Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

The Senate Governmental Organization Committee will come to order. I want to emphasize that we do have 24 bills up today, so I encourage authors and their witnesses to please be as concise as possible. Because you just have two minutes to speak does not mean you have to speak for two full minutes. Okay, I'm just reading the script.

I did not write that, so--and then with that, I--oh. He was supposed to introduce me. Whatever. He's not here. I'm here. We're gonna start. We can't do a quorum, so we're gonna meet as a subcommittee, and we're gonna go to our first Arthur--author. I know it's Tim Grayson.

One time I called him Chris Ward, and he didn't like it, and then when I told Chris Ward, he didn't like it either. Okay, so this is File Item--File Item Six: AB 1296. And with that, sir, you may start.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1296 prohibits state regulations from requiring or compelling the San Francisco Bar Pilots to replace specified pilot station boats unless the regulation authorizes the replacement of a pilot station boat once it reaches the end of its useful service life.

San Francisco Bar Pilots, or SFBP, provide an essential service for safely navigating commercial vessels to and from nine Northern California ports. Under California code, SFBP, it's mandated to maintain a minimum of two pilot boats in service, with one boat on station in the open ocean at all times.

To meet these requirements, Bar Pilots maintains a fleet of five pilot boats. California Air Resources Board's commercial harbor craft regulations, effective December 31st, 2024, will render SFBP's services nearly impossible with a total construction cost of 68 million, not including financing. Replacing these vessels within the specified deadlines is neither financially nor logistically feasible.

AB 1296 proposes a viable pathway to achieve CARB compliance by extending CARB's deadlines to match the service life of the station boats. This approach allows sufficient time to collect the necessary funds to build new CARB-compliant boats one at a time without financing the construction cost and saving tens of millions of dollars.

Ultimately, AB 1296 will ensure the economic health and stability a pilotage system while aligning with California's environmental goals. And with that, do we have--yes, we do. I would like to introduce my witness, Captain Anne McIntyre, Business Director of the San Francisco Bar Pilots. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning.

I would give you more than two minutes, but committee rules are only two minutes, so whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Captain Anne McIntyre. I'm the Business Director for the San Francisco Bar Pilots, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments today. SFBP, along with PMSA, thanks you for your consideration of Assembly Bill 1296. First of all, we'd like to state that SFBP 100 percent supports the intent of the CARB regulations. Our core mission is the protection of the environment. In support of this mission, last September, we took delivery of the first CARB-compliant pilot vessel in the United States at a cost of over nine million dollars.

In asking you to support Assembly Bill 1296, I'd like to make it clear that SFBP is not seeking to roll back or avoid regulations. Rather, we are seeking what we view as the best and only achievable pathway to compliance. As you know, in the SF Bay and tributaries, pilotage service operates similar to a public utility.

As such, pilots are statutorily required by the Harbor and Navigation Code to have an offshore pilot vessel at sea 24/7, 365. In practice, it takes three station boats to perform this mandate. Under CARB regulations, two of these boats expire at the end of this year and the third at December 2025.

Looking back from where we sit today, our view is that the CARB regulations contemplated that most commercial harbor craft would be retrofitted with new engines, and costs, while burdensome to business, would be manageable with funding opportunities. Unfortunately, no funding opportunities exist for our station boat construction.

The total replacement cost of this program, including the financing, is about 84 million dollars, and we've really run down the funding opportunities extensively, and there's just really nothing there. Secondly with it, regarding the actual construction, when the Legislature first started considering changes to the commercial harbor craft emission standards, we took it seriously.

Over the past five years, we've been developing the plans for these new station boats. We've been now shopping those plans with shipyards throughout the country, and unfortunately, there's very little interest in building these boats due to the CARB deadlines and supply chain issues related to sourcing equipment. Sourcing new engines for these boats is over a year.

Lastly, I just would like to point out that, regarding extensions, we have been working with CARB. We have an extension under consideration right now. However, the extensions are one to two years, and for the business planning for this type of operation, just one to two years, we can't rely on those kinds of extensions.

So I'd like to end just by reiterating our request to your support of Assembly Bill 1296. The necessity to construct three new CARB-compliant boats is born of a very unique set of circumstances that are beyond the scope of the current CHC. It's critical for the economy, the public, the environment, that we have an achievable path to compliance. Thank you very much.

Thank you. She did about three minutes.

I was going to say, I'll be very quick. I have to bend down further.

I'm not going to cut you off, but factor that in.

Thanks. Mr. Vice Chair, Matt Robinson, on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. We are the co-sponsors of this bill. I'll just make one point that I think is worth mentioning. As Anne stated, this still keeps us on a very aggressive timeline to replace those boats, but she also mentioned the cost of that vessel replacement at about 80 million dollars. If we're able to slightly relax these timelines, it allows us to bank the funding necessary.

Our industry, we pay for the replacement of these vessels, and over the long-term, it allows us to save about 20 million dollars in interest, which brings the cost of that replacement down to about 60 million dollars. So, still a very expensive proposition, but we do have an opportunity here to save significant costs on the payer of those replacement costs, and so please factor that in, and I'd also urge your support of 1296. Thank you.

Thank you, and I appreciate you bringing up new points. That was great. Anybody else in the audience that wants to add a MeToo? Seeing none, anyone in opposition? Seeing none, pulling it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns?

Move it at the appropriate time.

Well, there you go. So, obviously, we're in a subcommittee. We can't make the motion right now, but you have somebody who's committed to make the motion. I will be supportive as well. We're trying to get done by noon here today, and I notice on the docket that Chris Ward has two bills. Can you present those right now?

I would only ask for--respectfully ask for an aye vote on both of those bills.

All right, well, one of them I can't give you, so I'm not gonna make you do that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblyman. Oh, do you want to close? I'm sorry I didn't let you close. You may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very, very well done. Okay. I see Mister Lowenthal in the office. I mean, in the committee room. You're having, you got a busy morning here, sir. So, you file item two, file item three, file item four, and file item five. You want to take them in file order?

That'd be great, Mister Chair.

So we're going to start with file item number two. AB 1135.

1135. Perfect. Like to keep you all busy, Mister Chair and members, very pleased to present AB 1135, which will initiate a transition away from the use of toll-free lines, toll free phone numbers by state agencies and departments, while ensuring that the public maintains equitable telephonic access to state services.

Just by way of background, 30 plus years ago, we utilized toll free numbers in a regime of long distance, and it was a way to give relief to a caller so that they did not have to pay the cost of a phone call and the receiving party pays.

Of course, we're decades later where nobody has long distance charges any longer, but around 20% of state agencies continue to use toll free numbers. We, of course, as legislators, don't have toll free numbers to our offices. The vast majority of state services don't.

But we're paying millions of dollars per year for the ones that continue to use these legacy toll-free numbers that don't provide consumer benefit.

