, where I personally experience the challenges and frustrations of digital inequity. Today, I am here to advocate for the passage of AB 2239, a bill crucial to eliminating digital discrimination in our state through the stories of our community members who continue to struggle with this issue.

As a team member of a nationwide nonprofit that works in digital inclusion, we are helping to end the digital divide through our Digital Connections Program, which teaches foundational digital skills to adult participants. Most of our participants are women-of-color. All of our participants are from underserved communities. And they often share their stories with us. For example, I want to tell you a story of Maria from Bell Gardens in Assembly District 62. Maria is not just a statistic.

She is a mother whose two sons serve in the US Navy. Her sons, who have been serving our country for a couple of years now, one of them is currently deployed on an aircraft carrier. The other one recently got assigned to a submarine and will be on that submarine until April of 2025. The only way that Maria gets to see her sons is through video calls.

Despite paying $70 a month for high speed internet, she often experiences such poor service quality that she frequently cannot connect with her sons. Unreliable internet speed is not just an inconvenience for their family, it's a heart-wrenching situation that impacts her ability to maintain that crucial emotional bond with her family and directly affects her sons' morale while serving our country.

Similarly, in Southgate, the LA Times yesterday published the story of Claudia Aleman, a mother of three daughters, ages 11, 17, and 21, who often has to struggle with making the tough choice of what services or what resources she's going to have to pay for on a monthly basis.

If you can just wrap up your comments, please. Thank you.

So AB 2239 is not just another bill. It's a solution. It addresses these injustices head on by defining digital discrimination in access in our civil rights code, focusing on outcomes rather than intent. And I am here to ask that you strongly support the passage of AB 2239.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Kalra. Members of the Committee, my name is Paul Goodman. I'm an attorney with the Center for Accessible Technology. We advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. My specialty is broadband and antitrust policy.

Prior to being at C. for A.T., I worked at Greenlining Institute, where I did the same work advocating on behalf of communities of color. Before that, I was a law professor who taught legal research and writing. And it's kind of this saying that goes around that says when you're in law school and you read a legal decision, you think the law is the most important thing at that decision. When you become an attorney, it's the facts that are the most important thing in the decision.

And I think that's really the fact here, specifically when you're looking at the FCC's digital discrimination order, because the digital discrimination order made the explicit factual finding that ISP's current business practices perpetuate the discriminatory effects of digital redlining that began back in the 40s. That is a factual finding that will remain upheld on appeal regardless of how the legal analysis shakes out. And to me, that really changes the equation from should we do anything about this? To what should the State of California do about this?

And really at the center of this issue is a really straightforward question: who has the power to make the decision whether communities, rich or poor, black or white, rural or urban, are worthy enough to get high speed broadband? And the FCC's order explicitly says it is not the purview of providers to make that decision. California has the solid legal footing, the expertise, and most importantly, the public demand for equitable access to high speed broadband. And I respectfully ask for your support on AB 2239.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2239?

Good morning. Maddie Ribble with the Children's Partnership, a co-sponsor and in strong support.

Thank you.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of Next Gen California co-sponsor and in strong support as well.

Thank you.

Hi. Georgia Savage here with California Alliance for Digital Equity and strong support.

Thank you.

Patrick Messac, Director of Oakland Undivided in strong support.

Thank you.

Tracy Rosenberg speaking on behalf of Media Alliance in support.

Thank you.

Stephanie Hernandez, Partnership for Los Angeles Schools. Strong support.

Thank you.

Leah Driscoll from the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools in strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2239?

Good morning, Chair, Members of Committee. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband. We would like to thank the author, Chair and Committee staff for their work on AB 2239. We want to acknowledge the significance of removing income level from the digital discrimination of access definition. Our member companies have consistently provided low-cost service offerings to income eligible populations. With the significant threat of the affordable connectivity program not being refunded by Congress, the continued ability of our companies to offer these service offerings is critical.

We thank the author, the Chair and Committee staff for their amendment to remedy this unintended threat. Are legal counsel is reviewing the Bill as proposed to be amended pursuant to the Committee analysis, but we do have continuing concerns. AB 2239 is still inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedent stating that a disparate impact standard must encompass any legitimate business decision, not just those based on feasibility.

Even in the FCC rule, it is noted that as a baseline, the FCC interprets the categories of technical and economic feasibility broadly to encompass any legitimate business impediment, and this should be included in AB 2239 as well. Also, while the Committee's analysis focuses on network build out, the Bill still appears to cover potentially numerous non-deployment factors such as service quality, network management, customer service, and contractual terms.

Although the Committee analysis predicts that broadband providers would only be subject to liability if they deviate from the previously-approved deployment plans in a discriminatory manner, we are concerned that the actual legal risk is much broader. The FCC also notes the high cost and resource intensive nature of reviewing and assessing existing deployed infrastructure, and thus expressly states that the rule is prospective, which should be added to AB 2239.

Lastly, we would highlight that the FCC deems projects approved by the government, such as the BEAD program, to have a presumption of compliance. The Bill does not, which would lead to unintended consequences of discouraging participation in the federally-funded grant programs. Again, we appreciate the work of the author, Chair and Committee staff, and while issues remain, we look forward to continued conversations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Pam Loomis and I am testifying in opposition to AB 2239 today on behalf of the small telephone companies that are members of the California Communications Association. These small companies have been serving some of the most remote and rugged areas of the state for over 100 years. They operate broadband capable networks in sparsely populated historic communities and they incrementally upgrade these networks as they can.

Because their customers want access to the internet, they have created affiliates to provide broadband service, often at an economic loss. These companies have been at the forefront of closing the digital divide in rural California, and thanks in large part to public funding from both the federal and the state government for high-cost support. We are a testament to the benefits of using a public-private partnership approach to closing the digital divide rather than the punitive approach of AB 2239.

This Bill would expose us to costly litigation and enforcement actions by the attorney general and local public prosecutors. It will chill investment and increase the cost of doing business, which will ultimately be borne by our customers. We absolutely support affordable broadband for all. We would ask the Legislature to help us achieve this through reducing regulatory and permitting burdens and reforming the lifeline program to allow low-income customers to apply the credit to their broadband service. The members of CalCom are already struggling financially.

They cannot afford the approach of AB 2239 and respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2239?

Ben Golombek on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Thank you.

Yolanda Benson, representing US telecom, the Broadband Association, also in opposition to 2239.

Thank you.

Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Roxanne Gould representing The Wireless Infrastructure Association, in opposition.

Thank you. I'll bring it back to Committee for any questions. Comments? Madam Vice Chair?

Thank you, Chair. I was particularly taken with the provider of the rural services. I just want to stipulate that I don't believe that all people who have difficulty accessing broadband are necessarily income-impaired or in lower economic regions. I live in the coastal zone and I cannot get broadband on a high speed basis and I've been dealing with certain telephone companies for years, over 10 years, while they're upgrading, upgrading, upgrading.

And I know this is going on across the state and especially in the rural areas as well as the urban areas. It's new technology, new technology coming faster, faster, faster. So I resist the notion that it's discriminatory because I'm not in your targeted area, but economically, but from a geographic point-of-view, and I don't have quality high-speed service and I've called the provider multiple times, I've changed providers, and it's just a matter of being, particularly in my case, in the coastal zone, and the liars are underground and they get flooded and all this kind of thing.

So I am taken with your comment because it's really writ large on larger issues where we see a problem, we put on another regulation, we inhibit investment and the problem just gets worse. So before we jump into this, FCC is looking at it and they are still working through a solution, I just would say let's, and the Federal Government regulates a lot of this. I would say let's just wait and get that accomplished. But to plow more regulations, more regulations, more regulations.

At some point people say the heck with it. But anyway, it's not just in lower communities. I wish I had better broadband. So I sympathize.

It sounds like our Vice Chair has some issues with her provider. She can take that up. She can take that up after the meeting, I suppose. And I'll give you some backup for that. Assemblymember Reyes.