This bill allows agencies and departments to maintain their existing toll free lines but requires that they also offer non toll-free lines as the primary means by which a member of the public contacts an agency. The state pays per minute anytime somebody calls those toll-free numbers.

The bill achieves this by requiring agencies to update their websites with the non-toll-free numbers as the primary contact number displayed on the website by July 1, 2025, and requires any publications to be updated with the non-toll-free number when they are next updated.

It is important to note that the bill requires that any toll-free line that is currently operated by state agency must continue to be operated when the other provisions of the bill are implemented, thereby guaranteeing continued access of the public.

So, if there is a person who has that toll-free number stuck in their favorites, they will be able to continue to use it. The lines will not be decommissioned. This solution ensures that anyone who is trying to contact an agency or department via toll free number can continue to do so while curtailing overall use.

By publishing a non-toll-free number as the primary means of contact, AB 1135 will result in annual cost savings to the state in the millions of dollars by drastically reducing the number of calls to state operated toll-free numbers as our state faces budgetary shortfalls, this builds a commonsense approach to saving the state money by transitioning away from antiquated technology that results in significant and unnecessary costs.

Great. Do you have a primary witness?

I do not, Mister Chairman.

I don't think you need one. Thank you, sir, in my opinion. Anybody in the office, I mean, what is this, a committee room wants to add me to testimony. Seeing none. Anyone here in opposition? Bueller. Bueller? No, seeing none. Pull it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns.

Did you want to say it's a great bill?

Move the Bill appropriate time.

Okay, so he wants to move the bill at the appropriate time. I'm supportive as well. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote Mister Chair.

Thank you very much. Now we're going to move on to file item AB 2375. I want to let you know that this is a support-support recommendation.

I will be brief. These - thank you Mister chair and Members. Want to start by accepting committee amendments. Thank the Chair and the staff for their thoughtful insights and collaboration. AB 2375 is part of a larger package of bills.

These are the bills I'm presenting today that I'm caring to address the ongoing and underreported issue of roofing that is taking place across California, the country, the world. Roofying, or drink spiking, occurs when a perpetrator incapacitates their victims by slipping date rape drugs such as Rohypnol, GHB, ketamine into the victim's drinks when they are not aware.

Typically, drink spiking is not an independent crime. Rather, it's done to make other horrific crimes such as rape, sexual assault, easier to commit. And while anyone can turn victim to roofing, it's women and members of the LGBTQ community that are targeted the most.

Dare I say we've allowed this to go on this long because it's women and members of the LGBTQ community that are targeted the most. Drink spiking can take place anywhere.

However, the most common places are bars and nightclubs where alcoholic beverages are served when someone has been roofied, not only do the drugs cause memory loss, but they pass through the body extremely fast, making it very difficult for the victim to seek justice after the fact.

That is why preventative measures such as this one, the one in this bill that are established, are critically important. To tackle this issue, AB 2375 simply requires type 48 license establishments, those are nightclubs and bars, to provide a lid on a patron's drink upon request and a post a sign declaring that this is available.

Allowing patrons to have access to lids is a common sense measure to deter perpetrators from attempting to commit these crimes, reducing levels of drink spiking, and in turn, sexual assault and rape. As a restaurant and bar owner myself, I'm extremely sensitive to this issue.

I know just how important it is to provide a safe and inclusive environment for our guests, and this bill adds to the comprehensive approach aimed at doing just that. I'm pleased today to be joined by Tanya Martin from the LBC, President of Long Beach Pride, who is here to testify and support.

Thank you very much, senators.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. So, I'm here just to - I'm in favor of this. Absolutely. And it's hard to be up here to say this, but I was a victim. When I was 17 years old, I was roofied at a place from Alabama, so I was roofied.

And like most girls, that dream of, you know, their first time, I didn't get that dream. It was taken away from me that night. I woke up in a field of grass and a lot of blood and a lot of shame.

And I know that there's a number of women that experienced this and some men in our community. So, I think it's very important to offer this, and I'm very grateful. Thank you.

All right, well, thank you for sharing that. That's brave of you to do, and you're going to turn it into something good, so thank you for that. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to add a me-too testimony support?

Good morning. My name is Raul Verdugo, Director of Advocacy with Alcohol Justice and on behalf of the California Alcohol Policy alliance. We support this bill.

Thank you, sir. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Pull it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Hi. Senator Lowenthal; I'm quite sensitive to the issue of drugging, and I want to applaud you for bringing your package of bill forwards. I do want to encourage you to amend one aspect of your bill. Not today, because we're not, you know, negotiating it.

But I do notice on item number three that you're requiring a licensee to post a notice in a prominent and conspicuous location. Quote, don't get roofied drink lids available here. Ask a staff member for details. I understand the intent, but I think it is a misdirection to, as you mentioned, women and Members of the LGBTQ community that Rohypnol would be the only drug that could cause incapacitation. We now know that the science has expanded, GHB, GBL, other drugs.

So, I just want to encourage you to be all inclusive in educating the public about what type of substances could be put into their drinks.

I know that the term roofie kind of came up in my college years, and we understand what that means, but I just want to be sensitive that we are creating legislation for the future and want to be all encompassing. Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. Assemblymember, you had mentioned that spiking is not the crime. It's the crimes that happened thereafter, the tragedies that happened thereafter that we just heard. But shouldn't spiking itself be perhaps a misdemeanor? And we can carry that forward in your bill through amendment down the road?

Mister Chair? I'll respond to both senators, if that's okay. Mister Chair.

Whatever you like.

Drink spiking is a crime, okay. It absolutely is a crime. And we researched that extensively as we approach these bills; it's in combination with drink spiking that these other crimes are committed. Senator Alvarado-Gil, thank you for your comments and your sensitivity.

And thank you so much. This is all ultimately about prevention. Once your drink is spiked, it's too late. It's kind of like drunk driving. Once somebody is buzzed and gets behind the wheel, it's too late. It's about prevention. And for better, for worse, a young generation today calls this roofing. And Rohypnol is actually very seldomly used anymore. It's mostly ketamine. It's mostly GHB. We hear stories of Xanax, of other drugs that are put in, and of course, drugs that can be fatal. So, it's horrific and I think you're spot on in terms of educating the public on this.

And what the hope is in these package of bills is that we gain a village approach to all of this so that everybody is part and has an obligation just like with drunk driving right now. When somebody sees somebody who's clearly incapacitated and can't get behind the wheel, it's all of our responsibility to try and stop that person. And when we gain a greater level of education, to your point, it's going to be a collective responsibility for everybody to be vigilant, to watch what's going on.

The presence of the testing kits that is going into law in the next few days from last year's 1013 alone should create awareness around this. The signs should create awareness around this. We're not going to stop until we've cut down on sexual assault. So, thank you for those comments.