I really appreciate the goal of the legislation to ensure the fair and equitable deployment of broadband access across California. That should be a goal for all of us. And making sure that internet providers do not engage in digital discrimination. And I think that this is important to begin to provide the parameters and the definitions that the providers would need to determine whether or not there is discrimination. There are comments made by the opposition I think that some things that are included, like customer service quality.

And from your testimony, it's clear that the conversations continue with the author and I'm glad to hear that. With our small providers, I think that's where the biggest issue is in making sure that it doesn't have a chilling effect. And I know that because of the author, this is something, this is conversation that will continue because we absolutely need the smaller providers also, and we need to make sure that we do reach everybody and it's going to take all of the providers to do that.

But I think that the goal of making sure that everybody has broadband, that's the important goal here, and making sure that we all do everything that we have to do. And you talked about private-public partnerships, but that doesn't preclude also having the parameters that we need to make sure that as we provide the service that we're sure that there is a discrimination.

And I feel bad for my colleague, but I'm sure that even as things were happening to her, she never felt that she was being discriminated against. And yet we have areas within the inner city where many in the community do absolutely feel that they are being discriminated against, that the services are being, investments are being used in other areas, and I'm talking about government investments, in other areas rather than in those areas that most need it.

And maybe it isn't discrimination, but when you are the recipient of it and you've had these things happen to you because of where you live, because of the color of your skin, because of so many issues, you can't help but think that this is one of the issues, too. I think it is important that we at least continue this conversation, and I think that having this particular author, Assemblymember Bonta, is important because the conversations will continue, as was mentioned by the opposition. So with that, I would move the Bill.

Thank you. Is there a second? A second. Okay. And as we continue the conversation here, I just want to note that there's been more than just conversation with the opposition. If you look at pages 6 and 7 analysis, I just want to point out some significant amendments were taken by the author. She can certainly elaborate on that if she chooses, but, you know, there's been a lot of movement here. A lot of hard work on both sides has happened.

And so it's been, and I just pointed out, it's not just been conversation. There's actually been very constructive movement that I think has satisfied some of the concerns. There are still other concerns, but I think it really shows that the author is making a strong effort here while maintaining the principles of the Bill. Assemblymember Bauer-Khan.

Thank you. I just want to start by pointing out that the Bill does have an exemption for issues that are genuine, issues of technical or economic feasibility, which I think addresses some of what the Vice Chair had said earlier with flooding and the like. Those I think would qualify as technical issues, I imagine.

And so I think, you know, I just wanted to say thank you to the author and to Committee staff, as always, because, as many of you know, I was a regulatory lawyer operating in local, state and federal regulatory schemes, and it is not easy to do that. And I think that the author has gone a long way in addressing my major concern, which was inconsistency in state and federal law that made it hard for industry to comply.

And I think the author and the Committee have continued to move towards ensuring consistency in law so that this is possible, so that we can protect people from discrimination in a way that allows broadband to continue to expand, because that is ultimately her goal, is to have broadband in every single community. That's what this Bill is aiming to do.

And this is the second conversation we're having today where there's a question, and I thought my colleague said it so beautifully earlier about our primary obligation being the public interest, and often it is these companies interest to maximize the bottom line, and that is your job. I don't criticize that. It is the reality of what you are there to do.

But we, Assemblymember Bonta specifically in this case, is here to look out for the communities and where profit may not be as maximized in communities that are low-income or the like. We need to make sure that our state dollars are being equally used to provide access to a service now that has become critical to education, to employment, to the everyday things that people need to succeed in our communities. And I think that's what this Bill does.

And having an additional enforcement means to ensure non-discrimination is only a good thing. And so, you know, I just want to thank the author for working hard on this Bill, for getting to a place where I feel incredibly comfortable supporting it. And I know she will continue to work on it because that's what she does. But with that, I'm happy to support it today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bryan.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. There's no one else in this building I would trust to navigate this conversation as efficiently and as effectively as you are doing it. I represent parts of the Beverly Hills and the Crenshaw corridor. And I can tell you that access to the internet is different. Quality in internet is different. If you apply for internet and you just put in the differences between those two zip codes, the range of options come out differently.

There's a lot of work to do in this space to make sure that those differences are not rooted in anything that's discriminatory. And I think that's something that is not just shared in South LA, in parts of my district, but also in Oakland and other places across the state, even pieces of the coastal zone. And so I want to thank the author for her efforts to address this, not just in this Bill, but holistically, as we have these broadband, last mile and middle mile conversations. Thank you. And I will be voting yes.

Thank you. Assemblymember Connolly.

Thank you, Chair. Also wanted to really thank the author for the work that's gone into this, the goals. It is part of a broader conversation. Trying to kind of better understand the impact a bill like this could have, practically speaking. So if someone can talk a little bit about what kind of cases would fall under this Bill if enacted.

Sure. I think one is that, just to clarify, we did not include in the statute any private right of action, which I think is very important. We concentrated the prosecution, the ability for public prosecutors to be able to bring suit a kind of case scenario. A scenario would be a community that is largely Latino.

That quite frankly, has many of the community members have taken advantage of the lower cost service that many ISP providers offer for income-qualified individuals experience a difference in either speed, reliability or quality of service. And still kind of as a broad swath know that there is something going on in their community related to either deployment or kind of the full scale of the infrastructure deployment to begin with.

They would essentially come forward and seek to either have their district attorney, their city attorney, or their attorney general file suit against the ISP provider, who would then be required to, through injunctive relief, remedy that situation. And we can.

Yeah, absolutely. And then a follow-up.

Thank you. I'm sorry I can't look directly at you while I'm speaking. I just want to point out the FCC order actually has a safe harbor. I know that opponents of the Bill have complained about a lack of safe harbor, but that safe harbor actually says if you are participating in a program that gives you federal funding to provide broadband service and you are complying with those programs rules, we assume you are, you are, we presume you're not discriminating.

So I think complaints that, oh no, we can't participate in lifeline or we'll be afraid to take funding for that, don't capture the whole story.

Yeah. Just as a follow-up, and you kind of touched on this, Assemblymember, what role do local governments play in ensuring that there is no digital discrimination in the access?

I think as was indicated in the analysis, many of the deployment decisions and infrastructure development decisions are functionally a public-private partnership, right? There are permits that need to be gotten in order for an ISP provider to be able to provide that service for infrastructure to be able to be built. So governments, local governments at the municipal and county-level are, quite frankly, intimately involved in the overall opportunity to have any particular ISP provider existing in a particular locality. That's one role that they play.

And ultimately, as Assemblymember Bauer-Khan shared, we have an opportunity for local and county-level providers indicate, or agents indicate when they see that that deployment is resulting in a disparate impact for particular swaths of their subpopulations within their purview.

Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. I first wanted just to clarify that Bell Gardens is in the 64th Assembly District, in my Assembly District. But I do appreciate that the author has been working on a lot of amendments and has been putting a lot of work on this Bill. I know opposition has concerns and I know the intent of this Bill is just to make sure that there's universal broadband, and everybody's able to connect to the internet.

This is very important, as you heard just from the testimony in Bell Gardens, people need reliable internet. They need affordable, reliable internet. So I think this is important, but I would like to see some of the concerns of opposition being addressed, because I'm sure they care about making sure that everybody has reliable internet. That's something that we all care about. And so I'm hopeful that with continued dialogue, this Bill will be perfected even more than it already has.

And I really commend all the work that you've done. You've done a lot of work. So I will be an aye today, but I would like to see more of it refined so that I can hopefully support it also on the floor. But thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward.

Thank you, Members, for this conversation. It's an important one. I really want to commend the author for all the work that she and her staff have done in working with the opposition and trying to address as many of their concerns as possible. And I know those conversations will continue. And next year we can work on the Diane Dixon Equitable Access Act. But for now, maybe Haney can offer that one. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, chair. And again, I really want to thank this Committee and the CNC Committee that actually had an opportunity to help shape this Bill. AB 2239 is an incredibly crucial step towards promoting equity and fairness and access to broadband internet service across California. I authored a Bill last year, two years ago, that identified an opportunity to have California engage in a digital equity plan.

We've focused a lot of the once-in-a-lifetime funding that the Federal Government is providing to the State of California and the State of California can be issuing to really ensure that we have an opportunity to provide equitable access for everybody.

The reality is that this focus for AB 2239 is, is to understand what happens when, even despite our best intents, those of the ISP providers, we still have an impact that leads to many people not having what essentially is now an essential service and, quite frankly, a civil right around being able to have equitable access to broadband internet service. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, if we can call the roll on AB 2239, please.

Due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. And up next, item 6, AB 2297. Assemblymember Friedman.

All right. Thank you for your patience, Assembly Member Friedman. AB 2297 you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. AB 2297 strengthens the Patient's Protections Act under the Hospital Fair Pricing Act. The Bill prohibits hospitals and debt collectors from placing liens on property and ensures that patients can apply for charity care and financial assistance at any time. The Bill builds on the work we did in 2021 with my Bill, AB 1020. As you'll hear, we're hearing with. We are working with both the California Hospital Association and the California Association of Collectors to address their concerns.

This Bill came out from stories we were hearing of people who, under the law, already in California, should have been offered charity care by hospitals and instead were not told their options. And we fixed that a couple of years ago in legislation. But unfortunately, we're still hearing that sometimes patients don't find out about the ability to apply for charity care until sometimes years later they're sick when they're leaving the hospital. Sometimes they're just not capable of understanding the information.

Sometimes the information's not given to them in a language that they understand. This will allow them to go back later and apply for that care without any kind of a time limit. And in addition, the last thing that we want is somebody who has medical debt having their property taken from them. You know, maybe they had one apartment that they owned that was their nest egg. That was what they were planning on retiring on.

And all of a sudden, just because they can't pay a hospital Bill, which, by the way, nobody chooses to have a hospital Bill, you know, this isn't like, zero, I just decided to go and have a heart attack last week. So to have a debt collector go and, you know, basically take their belongings just doesn't seem in keeping with California values. With that, I'd like to turn to my witnesses. I have someone from Western Center on Law and Poverty and Legal Services of Northern California.

Thank you.

Good morning. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud sponsors of AB 2297 which would prohibit the use of home liens in the collection of unpaid hospital bills from financially qualified patients. Hospitals are currently prohibited from placing loans on a patient's primary residence, but one way this has gotten around is debt collectors are allowed to place liens on a patient's home to collect unpaid hospital bills. Unfortunately, property liens are regularly used to collect unpaid patient debt.

A review of assessor data found that LA County alone had over 140 property liens, primarily primary residents, were placed in 2023 due to medical debt. In addition, the Bill would eliminate asset consideration in financial assistance determination to align with current Medi-Cal eligibility rules to simplify the financial assistance application process and help protect Californian savings from being depleted when seeking medical care. Californians need their savings to prevent poverty in retirement in older age.

As of 2019, 7.4 million Californians aged 25 to 64 do not have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, and nearly half of California's private sector workers have no retirement savings at all. Finally, the Bill would clarify that hospitals must review financial assistance eligibility at any time and prohibit application deadlines for financial assistance. This Bill provides much-needed relief from large hospital bills for low and moderate-income Californians and passed out of Assembly. Health with bipartisan support. Uge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ted Mumford. I'm an attorney at the Legal Services in Northern California. We're a nonprofit legal aid law firm, and I represent individuals, low-income individuals, in 32 counties across California. I specialize in healthcare access issues, and my team, we see hundreds of medical debt cases every year. So I'm going to talk about three of those cases where.

Here's some examples of cases where the Hospital Fair Pricing Act had holes in it that allowed the hospitals to deny my clients charity care applications.

So the first is I had a client who's a single mother and the survivor of domestic violence, whose abuser was hiding her bills, her medical debt bills, all the court filings that were filed against her to collect on that debt, and she didn't find out that she was being sued by the hospital and that a judgment was entered in against her until years later and her tax intercept or her tax return was being intercepted. She applied for charity care.

The hospital denied it because it was past their arbitrary deadline. Second client is a retired low-income couple who would have been eligible when they went to hospital 10 years ago, but didn't apply because they didn't know about it. Home lien was placed against their home and they diligently paid $100 a month, every single month until the pandemic came and they lost their job. At that point, they contacted us and we helped them apply for charity care. Again, that application was denied.

And the third example I have is a Low income father of two who was homeless at the time, but he received care from the hospital. He didn't get the bills because he was homeless and didn't have an address. And then he found out years later when he has two kids, he has a job, that his wages are being garnished because he didn't know about this Bill, there was a judgement entered and he tried applied for charity care with our help at that point.

And again, that application was denied. In each of these cases, these were people who contacted us after being sued. They applied for charity care, hospital denied it, and then in court, the hospital argued that the existing law allows the hospital to deny charity care applications at any time because they can decide when there's an application deadline and when there's not. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2297?

Good morning, Chair Kalra and Committee Members. Brian Maramantes with AFSCME California in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, in support.

Thank you.

Katie Van Deynze with Health Access California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2297? All right, we'll bring it back. Oh, yes.

Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association here with an opposed unless amended position. Appreciate the ongoing discussions we've been having with the author and sponsors, and I look forward to continuing the discussions to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to AB 2297? Bring it back to Committee. Assembly Member McKinnor.

Yes. Good morning, and thank you to the author for bringing this Bill. This is extremely important for our communities. No one should have to lose their home, especially if you get a person who's elderly, who's paid for their home for almost 28 years, 29 years, get sick and then lose their home. No one should lose their home because they got sick. And so I love this Bill. I moved the Bill and I would like to be a co-author. Thank you.

Thank you. And is there a second? Okay, we have a second. Any other question or comment? Yes, I want to second those comments. I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. The reality is that the number one demographic population entering into homelessness is our elderly population. And the number one reason is medical debt or medical incident that occurs, and it really puts them underwater. And so I appreciate you for recognizing that, not just for our elderly, but for all Californians.

I would like to also be added as a co-author and would you like to close?

I appreciate the support and I think we need to do better for people that are vulnerable. With that. I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, if you'd take the roll on AB 2297 please?

Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll place that on call. Needs one more vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then item 10. AB 2552.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Mister chair, I want to thank you and your Committee staff for all of your hard work on this Bill. I will be accepting the suggested Committee amendments as laid out in the analysis. Exposure to anticoagulants can result in both lethal and sublethal effects on non-target wildlife, including severe skin disease and decreased immune system response.

With your permission, I would like to pass these photos around the dais if you want to take a look and pass them on to see what we are talking about. Anybody who's seen a bobcat or a coyote wandering around California with what looks like Mange has probably, almost certainly seen an animal suffering from poison, from eating a rat who was poisoned with anticoagulant rodenticide. The animal that you're seeing is dying, usually or very, very sick.

They are bleeding out internally because of anticoagulants which permeate up through the food chain and don't dissipate out of that target animal. AB 2552 adds to work we have done in California to add the two remaining first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides known as FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintestinal rodenticide poisonings while maintaining exceptions. And this is important for its use to protect public health, water supplies, and agriculture.

It also requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger permanent restrictions on efgars to limit unintended wildlife poisonings while making chlorosis, chlorophacinone and warfarin a restricted material so that your average Joe can't buy it at Home Depot. You know, it's one thing for a professional pesticide operator to purchase this, but not for anybody to buy it over the Internet.

Anticoagulant rhodenicides, because of their widespread use, continue to result in unreasonable number of public health incidents with over 3,000 human poisonings in 2021 alone, 2,300 of those involving children under six years old, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. So even if you're not moved by those photos, I hope you're moved by poisoned children and yes, the US EPA is undergoing its periodic review of rodenticides. But unfortunately, the process is too slow and behind schedule.

One of my witnesses will expand on the data taken from the 2023 CDFW necropsis, which highlights continued poisoning of wildlife from coagulant antirodenicides, including the two last remaining FGARs this Bill seeks to address. So while opposition will get up and say, we already have these bans, we know, and we're going to hear from data that what we have still out there in the rodenticide arena is still leading to widespread poisonings.