Okay, I'm just, I have a closing comment. This could actually happen to anyone. A couple years ago, I don't even remember, I was flying to middle aged woman next to me and she was telling me about her experience. They have a second home down in Miami by a very prominent beach. And so, she was already there.

Her husband was getting into town, and she got roofied like 05:00 in the afternoon. And her husband just happened to get there when it was all kicking in. So, this could happen anyone, any time. And we should do all we can to protect people. So, with that, you may close. No, go ahead, please.

No, no, we got till noon. Go ahead.

Well, this is number three, right? Yes. Okay, so I will wait. I will wait till number four.

Okay. She's gonna wait till number four. With that, you may close.

First thing I would like to say is how important it was to have Miss Martin come and speak and appreciate her courage and bravery. Most sexual assault goes underreported and that's the problem.

And so, when we have survivors that are able to stand up and speak and educate the rest of us, it's so impactful and they should be celebrated for that, for saving lives of others. So, thank you so much, Miss Martin, for being here. You know, thank you Mister Chair, for pointing out that story. Everybody has a story.

When I speak to groups of people on these topics, I ask them, raise your hand if you or anybody close to you has been roofied when they go out. And for most women under age 35, they all raise their hand. So, this is a big problem.

When I presented this bill on the assembly side, Assemblymember McKinnor spoke on the microphone about how she had been roofied in Hollywood. Members of my staff have been roofied. This is a huge, huge problem.

And it's going to take a series of bills and vigilance and we may not get everything perfectly right and we have to refine over time, but we've got to start, we've got to get out there and we've got to cut down on this problem. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Very well done. Now we're moving on to file item 4, AB 2389. And at the appropriate time I will ask Ochoa Bogh to ask her question. But with that right now--oh, and I guess the recommendation is do pass as amended to Appropriations. With that, the floor is yours.

Thank you Mister Chair. I would like to start by accepting the Committee's thoughtful amendments. Very pleased to present AB 2389, another critical piece of the package bill is carrying to address the issue of roofying. Last year I authored AB 1013, which I mentioned earlier, requires bars and nightclubs to have anti-roofying test kits available for their patrons.

Proud to say this bill goes into law--goes into effect on July 1. But we still have work to do on this issue. As people now know that they have these devices to be able to test the presence of date rape drugs, we now need to be prepared with the next steps for the unfortunate event that someone's test comes back positive, or if someone believes that they've been roofied. They feel that they've become incapacitated--at that time, they understand maybe it's their first cocktail, and all of a sudden they can't move their body. They feel completely and totally drugged.

AB 2389 requires that if an employee of a restaurant, bar, or nightclub is made aware that a patron has been or believes to have been roofied, an employee of the establishment must take these two actions. Number one, they must contact law enforcement or first responders and/or medical services.

Number two, to the best of their ability, follow the instructions given by medical or law enforcement personnel over the phone and monitor the drugged individual until these services arrive. Why? Why is that second step so necessary? Because what often happens in these situations is the perpetrator will tell the employees of the bar, "That's okay, she's with me. I got her." And they will take her out of the bar, and that's where sexual assault's taking place. And I can tell you as an owner of bar, that the employees are often so busy, they just want to get the problem out. But getting the problem out can lead to assault.

And so we've got to be extra careful. If somebody has been drugged, that's now an issue for law enforcement or medical personnel. These simple extra steps will have the opportunity to reduce levels of sexual assault, rape, even save lives. And again, pleased to be joined by Miss Tanya Martin, here, to testify in support.

Thank you, Assemblyman. Senator.

Miss Martin, please.

Thank you. Just like the Assemblyman said, you know, my life could have changed. You know, if someone would have stepped up and said, "Hey, she's not doing well," you know, that wouldn't have happened to me--as with a lot of women and men, you know. Especially in our community, being President of Long Beach Pride, you know, it's a huge, huge event. And one thing that I love about our membership is that we look out for each other. And when we have these events, you know, that's one of the things that we look for: somebody's not able to stand or we have tents set up and somebody's watching over them. So I think it's very, very important. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing. Anybody else in the room that wants to add me-too testimony? Please come up, sir.

Thank you again. My name is Robert Verdugo on behalf of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. We support this measure and ask that the Committee vote in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone in the room in opposition? Seeing none, pull it back to the Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Coming from the education perspective, I know that if a teacher or someone that works for the school district suspects something is happening with a child, they are required to be mandated reporters. How is this similar or not to being a mandated reporter if you were a bartender?

Because this falls upon the responsibility of a bartender, I'm assuming, right? If I understand correctly?

A bartender, it could be a security personnel, it could be the manager. It could be anybody that's working in that establishment, that's in the business of serving alcohol, and that alcohol has either been shown to be spiked by one of the test strips that's available, or the patron believes that they've been drugged and is going through it at that moment. Anybody that works in the bar, if they're notified, they must call 911.

So just kind of curious on that. Are there any liabilities on place on, you know, is there any liability or personal responsibility for these individuals if they don't--if they--if they're made aware but they don't follow through? Or if they don't follow through with ensuring that the patron is all the way at the hands of a medical personnel?

Such an important question. Thank you for asking it. We were very intentional about making sure that all liability was taken out. The goal here is not to be more onerous on our restaurants and bars. We're having enough of a tough time these days in this financial climate. The goal is simply to make sure that we all have a plan in place when this happens.

I gotta tell you, like, as somebody who's in the business, the last thing in the world we want is our locations--many of us who, you know, have saved lifetime savings to get these places open--to be even indirectly facilitating sexual assault. It's incredulous. Absolutely. So we all want a safer environment. It's better for business if we have a safer environment. So if everybody is on the same plan on how we deal with this, we think it'll really create awareness, create prevention, cut down on the problem.

And I completely appreciate all of that. I just want to make sure that in light of that awareness and pursuing, you know, well intended--all well intended--we don't accidentally put someone's personal lives under the risk of being liable for a lawsuit, for not pursuing or not being quick enough or not being tentative enough or, you know, whatever it may be to make sure that they're protected.

It's a great question. And every one of these bills lacks liability. Even the testing that goes into effect, that's already law now on July 1, there's no liability associated with positive tests. The goal is to help these establishments, not the other way around.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, Assembly Member. I just wanted to acknowledge that in this version of your bill that you correctly focused on drink spiking, which is all encompassing of not just Rohypnol, but other drugs. So I encourage you to continue to do that as you promote this very important topic. Thank you.

I've got a question actually related to your prior bill, because I think Alvarado-Gil made a great point that there's a whole array of drugs that are used now. Do those drug testing kits, are they able to determine all these drugs that are used?

That's a great question. Right now--the ones--there's an array of different types of tests and some tests for different types of drugs. So we don't know if they're comprehensive.

So I'm assuming this is going to continue to be a moving target as technology changes and people try to skirt--okay.

And perfect is the enemy of good, right?

Oh, no, I'm fine with it. I was just curious on that because when she made her point, I go, that's a good point. So--

Mister Chair, I think the most popular test strip available, or test, is a coaster. And I think that the alcohol companies will be getting on board. In fact, I'm speaking to some of them right now about sponsorship associated with this to provide these free-of-charge. A coaster that's out, invisible, that everyone can see, if somebody has that on display, I think a perpetrator is going to think twice about spiking that person's drink. That's the plan. That's the goal: prevention, not necessarily the test itself.

No, I'm with you all the way. Is that your close or do you want to close again?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, great. Thank you, sir. And we will take that up. We're not quite there. We're getting there when the time comes.

Now we're moving on to file item five, AB 2402, and the recommendation is do pass as amended to appropriations. And with that, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Very briefly, Mister Chair, I want to start by accepting the Committee's thoughtful amendments. Appreciate the excellent work on all of these bills done in the analyses. Pleased to present AB 2402, the final piece of this package I'll be presenting today.

AB 2402 requires that the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control to include training around how to prevent cases of drink spiking into the existing responsible beverage service trainings that are offered to all alcohol-serving staff members of restaurants, bars, and nightclubs.

All my employees have to go through these trainings. These trainings will now include this piece that has to do with roofying, increasing the training of employees at these institutions, a critical step in curbing the incidents of roofying, creating a safe and inclusive social environment.

I want to note that no single bill, as I stated earlier, will end drink spiking, sexual assault, or rape. But it's important that we keep adding to the comprehensive approach in addressing this epidemic, keep chipping away at this to better protect the people of California.

Very pleased to be joined by Raul Verdugo of Alcohol Justice, who is here to testify in support.

Sir, this time you get two minutes. Congratulations.

Thank you. We support AB 2402 and applaud Assembly Member Lowenthal's efforts to raise awareness of this ongoing epidemic and author the bills to reduce its occurrence. By introducing a comprehensive training program, a precedent can be made to meet both the economic and public health interests, ensuring that patrons feel not only safe, but reassured.

This program will equip proprietors with the confidence that their staff can adequately manage, prevent, and reduce the harm that impacts both men and women. These crimes are often unreported and prove very traumatizing for the victims, despite the level of victimizations that occur. We ask that the Committee support AB 2402. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Matt Robinson, on behalf of the City of West Hollywood in support.

Thank you. Any other. Me too. Testimony and support seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, we'll pull it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, concerns?

Move it at appropriate time.

Senator Archuleta thinks it's a great bill, and he's going to move it at the appropriate time. But we do have a question or comment from Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Just for consistency Assembly Member, so in this bill, you make a definition of drink spiking, which includes putting alcohol or drugs into another person's drink without their knowledge and express consent, also known as roofying. Roofying is not a definition that equates drink spiking.

So, I just encourage you with the intent of being educated in how we talk about drug spiking and the crimes that can be committed, not to misuse the terms, whether they're slang or not. This is legislation. This will stay in the record for life, and I want to make sure that we are accurate in our definitions.

And so, to be explicit, that drink spiking equates roofying, I think is incorrect. And so, I encourage you to continue to make those amendments to your package. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Senator.

Seeing no other comments or questions you may close, sir.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for the dialogue.

Do we have any more? Oh, hiding behind Mister Morley. Come on up. So, we have Assemblyman Zbur here. And that'd be file item 19, AB 3006. And he's leapfrogging a ton of people. So, the recommendation is do pass as amended to Appropriations. With that, the floor is yours, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. Today I'm proud to present AB 3006, which promotes collaboration and thoughtful planning of the state's offshore wind economy. California has some of the best offshore wind resources in the country that can provide clean energy as the sun sets and will be critical to the state's ability to meet our clean energy goals.

Offshore wind also has the potential to bring a significant number of high-paying jobs to the state, especially in communities surrounding the state's ports and shipping hubs. However, the sheer scale and size of the technology means that the state will need to build specialized port facilities in a very short amount of time.

The California Energy Commission, in its draft AB 525 offshore wind strategic plan, estimated that at least $12 billion will be needed to upgrade existing port infrastructure.

With thorough planning and timeline accountability, California can build these developments in a way that supports a robust offshore wind economy in the state and creates valuable manufacturing and assembly jobs for many Californians. AB 3006 prioritizes planning for offshore wind development by including an evaluation of funding needs for offshore wind infrastructure in the Governor's five-year infrastructure plan.

This bill will help ensure that the industry is ready and funded to meet our clean energy goals despite ongoing state budget constraints. With me today is Brian White, representing Offshore Wind California, the sponsor of the bill, to provide additional information and assist with questions.

Welcome, Mister White. Have two minutes.

Great. I'll be brief.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Mister Chair and Members, Brian White with the California Offshore Wind. We are the sponsors of the bill. We also represent technology companies, port representatives, engineering firms who are excited about this opportunity.

Our support for AB 3006 is simply built on the fact that without significant port capacity to upgrade these facilities, we will not get this industry started. The weight of these turbines are significantly excessive. They can still crush an existing port. So, in order to do that, we have to upgrade these ports first.

But we don't have a plan to get there. We have a plan that tells us we have these lofty goals, which are important, but we need an infrastructure plan and a financing plan.

So, this bill, all it does is tell the Administration during the five-year infrastructure planning process, simply include port infrastructure planning into that process so that we know where the potential funding could come from. It could come from private dollars, local dollars, federal dollars. But in order to get there, we have to have a plan first.

So, with that Mister chair, we thank Assembly Member Zbur for authoring this bill. And we ask for your aye vote thank you.

Can you stay for a second? Because I'm chairing, so I'm going to do what I want. So, is there a difference between the offshore windmills that they're using, like off Nantucket in Massachusetts, compared? Are they going to be different than the ones we're using on the West Coast?

So, the answer to that question, Chair, is yes. Our difference is we have deep waters in California, so we have to have floating wind technology. They won't be ground mounted into the floor like on the East Coast.

So that. So is that what adds to the weight?

Well, it's for the ports, so that these turbines will be bigger than the ones that you normally see.

Okay, great. Thanks for sharing that.

You're welcome.

All right.

Thank you. Again, Matt Robinson, on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support.

Thank you, sir.

Mike Monagan for State Building Trades in support.

Earning his pay today. Good job.

Dan Chow, on behalf of the Port of Long Beach in support.

Thank you. All right, anyone here in opposition? Seeing none, come back to the Committee. We're losing members now. Nothing? Well, we don't. So, we have a subcommittee. Is somebody. Are you going to offer to make a motion when time is right? Okay, great. With that, you may close.

So, the only thing that I'll add is, in addition to the weight, it's also about the size of these things, like one of the wind turbines, which look a lot like the ones you see when you're driving out to Palm Springs. They're so large that, like, that the.