The other thing that's really ironic is that rodenticides actually are counterproductive to what they're trying to do, which is rodent control, because the better way to control rodents is by having predators that are out there in nature attacking them. And rodenticide kills any animal that eats a rat. So what it's doing is it's killing the hawks, it's killing the bobcats, it's killing the coyotes, the animals that would otherwise be keeping those rodent controls in check.

And we know that because studies have tested the anticoagulants against better predator, you know, allowing the predators to do their job. And guess what wins the predators. Testifying in support this morning is Doctor Rebecca Gooley, a Smith fellow and postdoc at UC Davis, and Jonathan Evans, Environmental Health Legal Director and senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. With that, I would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Doctor Rebecca Gooley. I am a conservation scientist looking at the impacts of rodenticides in California wildlife. The California Ecosystem Protection Act of 2020 restricted the use of second-generation anticoagulants. However, necropsies performed by CDFW in 2023 showed that over 73% of wildlife are still testing positive for second-generation anticoagulants and over 57% tested positive for first-generation anticoagulants, including chlorophastanone and warfarin, the poisons addressed in this Bill.

The endangered San Joaquin kit fox was among those with high exposure to both first and second-generation rodenticides. And when these poisons don't directly kill individuals, they make them sick and weak. The sublethal impacts of anticoagulants have been associated with thermoregulatory dysfunction, increased parasite and pathogen load, reduced egg hatching, and lowered fledgling success. Wildlife have a right to not be poisoned.

Providing protected buffer zones around their natural resources is a well-established and scientifically backed management practice, and one that in this case allows habitat and home range for wildlife that is free from poison. While concern has been raised that the remaining rodenticides have no antidote, we'd like to make it clear that no rodenticide should be used around children or pets, and that for wildlife poisoned with anticoagulants, it's really difficult to save them even with an antidote. The use of anticoagulants are also a public health concern.

In a 2021 study by Murray and Sanchez, it was found that poisoned rats were significantly more likely to be infected with leptospira, the non poisoned rats, and this can be passed to humans. Fertility control successfully reduces rodent populations, but it does not disrupt their immune system. Further alternatives include hawks and owls. A two-year-long study in Ventura County found that installing raptor perches and owl boxes was more successful and less expensive than poisons in controlling ground squirrels.

This Bill will help keep moving California to a more biodiverse and compassionate future. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Kalra, and Members of the Committee, my name is Jonathan Evans, the environmental health legal Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. Anticoagulant rodenticides, including those covered by the Poison-Free Wildlife Act, are some of the most scientifically studied and widespread wildlife poisons. Anticoagulants have a unique mode of toxicity that makes them particularly lethal to other animals on the food web because they bioaccumulate and create a cumulative body burden in wildlife as they go higher up the food chain.

That's why we see this widespread poisoning. As Doctor Gooley alluded to, the most recent data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife show that the wildlife poisonings are widespread. Over 88% of birds of prey, like hawks and owls, are testing positive. Over 86% of bobcats, including the majority of mountain lions, are testing positive. The Poison Free Wildlife Act works stepwise with previous bills to add the remaining anticoagulants to the moratoriums of AB 1788 and AB 1322 to reduce the cumulative threats to non-target wildlife.

And the Legislature needs to act because, unfortunately, our regulatory agencies have failed us. Some of the rodenticides that are covered by this Bill have been in revaluation for over five years. We see DPR are not acting in that sense, and that's not unique to anticoagulants. DPR has had chlorpicrin, a World War I nerve gas, in reevaluation for over 23 years. So we need the Legislature to act.

Importantly, we don't need these dangerous rodenticides safer, cost-effective alternatives are readily available, necessary, and frequently used in pest control. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Fertility control has proven highly effective in reducing rodent populations and is already in use by municipal governments in California. And lethal road and control strategies that involve snap traps and electric traps can then be implemented.

And importantly, there are over 100 different rodenticide products that still would be available and don't pose as great of a threat to wildlife if this Bill passes. So we have our opposition agricultural community say that we won't be able to use rodenticides if a portion of this wildlife buffer area is enacted. That's not the case. There's still plenty of alternatives out there. We request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2552?

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee Sosan Madanat, W Strategies, here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, a proud co-sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and the Humane Society of the United States, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates representing the California Association of Professional Scientists in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members of the Committee, Paul Gonsalvez on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Committee, Nickolaus Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of San Diego Humane Society and our affiliate, Project Wildlife. which is the state's largest native wildlife rehabilitator. Thank you.

Thank you.

Stockton Animals Save and Some Bunny to Love Small Animal Rescue in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Carla Cabral, 16 year research scientist and emergency room veterinary technician in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Nicholas Mazzotti on behalf of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2552?

Good morning Mister Chair and Members Taylor Roschen on behalf of the Rodenticide Task Force in a series of agricultural associations in opposition. We'd like to thank the Committee and the author for taking the amendments to the Bill regarding the private right of action. Certainly an improvement on the Bill in print, but we're still opposed based on a series of factors. Firstly, we believe we have robust administrative penalties for the illegal sale, use, and possession of pesticides. So imposing additional civil penalties we feel is unnecessary inclusion.

More so, the analysis suggests that the author is working on a series of amendments for the public to notify state and local attorneys about potential violations. We already have procedures in place for reporting use violations, including with County Ag Commissioners, DPR, and the Structural Pest Licensing Board. They are best equipped to handle and verify pesticidal complaints rather than inundating local attorneys.

We don't know what this language will look like, what the process will entail, what the evidentiary standard will be, and what the workload will be, and as such, we encourage the Committee to ask for the Bill back and review this new language when and if it is included. Secondly, we object to the Bill based on an abdication of the process in place by DPR.

DPR has a procedure to review impacts, including on non-target species, and when legitimate information is presented, DPR is obligated to mitigate or cancel products altogether. Ironically, we agree that the Department doesn't act quickly enough in some form or fashion. But rather than obligate them to review the data and issue a determination to the Legislature and a public by a particular date, which has been done on rodenticides and by Members on this Committee in Legislation.

AB 2552 bans the products outright, and there is not an agricultural exemption. We believe our agencies are best suited to opine on science, and it is the Legislature's purview to direct them to do so. Finally, I just want to note this is the fifth Bill this year debating individual or groups of active ingredients, arguing the state is not moving fast enough to protect the public or the environment.

Though it is not the purview of this Committee, if we keep legislating products away without ensuring that there are alternatives, or at least a process to register alternatives, we will forever be in a feedback loop of an under-resourced department met with concerns they're not moving quickly enough to review products and product safety, followed by legislation to remove their Fund sources and do the work that the Department and the public expects to be done. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members, my name is Blair Smith. I'm the Director of Technical and Quality Assurance for Clark Pest Control, a company here in the state, and a Member of PCOC, the Pest Control Operators of California. Now, as my colleague mentioned, rodenticides are a crucial tool for agricultural production in the state, and that's not just on the farm, but throughout the food chain from farm to fork. Now, Clark Pest Control is one of many companies in the state that services large audited food processing facilities.

Using anticoagulant rodenticides at these places is currently allowed under the exemptions put in place by previous bills, but of course, this would change those for customers of ours who lie within a 2500-foot buffer zone of these wildlife habitat areas. Now, examples that come to my mind of customers. This would impact our Sacramento Valley rice operators produce processors in the Salinas Valley and countless wineries throughout the state. And it's important to note that these are tools in a comprehensive road management plan.

Many of the alternatives that were previously mentioned are things that we are integrated into our programs and are actively working to reduce the presence of, you know, of these actives and use them responsibly. To touch on the private right of action piece, this Bill maintains civil liability and allows the Attorney General to bring action by request of multiple agencies, whether that's DFW, DPR and others. But it fails to answer other key questions about how this would really work.

So, for example, is the city prosecutor required to respond to these requests? Can they refuse, and if so, what happens? And are any minimum requirements of evidence required to be met, you know, before these claims are brought forth to just prevent an influx of frivolous claims? So, as was also mentioned, there are existing ways for pesticide enforcement and regulation through DPR and through our county ag commissioners. These mechanisms should be maintained and improved before creating new pathways. So for those reasons, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2552?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Allman Alliance, also in opposition. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed, several other ag organizations in opposition.

Thank you.

Chris Reardon on behalf of the California Farm Bureau, in opposition.

Thank you.

Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Margie Lee on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We will be removing our opposition in light of the amendments removing the private right of action. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Jason Bryant on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association. We're in opposition as well.

Thank you. Bring this back to Committee. Any questions, comments, or motions? Anyone? Anyone? Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan

I mean, since you asked three times, Mister Chair. So, you know, first of all, I want to acknowledge your leadership in this space. This is my first time hearing this in Judiciary, but I heard it on ESTM like different bills you've done in this space many times. And I think your dedication to California's wildlife, both in this regard and others, is obviously incredibly impactful. So I want to thank you I know that in past iterations of similar work. So this Bill is obviously different.

You have done certain things to allow for agricultural use. I don't believe that's happening in this Bill.

OH, agriculture is exempt.

Oh, it is.

What they're concerned about is that there is a 2,500-foot buffer. If you're next to a designated wildlife zone, being a park. So not just open space, you have to be a wildlife zone as designated by a city by the state. So it has to be a wildlife habitat area.

Got it. Super helpful. Thank you.

The rest of agriculture is exempt.

Thank you.

Yeah, and it's only the 2,500ft. It's not like the rest of your farm. It's that area.

Any other questions or comments? Do we have a motion? We have a motion. Is there a second? And we have a second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. I also want to thank you, Assembly MemnerFriedman, for your leadership in this space. I appreciate your work with opposition and taking amendments that have clearly removed some of the opposition. I know you'll continue to work on this Bill as it moves forward. Hopefully, it does have a do pass to appropriations recommendation. Would you like to close?

I just want to clarify one thing. First of all, we will continue to work on the language about enforcement. Of course, we'll talk to the opposition about that. The reason that came about is that one of our urban city attorneys asked to be included so that they could do enforcement because they don't have another agency to help them. And the enforcement is not against somebody using the pesticide who sells an illegal pesticide, a pesticide that's banned. So I want to clarify that.

With that, I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. If you take roll call on AB 2552. please.

Do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, we'll place that bill on call. Needs a couple more votes. Up next, item seven, AB 2404, Lee. In the meantime, can we have a motion on the consent calendar, please? We have a motion and a second. Take roll call on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll place the consent calendar on call. Need one more vote for that one. Thank you for your patience, Assemblymember Lee. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. This bill, AB 2404, will protect public sector workers' rights to honor other unions picket lines during a strike. The right to collectively bargain and strike are fundamental democratic rights of all Americans. The National Labor Relations Act gives private sector employees the right to strike and further specifies that nothing in the act can interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike or to affect limitations or qualifications on that right.

Like federal law, California has enacted laws giving public sector workers the right to strike. The Public Employment Relations Board has affirmed that public sector employees have the statutorily protected right to strike and that public employees that go on strike are protected from discipline by employer for participation. AB 2404 declares that public employees may demonstrate solidarity with other public employees by honoring a strike or refusing to enter the premises or perform work for a public employer engaged in a primary strike.

The right to honor a picket line is not just a democratic right. It is a matter of conscience for many Californians. It is a choice that people make according to what they believe is morally correct. In light of recent employer actions, California needs to ensure public employees' right to honor and support strikes. I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote.

And speaking in support today, I have Neal Sweeney, who is Co-President of UAW 4811, the union representing nearly 50,000 academic workers at UC, and Ivan Fernandez with California Labor Federation.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. As Assembly Member Lee said, my name is Neal Sweeney. I'm Co-President of UAW 4811, representing about 50,000 economic workers at the University of California. I'm a proud co-sponsor. This bill is about giving individual workers the right to personally choose to stand in solidarity with their coworkers without being disciplined or fired, and the right to honor their own moral compasses.

In late 2022, four bargaining units of my union went on strike together over UC's unfair labor practices and bad faith bargaining. We felt solidarity from every corner of the labor movement, including UPS Teamsters, who have the contractual right to respect picket lines and turn their trucks around. However, we also experienced firsthand the moral injury that is caused when public employers do not respect the First Amendment rights of workers to abide by their conscience and honor a picket line.

When two of the four bargaining units settled their contracts after about a month on strike, individual members of those units were forced to cross the picket lines of the other two units who remained on strike for about two more weeks. By pitting workers against workers, this created a hostile work environment. Members of every other union at the University of California were also forced to cross the picket line or face discipline, forcing them to act against their conscience.

AB 2404 will protect the right to honor picket lines as an essential right for all public employees and enshrine this First Amendment freedom into California law. It will also encourage good faith negotiations and speedy resolutions so that workers can get back to the work they want to do, serving the people of California. I respectfully urge you to vote aye on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Juan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsor of AB 2404, a bill that, as mentioned, will protect a public employee's right to honor a picket line during a labor strike. As highlighted by my colleague representing UAW 4811, AB 2404 serves as a direct response to the UC-wide UAW strikes that occurred at the end of 2022. During this period, UC workers represented by other campus unions were unable to honor their colleagues' picket lines.

In addition to not being forced into hostile work environments by crossing strike lines, workers should not have to compromise their rights and ability to act according to their conscience in order to avoid disciplinary actions from their employers. While protecting workers across the state, AB 2404 does not compel any worker to go on strike, but rather protects their individual rights to respect a picket line.

Deciding to go on strike--deciding to respect a picket line is an extremely challenging decision, especially for public servants who care deeply about their work, and that decision is not made any easier by this bill. AB 2404 is about giving an individual worker the right to personally choose to stand in solidarity with their coworkers without being disciplined or fired, and their right to honor their own moral compass. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the audience? Support of AB 2404?

Mr. Chair and Members, Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, also in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, the Amalgamated Transit Union, and the Machinists, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro from SEIU California, in support.

Thank you.

Brian Miramontes with AFSCME California, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Louis Costa with SMART Transportation Division, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2404?

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. Our concerns with AB 2404 are consistent with the issues raised in response to last year's AB 504, which this is a reintroduction of, and is also reflected in the vetoed message by Governor Newsom stating, 'unfortunately, this bill is overly broad in scope and impact. The bill has the potential to seriously disrupt or even halt the delivery of critical services, particularly in places where the public services are co-located.'

'This could have significant negative impacts on a variety of government functions, including provisions of services in a rural community where co-location is common and accessibility of a variety of safety net programs for millions of Californians.' In rural communities, it's common to see co-location of government services. For example, most of our courts and our counties have co-located services. I have a remote health care district that also has county public health and social services co-located.

I have a campus where we have a public library, a county museum, and the community colleges, or a really remote coastal city where we have co-location of planning and building services with the county because they're anywhere from two to four hours away from the county seat. Public employers that bargained in good faith and have an approved MOU agreement should not be penalized for sharing a business space with another government employer.

Without additional amendments to address co-located agencies, our communities may be left without needed services. Shutting down non-struck agencies for sympathy strikes is an extreme approach that goes well beyond what is allowed for primary strikes and risks the public's health and safety. For these reasons, RCRC is opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities, here today in respectful opposition of 2404. State law governing collective bargaining are in place to ensure a fair process for both public employees and public entities. AB 2404 would upend the current bargaining process, which allows striking only in specified limited circumstances and would pose a serious problem for public agencies that are providing essential public services.

This bill would allow those who have not gone through the negotiation process to now refuse to work simply because another bargaining unit is engaging in striking. Allowing any public employee with limited exception to join a striking bargaining unit in which that employee is not a member could lead to severe workforce stoppage. Local MOU provisions around striking and sympathy striking ensure local government can provide critical services.

The no strike provisions in local contracts have been agreed to by both parties in good faith, often due to critical nature of the employees' jobs. As local agencies, we have a statutory responsibility to provide services to our communities throughout the state. This bill jeopardizes the delivery of those services and undermines the collective bargaining process. For those reasons, we're opposed, but look forward to continue the discussions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2404?

Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of Prism, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed, also on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jean Hurst, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, in opposition.

Thank you. I'll bring this back to Committee for any questions, comments, or motions. Sure. Madam Vice Chair.

I want to be certainly respectful of the existing laws, but I just want to ask a clarifying question. So if there is a strike by one bargaining unit on proximity or on the same premises of a school, so the teachers would strike, be allowed to participate in a friendly strike as well? Stop work stoppage, teachers? That's my specific question.

Yes, this bill does apply to all public employees with those exempted in the bill that we worked with last year with stakeholders, so currently those who are not included under the bill are certain peace officers and firefighters. But yes, teachers are covered.

So the risk to our students, our children who have been through so much through the pandemic and lost their presence in the classroom, and here's the risk to their continued presence. That concerns me.

Just to clarify, teachers can strike now.

I'm sorry?

Teachers can strike now.

No, I know, but this would be some other unit and they're striking in sympathy. So it's not directly affecting their collective bargaining agreement, it's someone else's or adjacency, and so in sympathy, as I understand your bill, then the teachers would be permitted to strike. Is that correct? Okay, thank you.

Assembly Member Bryan.

I'm just curious, what does 'some peace officers' mean?

Yeah. So last year we included certain--like Highway Patrol from last year, and we can get you specifics on the types of peace officers that are exempt.

Prison guards, local law enforcement, sheriff's departments?

We can, we can give you the specifics on it.

Move the bill.

Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All right. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know it's been a journey for it and hopefully it'll continue to move forward. Would you like to close?

I look forward to continuing this bill and discussions with all the stakeholders involved. Again, this is about the democratic and worker right to honor strikes, especially when you're on the--especially with your fellow workers, so look forward to continuing those conversations and we'll continue conversation with the Governor's Office. Of course, this was a bill that was carried by Assembly Member Reyes last year and was vetoed, but we'll continue to move forward the conversation. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Oh, yeah. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

I have a question. Just because of the question asked, my understanding of the bill was that the sympathy strike would have to be at this work site, so the teacher would only not be able to work if it was, say, a classified employee at their work site, for example?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

That's how I understood the question, too.

Sorry to--

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

[Roll Call]

Mister Chair, you said 2187?

Yes.

Thank you. Mister Chair and colleagues, I'm here to present AB 2187 a Bill that will establish a statewide office of tenant rights and protections. The responsibilities for the office are simple and common sense. Create and maintain an up to date, language inclusive list of our state's tenant rights and protections.

As the Committee analysis aptly points out, the only state entity with a responsibility to publish any kind of guide is the Department of Real Estate, which in 2022 released a 150 page guide to tenants and landlords rights and responsibilities. Despite the length of this guide, it's already outdated. It does not mention the state's new security deposit cap, nor does it mention the updates to our state's just cause eviction statuses.

Already this year, there have been numerous proposals on pet policies for rentals and caps on rental application fees. Our state is the home to 17 million renters, myself included. 54% of our largest city, Los Angeles residents are renters. Many of these renters are non English speaking. I'm proud to say that California has strong renters protections, but as we continue to pass laws to ensure that rent is affordable and residents aren't unjustly evicted. We need to make sure renters know about those protections.

Currently, nonprofits and tenant rights advocacy organizations are forced to shoulder to the burden of supporting and educating our state's renters. It's time that the state steps in to share that weight and that responsibility. This is especially relevant as we see the growth of app based lease agreements on sites such as Zillow and apartments.com, which issue a disclaimer that the provisions of their lease agreements may not be up to date with state laws.

Here with me to testify in support of the Bill are Jesus Paco Estrada and Sebastian Ruiz from Power California Action.

Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. I appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of AB 2187 that would establish the Office of Tenants and Rights and Protections with the primary goal to educate tenants on their rights. My name is Jesus Paco Estrada and I'm a first generation Mexican American from South Central Los Angeles in my fourth year at Loyola Marymount University.

I'm here today on an early Tuesday morning, just a week before finals, representing Power California Action, and most importantly, representing the voices of young people all across our beautiful state. In a recent youth poll conducted by Power California Action, youth across California identified the housing crisis as the most pressing issue impacting our generation. Nine out of 10 younger Californians support policies that make housing more affordable and protect renters. For a moment, bless you. I'd like to share a little of my own story and experience.

When I turned 10, my family was forced to move from Southgate to South Central due to the rising rent costs. For over 20 years, my father worked at Farmer John's as a meat processor, barely making minimum wage. After his company left Los Angeles, he was left with work injuries in his legs, but he has not allowed that to stop him from supporting our family. Working as a security guard. For families like mine, we can't afford the luxury of doing otherwise. That is why I'm here today.

For far too long have our families suffered due to the high cost of housing and the creeping fear of eviction. For young people like me, we want to protect our families, but are unsure of what the future will bring. Advancing AB 2187 will create the Office of Tenant Rights and Protections, charged with educating tenants on the rights and protections available to them. Renters should not have to maneuver the system alone.

Today, I call on you as representatives of this great state to pass a legislation that will make sure tenants and landlords know what they can access and easy read to list of their rights and responsibilities. This will bring us one step closer to creating more supportive and more equitable future for families. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sebastian Cranio Ruiz and I'm a power advocate at Power California Action. I was raised in Running Park, California. AB 2187 is a very important Bill for me and the 44% of Californians who rent. I have lived in an apartment for the better part of my life. Thankfully for my family, our landlords have been understanding and our contracts have been easy to understand. We have a strong understanding of our rights as tenants.

I, like many others my age, see ourselves more than likely having to rent for at least a few years, if not the majority of our lives. Even then, when a major part of the population rents, most of us do not know our renters rights.

So to be able to see all of our rights online in a simple way to help us be informed of what is already the law that would allow many renters to stop landlords from taking advantage of them because they do not know their rights. This is a well known problem as I've seen many friends live in inhabitable units and their landlords make them pay to fix issues that the landlord should pay for.

I've seen wrongful landlord no sorry, I've seen wrongful evictions where the tenant thinks they cannot do anything about it. A very bad case, showing how this can get out of hand is a friend of mine, Chizu. Chizu was living with mold, leaks and cracks from the ceiling and cockroaches. His landlord was willingly neglectful and because he didn't know his rights as a tenant, he got taken advantage of.

He has had to resort to legal hope in order to get through this. This situation should have never happened in the first place. Going through this process, he wished he knew what his rights were. This would have helped him so much in the situation. It is the government's duty to inform and protect renters rights and for these many reasons, I hope you will all be able to support this Bill and to continue supporting it as it moves through the Legislature. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 2187?

Good morning. Margaret Dimatio, housing policy attorney at Legal Aid of Sonoma County, in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power California Action, as well as the San Diego Housing Commission, we're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is everyone here in opposition AB 2187?

You coming all the way up.

Just take a seat on each side of Assemblymember Bryan over there.

Mister Chair and Members, Pat Brown with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. Bottom line, we think creating this would be redundant. There are already ample places where tenants can go to see their rights, whether it's www.courts.org, tenants rights, DOJ tenants rights, BCSH tenants rights, along with local government sites you can go to and find out your tenants rights there.

If we're going to spend money to establish this, we'd prefer to see the money go to rental assistance where my client property owners are kept whole and tenants are kept in their housing. So that's why we're opposed to the Bill. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Mister Chair, Members of the Committee, Ron Kingston. I represent two regional apartment associations, apartment association in Orange County and the East Bay Rental Housing Association. The author is correct. The advice and direction has been provided innumerable times by the State of California to the Bill provides no guarantee that this booklet would be updated quarterly, annually, every two years, five years, three. There are a number of local laws that intersect and affect landlord tenant law. This Bill does not affect that, nor can it.

It's not realistic. So we have a robust history starting with 1998 and every two years the state booklet is published and updated. Why do we need a State Department as an alternative? Just direct the State of California to update its existing booklet. That is the absolute perfect solution. And for these and many other reasons, we urge a No vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2187?