The arms of the turbine would not fit into Dodger Stadium or giant stadium. So, you also need all this additional lay down space. So, that's why we need the port infrastructure, why it's going to cost so much.

I'm supportive of the bill. I was just curious on the difference. And I do believe you said in your opening comments that you accept the amendments, correct?

Yes. We accept the amendments. Yes. And so. Thank you. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate.

We have a motion. I'm supportive as well. So good bill.

Thank you so much.

Now, we have a bunch of authors here. So, who's next? What? Okay, moving on to file item number eight, AB 1635 by the Assemblyman from San Diego. And the recommendation is do pass to Environmental Quality Committee. zero, no, that's Grayson. I always get you guys confused.

File item eight, AB 1635 do pass is amended to Appropriations Committee.

Love that recommendation. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Pleasure to be here with you this morning, and this is a San Diego bill. I want to thank you and committee staff for working with me on this bill and would like to accept the proposed amendments outlined in your analysis on page 6 and 7.

As proposed under the amendments, AB 1635 would require the Department of General Services, in coordination with the DMV, to enter into negotiations to lease property located in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego to ensure that it can be used for the development of affordable housing and maximize redevelopment potential on the site by 2026. In 2007, so almost 20 years ago, SB 754 was enacted to authorize DGS to lease the Hillcrest DMV property site for redevelopment of mixed use and private use of the facilities. But unfortunately, no agreements have been executed at the site and the property continues to be in need of replacement.

So, this will begin the steps towards direction for a site program vision which will maximize housing outcomes and accelerate a timeline to complete what is becoming a hole in the revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood with shared state and local goals.

Met here to testify and support, I have Holly for many, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission and Moira Topp, on behalf of the City of San Diego.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members of the Committee: Holly Fraumeni, on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission's President and CEO, Lisa Jones. And we want to thank the Assemblymember for continuing to create some creative solutions and innovative ways of trying to maximize underutilized government properties to try to use for more, to build more affordable housing.

Our region's not alone in facing a continued affordability crisis and homelessness crisis, but the state needs to be looking, and our local government's looking at more than just surplus lands, but those lands that are truly underutilized to try to create more of these creative solutions to address the crisis.

So again, thank you members of the committee, we urge your support.

Thank you very much. Well done. Welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I am Moira Topp here on behalf of the City of San Diego, also a cosponsor of the measure. San Diego, dating back to then Council Member Ward days, has been a leader in housing affordability ordinances to expand all of the opportunities for housing at all income levels.

And a bill like this is really important because it will enable those reforms that we've done at the local level to really come to fruition. The DMV site at Hillcrest is a perfect site to really marry the state and local partnership to build housing in our urban core.

Very much appreciate now Assemblymember Ward's interest in doing this and help to get this across this finish line. And we appreciate it and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. We appreciate your testimony. Do we have any me, too. Testimony in the house? We do come forward, sir.

Yes, one me-too in support from Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone in the room in opposition? Seeing none. Pull it back to our ever-dwindling Committee. Go ahead, Senator.

Assemblymember, what are the plans for the site? I know we're here in California. We're trying to build as much as we can, but what do we have on the paper?

So, there's currently no plans for the site. And that's what's been frustrating is that 20 years ago through then Senator Kehoe, one of my predecessors, authorizing legislation, we could have put something in motion.

But there just doesn't seem to be any real impetus or urgency for state leaders to be able to figure out what they want to do with this. And it's just been just hanging out there.

And so I was using this opportunity, as we do for, as representatives of our district, to really, one, provide some of the initial community outreach because the community has grown up a little bit over the last 20 years. It, around there has a real good focus plan development of what it wants to become.

But you got this doughnut hole, you got this state property right in the middle of it where we do still need to have a DMV facility in there. There's no other area that sort of makes sense in the general part of the city there.

But as we're seeing as an example in San Francisco right now, a potentially successful redevelopment there on that property that can actually be mixed use, not just a DMV facility, but maybe housing above it. You have an urbanized environment. And so, we need to be a little bit more thoughtful and congruent with the surrounding area.

And the city, meanwhile, is putting in a major investment for a linear park next door to and adjacent to the site. And so, the idea that we can maybe incorporate and thread in some public space are all good elements of what we could do.

This bill catalyzes, I think, the vision that we want to be able to see and really ask and if we are successful and get to the Governor's desk really directs them to start implementing a vision.

Good luck to San Diego and move it at appropriate time.

Great. Just my final comment before you close is we're not going to hit our housing goals if we were not doing urban infill. And it sounds like this could potentially be a fantastic project that benefits the whole Hillcrest community. So, I will be supportive when the time comes. You shouldn't sit so far away from me.

I wasn't. There was somebody between us before, but they temporarily just left. Temporarily. So I wasn't that far from you. Thank you. Sorry about that to interrupt your - so I do have a question, Member Ward. So, is this a lease for the land or for the building?

For the land. So, it authorizes the ability for them to be able to enter into a lease agreement. All these, of course, are up for future negotiation and future lease negotiations. But that's the updated authorization that this bill would do on top of the existing law, which is SB 754.

Okay. So, the question that follows that through is it's my understanding that this property does not have a surplus designation as of right now. Is that correct?

That's correct. And it wouldn't. And it shouldn't because we need that DMV facility. Right. But we don't need is a standalone building with 80% of the foot being a parking lot. Right. There is something that you can do a little bit more creatively that can meet all the programmatic needs, including parking for that location.

And so, this bill really updates and authorizes a more creative but fitting program development for that site.

Okay. And then. Okay, so the vision is to allow this build to move forward so that you can lease the plant without having the designation of surplus in order to be able to use the parking lot land per se for building additional structures in there.

That's accurate.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

I said my bit, so you. You may close.

Thank you. Well, I appreciate and agree fully, I think, kind of with your assessment. I would just also characterize this as an opportunity to really think more broadly about our state lands that make a lot of sense for housing opportunities.

This is just one site, and it's an important site that would be consistent with the vision that we have for the surrounding community. But let's also take this as maybe an opportunity to reflect on our own bureaucratic obstacles that are sort of self-imposed, that really requires to be able to do more estate lands.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. And we will take that up. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta when the time comes.

Thank you.

Moving on.

I'm also here to present.

Oh, I didn't know that.

That's all right. I'm so happy to tell you.

I know, it's not for Grayson. Who's it for?

It's AB 2032. It's for me.

Oh, yeah. You had two bills.

I have two bills.

Congratulations.

And this is number two.

I only got two bills over on the Assembly side.

Well, this one hopefully, also will be a real quick one for you.

That's not true, by the way. I did a little bit better than that. Okay, so let's go. So it is file item nine, AB 2832 by Assemblyman Ward with the recommendation of do pass by Appropriations Committee. And with that, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Again, AB 2032 will enable the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development and the California Department of Food and Agriculture to take ownership of contracting with international entities in support of California small business.

Due to the state's restrictions on payment and contracting, both departments must rely on third party fiduciaries when handling contracts with trade show organizers, paying via wire transfer, credit card, or foreign currency, all of which are standard and expected payment for trade show organizers.

These restrictions add, currently, financial costs and limit both flexibility and autonomy when conducting business with international entities. This bill provides contract code exemptions to allow both departments to enter into contracting and procurement agreements for international affairs.

This will be a much needed change, will make it more efficient to utilize existing economic development and trade promotion accounts and specify grant funds in for the benefit of supporting California exporters. There are no witnesses in support or in primary opposition, I believe. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

When you have a righteous bill, you don't need witnesses. Is there any me too testimony in support? Seeing none. Any testimony in opposition? Seeing none. Assemblyman was correct. Pull it back to our committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I'm good.

You're good. Senator Archuleta, you want to say it's a great bill?

Yep, it's a great bill. And I'll move it at the appropriate time. One quick question. This will obviously expedite the situation because we're trying to bring in business and enhance our economy. So I'm assuming it's going to open up some doors.

We are trying to sell California, and we're trying to play bigger on a bigger stage, but our own, again, kind of bureaucratic regulations are not consistent with how we do business when we are operating internationally right now. That's what this bill is about.

Move it at the appropriate time.

Great. Wonderful bill, will be supportive, and you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, we go in file order. Do we only have one author here at this point? And so Senator Aguiar-Curry, please come up. And you have, oh, file item 10 is on consent, so you'll be presenting file item 11, AB 2237, with the recommendation of do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. And with that, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. First, I'd like to thank you and the Health and GO Committee staff for the work with our office. I will accept the committee amendments today. California's youth are facing a mental health crisis. Since 2017, rates of anxiety and depression among California's children have shot up 70%.

And one third of California's adolescents experience serious psychological distress between 2019 and 2021, including a 20% increase in adolescent suicide rates. Many families struggle to find affordable mental health for their children. Specialty mental health services provided by county mental health plans provide a key lifeline for over 243,000 youth across California.

In order to receive these services, youth under 21 must have a conditional... Excuse me, a condition placing them at high risk for a mental health disorder, have a significant impairment and mental health disorder, or significant trauma, like sexual assault. However, when a youth moves from county to county, their mental health care is halted while they reestablish eligibility.

It's halted, can you imagine? While they have to get eligibility from the other county. This results in gaps in mental health care that can burden families and risk minors entering the foster care system. This bill supports families by streamlining eligibility across county lines for high risk youth who qualify for specialty mental health services.

AB 2237 would require that DHCS issue guidelines to support counties coordinate and expedite the transfer of specialty mental health services from one county to another. This bill will help empower families who don't know how to navigate complicated social services so that their youth's continuity of care is preserved. Today, I have Richard Davis, I believe. There he is. Richard Davis, Policy and Legislative Affairs Manager at the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies.

Thank you, sir. You're in the back row. Only bad kids sit in the back row. And the next time, if you're gonna do that, let me know. We'll play walk up music for you.

Walk out? Oh, so I can have an entrance? I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Anyway. Two minutes, sir.

I appreciate it. Thank you. My name is Richardson Davis with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, proud sponsor of today's bill. So California's foster youth, as the Member said, are experiencing a health crisis.

Mental health crisis since 2017. So specifically, when a minor is receiving specialty mental health services in one county and move to a different county or a new county, they must provide the continued specialty mental health services while they conduct a required investigation for the transfer process.

So this bill will preserve counties the ability to conduct appropriate reviews with meeting the changing mental health needs and conditions while also ensuring the continuity of care for youth. I'll keep it short today, so thank you very much, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Well done.

Appreciate it.

Any other me too testimony in support? Seeing none. Oh, another support. No walkout music for you either, but you were out of the room, so...

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

And they need to change that name. That's too long. All right, anybody in opposition? Seeing none, pull it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns? My wingman, Senator Archuleta.

Yes, my concern, of course, is the mental situation here, but how about physical, going from one county to the other and expenditures to keep that child healthy and safe, and then maybe the other county may not be able to be ready. Is this bill going to be able to move that financial burden together?

The guidelines here is that DHCS will issue guidance to support the counties to have expedited. You know, there's nothing more heartbreaking to me is that a young person under the age of 21 is moving from place to place and can't continue that health care. In a time when we're trying to get people off the street.

And can you imagine waiting to get care for six months or more from moving from county to county? So it's really important that I make sure that we have the continual care for these young people. And I really think that this is a really viable bill. I was shocked that this wasn't done already, and it was brought to the attention of one of my fellow. And I think this was incredible policy that we're working on.

Would it eliminate that six month period of time as an example? Would it expedite it down to three months or what?

The goal is to expedite it. And it's going to take some time, because as we change anything with any of our agencies, it's going to take some time. But the time is now to start making those moves.

Very good.

I think with COVID many people have had mental health issues, but one out of every three foster youth in LA County resides in my district. And me and Assemblyman Lackey, on a regular basis, meet with foster youth and buying pizza and just listen to their stories, I think they're more isolated than most teens are just by virtue of their situation. So this is much needed and should have been done much earlier. And I will be supportive of the bill as well. And with that, you may close.

I ask for your aye vote. Let us all help the young foster children that need this kind of continual help.

Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, that would be an aye vote.

Yes. And our fearless leader's...

I'm going to present. So you're still...

Oh, I'm still. Okay. I'm still fearless leader. Okay good. I like that. And what are we, what are you presenting? Oh yeah, the committee bill. Okay good.

And then the other one. Okay.

Okay. Up next file item one, AB 1768. This is the Assembly Geo Committee's Committee bill. And with that Mister Chair, floor is yours.

Recent amendments to AB 1768 were put forth by the California Horse Racing Board to address several out-of-date code sections in law. The committee bill now aligns the California Horse Racing law and the general regulatory activities of the newly established Federal Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Authority. That's another way too long.

I don't even know if they have an acronym. Oh, they do. This new organization - no, they don't. Along with the CHRB is charged with enforcing the uniform safety and integrity rules for thoroughbred racing. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this important legislation.

Do you have any, do you have any witnesses in support? No. Anyone in the room that wants to curry favor with the Chair and do a me too? No. Seeing none. Anybody in opposition? Seeing none. Pull it back to the committee.

Move it at the appropriate time. I didn't see anybody write in so let's go ahead and move it.

I wouldn't. I do want to say. You did say you're going to accept the amendments and this? No? Oh, I misread it. So, it's to return this bill back to the Senate Floor. Okay, good. Anyone down here? Going, going, gone. Okay sir, you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote when the appropriate time comes.