Good morning. Kate Bell, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and AAGLA, in respectful opposition.

Mister Chair. Apologies for going out of order. California Labor Federation, Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation here in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Haney.

Thank you to the author for your leadership. And I'm a co-author of this, so of course I'm supportive of it. I also want to wish the witness the best of luck with his finals. Thank you for being here. Both of you. Both of you. So, you know, one of the things that I hear a lot about from property managers, from landlords is how much the law is changing.

And sometimes that is given as a reason of concern for some of the things that we're doing here. And we are constantly trying to adapt our protections and rights so that they're responsive to the needs of both tenants and landlords. And it does seem, and just even in the analysis, it's very concerning that as we make these changes that they're not provided in a way that people can access them, they're not updated regularly.

I actually, there's a lot that I would agree with around what one of the opponents said around how do we make sure that even if we created this office, that the information was provided in an accessible way and is updated regularly? And how are you ensuring that that's the case in this legislation?

Right now, if you are a tenant, or if you're a landlord and you're trying to figure out what the law is, it is very difficult to figure out, and you might find yourself in the depths of some guide that some nonprofit has put up that is old or is not necessarily right for you.

And I think that actually the result of that is that you have more conflict and you have more confusion and you have maybe tenants who might have otherwise been able to follow the law but didn't understand what it was, maybe would have responded in the right way, or followed certain policies, but didn't know what it was, and vice versa.

So I think that this actually providing this kind of information in a clearer way, transparent way, an updated way, actually helps both landlords and tenants avoid conflicts and avoid litigation and those kind of things.

But I do, I am sympathetic to the view that why isn't the right way to do this, simply to have the folks who are tasked with it now, to some degree, the Department of Real Estate, the courts, etcetera, why not keep it with them and have maybe some more clearer prescriptions around how to provide this information and update it? Why do we need a new office?

Yeah, to be clear, I know the structure of government can be confusing for folks, but this would be an office that exists inside of a Department. In the same way, the Attorney General has many different offices inside the Attorney General's Office. Essentially, a Department would then outline a key set of employees dedicated towards the framework of the Office of Tenant Rights and Protection so that they can't be diverted to other tasks when it's convenient.

We saw during the pandemic that that was a convenient time for the state to repurpose some of the workforce in a Department, to create an updated guide because we were all under stay at home orders, but that isn't statutorily required in perpetuity. And that's what we're trying to establish here. Permanency that allows for both tenants and landlords to be able to go to a government-backed, accessible, updated public place to find out what their rights responsibilities are, are for all of the reasons that you mentioned.

The office is under which departments?

That. CRD.

Civil Rights Department.

Okay, thank you.

The Department of Real Estate has done a fantastic job, but when we look at the landscape of all of the different departments, that's what our team is still having conversations about, where the best place to house this, so that it doesn't take away from too many of the responsibilities the Department already has.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I agree with a lot of what was said by my colleague from San Francisco. I think one of the things we talk about a lot when it comes to these tenant rights bills, this is the small landlords who don't know the way the law works and don't have big departments to help advise them. Big landlords can handle it. They got the lawyers and the experts. But I do think so.

I guess one request I'm happy to support the Bill today is that I also think the Bill should specify that the office should list the tenant or the landlord's obligations. Right. It says to list the tenants rights, but I also think it should specify the landlord's obligations so that the landlords can go. Because I think a lot of landlords that violate the rights of tenants do so unknowingly. Not all.

You are obviously talking about egregious examples, but we also want to make sure that the landlords are aware of what their obligations are. So I think specifying that, so this is a place where both parties can go and get the information and everyone can be. I think that would further protect tenants. Not all, obviously, but some.

And I also want to make sure, and it wasn't clear to me, but maybe this is, that it is really important in the Bay Area, obviously, and San Francisco being a good example, cities go or counties go further. And it is important to me that if this is where everyone goes, they actually are aware that their rights may be even beyond what the state provides, so that they don't stop here and they know to go look one step further.

Potentially, maybe we could list the jurisdictions where one should do that, just so people do have a one stop shop to find out where all their rights are. So just a couple suggestions, but I think it's a great Bill.

Thank you.

I think that is a fantastic suggestion, and I think the responsibility is really important. I had a situation a couple years ago when we were leaving a place, moving to another place where a landlord took our security deposit and cited for painting. And we thought to ourselves, that doesn't seem like something you can take our security deposit for. And how do we know and how do we find out?

And like, I'm already a Member of the Legislature at this point, and I'm struggling figuring out where to find out whether you can take it for painting. After consulting my wonderful team to compile a list of important tenant protections that we could do a guide for our district, we did find out that it was useful for me personally in finding out that you can't actually take somebody's security deposit for normal wear and tear and painting. And we sent that law to our landlord.

But that shouldn't be the process that landlords have to go. And they weren't trying to be malicious. This is like a great landlord too, somebody who wasn't trying to do more than they were supposed to, just inadvertently did because they didn't know their responsibilities and we didn't know our rights. So I think you're absolutely right, and the regional variation is definitely something we can work through.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Assembly Member Bryan, I know your heart is always in the right place. I've never questioned that you always want to do the right thing. My question to respond to Assemblymember Haney, though, when you say that there's so many laws and regulations and where does one go? I have a simple solution. Let's stop passing so many laws. That is a solution. There have been over by rough count.

I just consulted with my guide here, over 10 new laws in the last two years, perhaps, and I'm not questioning the justification or the validity of those laws, but the overwhelming laws affecting landlords and property management to me, are a cause for concern from a business standpoint. How could anybody keep up with it? But I know with the young people, the young college students and younger, they do not lack for an ability to find answers to questions.

Just curiously, did you Google renters tenant rights and what did you find? I'm just curious.

Did not Google Renter's tenant protection rights through Power California Action? We conducted a youth poll and that's where we gathered most of our information, and also just through the housing rights advocacy that we've been involved with.

So I see, just looking here in an analysis, the judicial branch, California courts, has information. The Department of Real Estate, as you mentioned, the Civil Rights Department, the State Bar. I think at the minimum it could be consolidated.

I think that's a great idea, potentially in an Office of Tenant Rights and Protections.

But I would say, does it really need to go? Are we talking discrimination or just getting answers to common renter questions? Could it go to the Department of Consumer Affairs, for example?

Well, and I think, similar to your thinking, there's a reason we didn't offer to house this in the Department of Justice. Right. This actually isn't to force super stringent regulation or scary regulation. It is about providing information. It is about consolidating all of these avenues where information is not required to be regularly updated and therefore is not so that tenants and landlords have a place that is reliable, that we have put into statute to be updated regularly as we continue to do our work.

I know, I just. Civil Rights sounds just a lot more.

Sounds a bit scary.

Anyway, thank you for what you're doing. I have to scoot over to another Committee.

All right. Any other comment? Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Thank you so much, Assemblymember for bringing this forward and your continued advocacy for tenants and tenants' protections. And I do think this will be an opportunity to consolidate all the information so that not just tenants but landlords can benefit as well, so that we reduce confusion. Would you like to close?

I think it's. As my colleague from the Bay Area and Chair of our Renters Caucus explained earlier, it's a difficult time, both for tenants and for landlords. And that confusion hurts well-meaning and good-intentioned landlords and tenants both. It leads to unnecessary litigation where rights or protections have been violated, not even for malice or bad intent. Also leaves tenants feeling vulnerable and alone in complex situations where their entire livelihood is at stake. And these protections are largely created to protect that livelihood.

But if you don't know them, you fall vulnerable to financial insecurity, housing insecurity, and at the most extreme situations, losing your housing. We've got to do better. We've got to make sure folks are educated in a language inclusive way. The state has a responsibility here. It's not okay that we've shifted so much of the burden to the nonprofit and the community-based community who does a fantastic job. This is in the public interest, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, take roll on AB 2187.