And who knows when that will be. Okay, we are now moving. It's a busy day today, so I'm not faulting anybody. There's a lot going on. Okay. Now we're moving to file item 17, which is Assemblyman Gibson. It's his birthday today. Is that why he's not here?

And the recommendation is do pass to Appropriations Committee. And with that sir, the floor is yours.

Thank you Mister Chair and Members. I will be present--I'm presenting 2816 on behalf of Assemblymember Gipson which seeks to establish school mapping technology for first responders on K-12 campuses. School mapping technology would allow emergency respondents to have access to a school's layout prior to entering the campus.

In 2023, there was reported 346 school shootings incidents across the US, injuring about 191 students. In California, there have been 96 school shooting incidents within the last five years, resulting in 82 people being wounded or killed. It is vital that we are supplying our first responders with the most advanced security systems that will not only decrease emergency response times, but re-emphasize the importance of student safety. AB 2816 has enjoyed bipartisan support and has received no no votes. With me today is Joe Hanson with the Critical Response Group to testify in support of the measure.

Okay, Mister Hanson. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee. As I said, my name is Joe Hanson. I want to thank the author, Mister Gipson, and his staff, as well as the staff of the Committee for allowing us to bring this forward today. A little about my background. I came from the special operations community, served 11 years, did four deployments. Now I specialize in communicating specifically at critical incidents and really, schools. I live in California, in Mammoth Lakes. I got two small children that will soon be enrolled in school, so this is something that's near and dear to my heart.

The challenges facing first responders when they arrive at a 911 call are many. In this time it's sensitive, it's dangerous. First responders often find themselves working with other departments that they rarely have contact with. They're expected to simply know how to get to the art room or the cafeteria, but we all know that these problems are complex and, under stress, extremely difficult. School blueprints or floor plans as they exist today--they're inaccurate and they're not designed for emergency response.

Additionally, they are inaccessible in the disparate software systems that first responders use, as well as school district software systems. Existing blueprints would often add confusion to an emergency scenario versus provide actionable information during that critical incident. From some after actions from both Uvalde and Sandy Hook, a direct quote from the after action report reads, "The schematic maps of the campus used by law enforcement to identify potential points of entry were inaccurate.

Law enforcement officers testified to the Investigative Committee that asked whether they would plan to gain access to the classroom through windows, but they were deterred by the inaccurate plans. In the case of Sandy Hook, when officers conducted initial and subsequent searches of the school, neither floor plans nor schematics of the school were readily accessible."

AB 2816 will allow companies in this industry to offer these mapping services to school districts and first responders, providing them with the necessary tools to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency; enhancing communication, saving time, and saving lives. I thank you again for your time, and I'm always reachable for questions in the future.

Great. Thank you so much. Anybody else here wishing to add me-too testimony and support? Seeing none. Anybody in the room in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee? No? Oh, wow. Got a new player. Congrats. And I know, Senator Ochoa Bogh, you've already seen this in education, so I think you had your questions answered, correct? We're good to go, then. So we have a motion. You may close.

Yes. Members, I had the opportunity to see a demo of the type of technology this is. It's very, very impressive. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. At this time, I reluctantly turn over the gavel to our esteemed chair, Senator Dodd.

No music?

We'll now move to file item number 12, AB 2802 Maienschein. Assemblymember, welcome. Good morning. Start when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair and members. I present here to present AB 2802, which seeks to create more gender inclusive options for housing arrangements within transitional housing placement, or THP programs. THP programs serve as a lifeline for current and former foster youth suffering from homelessness, offering them temporary relief and crucial support services tailored to their needs.

However, when implementing these programs, providers often encounter challenges in placing youth stemming from exclusionary and discriminatory practices present in certain counties. These challenges arise from rigid, binary, gender-based rules for housing arrangements. We must acknowledge the harsh realities faced by many transgender, gender, nonconforming, non-binary and intersex individuals in the state.

Currently, the designation of housing vacancies as male and female creates barriers for individuals, siblings and co-parenting youth who wish to live together but do not share the same gender identity.

AB 2802 aims to rectify these disparities by allowing foster youth in transitional housing to share rooms with roommates, siblings or co parents who do not share the same gender identity with the approval of the provider on a case-by-case basis.

By enabling siblings and co-parenting youth to room together, we strengthen bonds and provide a more supportive environment for those who need it most. This bill promotes flexibility and gendered identification for room assignments, accommodating the diverse needs of all California residents irrespective of their gender identity or expression. This upholds the values of compassion, inclusivity and equity.

By supporting the bill, we make a significant step towards creating a more just society where every individual, regardless of their gender identity, feels valued and supportive. I respectfully request and aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. We'll now move to any lead witnesses in support. Please come forward.

Good morning, Chair and members. Purva Bhattacharjee with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services here. We represent 165 nonprofit, community-based organizations which run transitional housing placement programs as well as other programs that serve current and former foster youth.

These programs help typically those over 18 years old of former and current foster youth to help them thrive into adulthood by providing necessary life skills training as well as housing. The California Alliance is proud to sponsor AB 2802, which allows for gender flexibilities in these THPs.

These programs serve a diverse population of youth, including LGBTQ youth, as well as pregnant and co-parenting youth. According to the National Foster Youth Institute, almost 60% of girls in foster care become pregnant by the age of 19.

Despite the unique needs of this population, some counties require participants to be of the same gender when sharing a unit together. This poses great difficulties for gender expansive youth, co parents who wish to raise a child together, and siblings who are of different genders.

This bill was inspired by Levon Yunez, a trans male and former foster youth who had to identify as female, his gender assigned at birth, and a THP to avoid homelessness.

By continuing to allow this discriminatory practice of not allowing providers to place participants together regardless of gender, siblings and co-parenting partners will also continue to be forced to separate and not allowed to live together simply because they are not of the same gender.

Thus, by implementing a policy statewide that allows for providers and participants to jointly decide on the best placement and roommate options for the youth on a case-by-case basis, regardless of gender, we will be able to better accommodate the needs for all foster youth in these programs.

For these reasons, the California alliance urges an aye vote on AB 2802. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support, state your name, your affiliation and position only, please. But you know that Holly.

I know that. I know the rules. Holly Fraumeni De Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the San Diego Housing Commission, in support.

Becca Kramer, matter on behalf of ACLU California Action and in support.

Nicole Wertleman on behalf of The Children's Partnership in support

Erin Taylor with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists in support.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition seeing none. I'll bring it back to dias here. Anybody wishing to comment on this? I'm not seeing any comments. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. When we get a - at some point today, we will get a quorum and we'll be voting on your bill. But thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to 14. All right. Okay, here's another. We'll now move to file item number 14, Assemblymember Rodriguez. Thank you for being patient.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2660 on behalf of the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management. As always, I appreciate your staff and the work on this bill. This bill is a win win for emergency management here in California.