Due pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll place that on call and we'll get back to your next one a little bit later, if we could. We have some non-Committee Members are here, so I'd like to go to item eight, AB 2049, Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Committee for your engagement and the staff for their hard work on this bill. And I present AB 2489 really just on the fundamental principle civil service jobs are the backbone of both a strong middle class and responsible, effective local government. Public workers are skilled professionals who are highly qualified to fill these jobs and are dedicated to civil service, often for their full careers.

For various reasons, contracting out of government jobs has been steadily rising over the decades. Now, typically, this is done to address budgetary problems, but what we've observed is that, when these jobs exit the government employment rolls, they rarely return. Public works are the expectation of taxpayers and constituents. Ongoing public functions are best addressed with a right sized workforce to meet those demands of use.

With contracting out over time, the government's institutional talent pool is inherently diminished and both risks the public outcomes because of barriers to accountability and hurts the worker because they are no longer entitled to government pay rates and other benefits. And a troubling trend that has become a part of contracting is the lack of parity of qualifications. Every civil service job has stated education and experience requirements, for example, that are in alignment with their pay scales.

Contracted jobs often will ask for lesser qualifications to do the same job that the government has historically been doing. This creates an imbalance and, unfortunately, it pits civil service employees against contracted employees. Civil service employees become undercut by less skilled contracted hires while also having to compete with them on a lower pay scale. Government, however, is responsible for the work getting done.

Maintaining a pattern of reliance on private workers reduces accountability, creates a layer of reporting and delays, directs public dollars to support management, compensation, and company profit at the expense of workers, and less assurance that the work deliverable would be satisfactorily performed, leaving the government and its taxpayers holding the bag. Partnerships with private partners can be positive and present good opportunities for public value in in supplementary or complimentary situations. There are many examples of this, and AB 2489 doesn't impede this longstanding relationship. This bill simply says that if there were job classifications currently or recently performed by public employees, let's make sure that we aren't reducing our qualifications or creating a less qualified standard to perform the public's interests.

To address some of the noted concerns, I presented author's amendments in this Committee that will exempt contracting from the requirements of the bill in emergency situations, and I'm aware of additional comments coming in by local government and nonprofit organizations, and we'll continue to work with them on some of their concerns. With me in support of this bill today, I have Sandra Barreiro, the Government Relations Advocate for SEIU and Bryant Miramontes, the Legislative Advocate AFSCME.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Bryant Miramontes with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, proud co-sponsor of AB 2489. I'm here to speak about the intent of the bill. AB 2489 is about ensuring public services through accountable public contracting practices. This bill simply states three things. Civil service jobs have clear qualifications requirements set by local agencies, which are established for a variety of reasons.

If private contractors are going to receive taxpayer dollars to to provide specific services that a local agency's civil service workers are or were recently providing, they need to meet the minimum qualifications required by that agency. And three, before beginning to contract out, local agencies are to notify bargaining units in advance, which we have agreed to waive in certain emergencies, as the Assembly Member have noted.

This bill is not about requiring that contractors meet any specific requirements not expected of public sector workers performing the same functions, and it's not about penalizing any particular contractor. This is about reinvesting in the public sector workforce and ensuring that local agencies stand by the qualifications requirements that they set to ensure quality public service delivery. With that said, we want to make this workable and have been engaging with the opposition and are putting in a good faith effort and to ensure that their decision, their concerns are addressed as well. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, we are co-sponsors of this bill. Civil service or merit systems were developed in response to public outcry over cronyism and nepotism in government hiring. They exist to ensure that the most qualified candidates for a job are selected, and part of that goal is establishing minimum qualifications. Some of the concerns raised by the opposition give the impression that local governments contract for services to get around minimum qualifications.

But if minimum qualifications for a job are not appropriate, the local governments, as the employer, can put the work into changing them. As far as background checks, most would agree that for some positions, like positions that require driving or interacting with children, they are necessary for everyone's safety. But for other positions, local governments have full discretion to assess criminal history and make a decision on whether it actually impacts job fitness. Other things like lived experience can also be included as a minimum qualification.

So this bill is limited to bargaining unit work, which is defined in an MOU, because one, employers have the ability to directly hire for these positions and two, in civil service systems, bargaining unit job qualifications were specifically designed to ensure a qualified workforce. And if a contractor is performing bargaining unit work, the public is generally going to assume and trust that contractors are equally qualified. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2489?

Ivan Fernández, California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 2489?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. I'm Jean Hearst on behalf of the California, excuse me, the Urban Counties of California, an Association of the state's largest 14 counties who provide services to about 80% of the California population on behalf of the state and local governments. I'm here today to express our opposition to AB 2489. I want to begin by making clear that the current public sector workforce crisis is the number one challenge facing counties.

This crisis directly impacts our capacity and ability to address the multiple crises of the day and eventually undermines trust in government, which we know we can ill afford. In addition, California's local agencies have been significantly challenged to do more in our communities to more effectively address the crises and challenges of our time, including behavioral health, homelessness, and the impacts of climate change to serve individuals in need in a more equitable, culturally aware manner that provides better results.

At the same time, we're facing a perfect storm of workforce challenges. The Baby Boomers have reached retirement age and are leaving the workplace en masse. The great resignation has taken hold, and we lack a pipeline supply of trained new workers to meet the needs of our communities. Compounding that challenge is a chronic and sustained underinvestment in funding local government programs and services.

In fact, most of the resources that the local agencies have received from the state and Federal Governments over the past few years have been one-time in nature. The state repeatedly acknowledges that one-time revenues should be spent on one-time expenditures in its own budgeting. Local agencies, of course, must do the same. AB 2489 is an unnecessary and inflexible proposal that will not assist local agencies in hiring and keeping a public sector workforce that can meet the needs of our communities.

It will not improve services, reduce costs, or protect public employees. Specific provisions require local agencies to notify the relevant employee organization its determination to begin a procurement process by the governing body 10 months prior to contract for special services unless there is an emergency as proposed, to be defined from our perspective exceptionally narrowly. Even with this amended definition, this remains an infeasible obligation as we are unaware of the need for a procurement process 10 months prior.

We obviously have other concerns with the measure and remain opposed to the Bill at this point. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members. Jeff Green, the CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits. It's a policy alliance of more than 10,000 member organizations statewide. We do not have a formal position at this time, but we do have strong concerns about AB 2489 which are shared by many other nonprofits working to strengthen our partnerships with government across the state. As drafted 2489 appears to cover a broad and as of yet unclear scope of service types and job functions.

And governments, of course, partner with nonprofits for many reasons. But we are unaware of any evidence or data suggesting that nonprofit workers are less qualified than public workers or that different hiring qualifications by nonprofits result in inadequate services or pose some danger to public health. AB 2489 appears to imply this, and the Bill imposes requirements that contractors, quote, meet, or exceed the background check and educational attainment criteria that local governments have chosen to require for the same work.

Whereas the nonprofit workforce strives to provide opportunities to people that are excluded by certain historical hiring requirements to increase cultural competence, lift up voices of those who have the lived experience of the very problems that we're tasked to confront. Many nonprofits have re-examined these hiring criteria and have been shown to reinforce inequalities and create barriers for justice-impacted individuals, in particular. Some of which actually contribute to the high vacancy rates that we know local governments and other sectors are experiencing.

And we would not want to retreat from those practices to qualify as contracted partners with government at any level, as we want to continue to hire for members of historically marginalized communities. It's also unclear how nonprofit employees would meet or exceed the proposed assessment exams or performance standards required in the Bill. And finally2489 could result in delay to reduce critical levels of critical services. While we appreciate the intent of the emergency exemption being added by the Bill, thank you for that.

It is still, as drafted too narrow, and we prefer to find a path forward that ensures robust public employment, improves the quality, the ability of nonprofits to serve as partners with government, and continues to ensure quality services to Californians who are, in fact, counting on both public and nonprofit sectors to work together on their behalf. So at this time, we must register just our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2489?

Mister Chair, Darby Kernan on behalf of Meals on Wheels California we're concerned with this Bill. We don't have formal opposition yet, but are very concerned about the impact.

Thank you.

Taylor Roschen on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in opposition.