Not only will it increase the capabilities of local emergency management programs, which are rooted in the communities they serve and tend to be more culturally competent, but by passing on grant match fund requirements, it also saves the state $12 million each year.

Specifically, this bill directs Cal OES to provide our local emergency management partners with the maximum amount of federal funds permitted under the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program. This bill enjoys bipartisan support and has no registered opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Is there anybody here wishing to testify in support? Seeing none. Anybody wishing to testify in opposition? Seeing nobody. We're moving back to the dais here. Senator Wilk?

I move it when appropriate.

Perfect. With that, Assembly Member, we will, as soon as we get a quorum, we'll be voting on your bill. Appreciate. Do you want to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now move to file item number 7, AB 1511. Assembly Member Santiago, welcome.

If I may, Mister Chair?

Please.

Yeah, thanks. This bill would establish the Diverse, Ethnic and Community Media Program for the governor in the Governor's Office of Community Partnership and Strategic Communication to assist state agencies and departments to maximize the use of ethnic and community outlets for advertising and outreach. This comes as an experience that we had during COVID but much needed even before then. And at that time, it exposed the effects and consequences that disparages access to public service information and critical resources and accelerated financial sustainability of these outlets.

I mean, bottom line is these were trusted community outlets or ethnic media that allowed us to communicate certain amounts of information. We want to take that and model it also, after what has been done in New York City, Chicago and Seattle to continue a program like this. This bill simply requires state agencies, departments that expend funds on advertising or outreach to direct 30% of its expenditures to ethnic and community media outlets beginning the year 2026 and increase annually 50% by 27-28.

We accept the Committee's amendments and we're grateful for them, as reflected in analysis, to provide greater flexibility to state agencies and departments. We got one witness with us, Arturo Carmona, who is the President of Latino Media Collaborative. If he may approach that would be okay with us.

Please, welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Arturo Carmona. I'm the President of Latino Media Collaborative. California's ethnic media sector includes roughly 300 media outlets that publish broadcast throughout California, serving at least 38 different ethnic, racial and cultural communities. As Assemblymember Santiago mentioned, they have a long history of being trusted community-specific sources of information.

The bill earmarks a baseline of funding to ensure that there's more equity in the way the state advertises, particularly with small and mid-sized outlets and rural outlets. The bill has enjoyed bipartisan support because it advances a common sense policy to set some ground rules for state agencies. We've had a mixed record agency to agency.

We've had some standout examples of agencies that have truly partnered with ethnic and community media, but others have fallen behind. A couple years ago, we passed a bill that required that the state track the way spending is happening with community outlets and media outlets across the state.

And it confirmed that we have a real challenge ensuring that ad resources are flowing to diverse state media outlets that communicate with our diverse population. And so, we want to set up a model in this state that prioritizes equity and prioritizes communicating with those hard to reach. And so, we are happy to report that, as the Assembly Member mentioned, we've taken a number of recommendations from stakeholders, agencies, administration to improve the bill. And with that, we ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Anybody else here in support? Come forward. State your name, organization and your position.

Hi, good morning. Esperanza Guevara on behalf of Caló News, the Managing Director for the organization, here in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Sanchez, California Advocacy. Here on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina de California, and also the Calexico Wellness Center in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis here on behalf of Comité Civico del Valle, Los Amigos de la Comunidad, Mexican American Opportunity Foundation, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Seeing none. We'll come back to the Committee--Subcommitee.

I'll move the bill when appropriate.

Very good. So would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote, Mister Chair, when you set Committee.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, well, now move to file item number 22, AB 3089. It's a Member, Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. But Senator Bradford will be presenting.

Is that a good idea?

Trying to help him, but this doesn't help him.

If we didn't have fun in here, we'd go crazy.

Senator.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm here to present AB 3089 on behalf of Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. 3089 is the California Apology Act for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity, with special consideration for African American slaves and their descendants. Mister Jones and I appreciate the work that this Committee has done.

In 2020, the California Assembly created the first in the Nation Task Force to study and develop reparations proposals with special consideration for African Americans. Mister Jones and I had the privilege of serving on that Committee for two years.

The task force heard countless hours of testimony and received thousands of pages of documents from state agencies, historians, economists, businesses, attorneys, professors, families, former slave owners, and the descendants of slaves and sharecroppers. Based on evidence, the task force issued its report, 1,100 pages.

A painstaking, staking recitation of the deplorable treatment of African American slaves and the ways in which California and the United States benefited from forced human slave labor, and how it continues to subjugate Black Californians today.

As required by statute, a task force was required to include in its findings how the State of California will offer a formal apology on behalf of the people of California for the perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity and African American slaves and descendants. This bill is the fulfillment of that charge.

3089 is the next step in the truth and reconciliation process. By offering a formal apology of past wrongs, California will join nine other states that have offered some form of apology for their role in slavery.

Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia have all enacted some form of apology for their role in the slave trade. Even though California entered the union as a free state in name only, they did everything that a slave state did. If you were brought here as a slave, you were treated as such.

If you gave birth, your child was born a slave, and if you ran away, we had a Fugitive Slave Act that returned you back to the state and plantation in which you escaped from. So, we had a hand in perpetrating the oppression of Black Californians.

This bill is an opportunity to confront those tough truths in a meaningful way. It's long past the time of the state to acknowledge its role and responsibilities for the atrocities that promoted and facilitated the institution of slavery.

State of California is and should continue to affirm its role in protecting and uplifting the descendants of enslaved people who have been harmed by the legacies of state sanctioned policies we continue to ignore. If we continue to ignore our past, we are doomed to repeat it. So, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Anybody wishing to testify in support, please come forward.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Try to do it faster for you.

Very good.

Samantha Johnson on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in support.

Natalie Nax on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support.

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

Andy Liebenbaum on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association in support.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition? Seeing nobody coming forward, we'll move to the subcommittee. Any questions or comments?

Just want to thank our good Senator for presenting this on behalf of our Assembly Member, Jones-Sawyer. And this is part of the UN process. First step is apology, and here we are grateful for your work and leadership, and I'm happy to move the bill when the time is right.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. We're still a subcommittee, and as soon as we get a quorum, we'll be voting on this. Would you like to close, Senator?

As stated, the first step in any healing process is first an apology. This begins that process of healing. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Before we move to the next... Well, we don't have an author here. We need Assembly Members Calderon, Lee, Quirk-Silva, and Wilk. Excuse me, Wicks. The C kind of looked like an L, but it was Assembly, so it's not a staff problem, it's a Chairman problem. Calderon, Lee, Quirk-Silva, and Wicks, would you please come and present your bills, please? Thank you.

It goes faster if you have a different Chair. No, that's not true. He moves it.

Also, we need three Senators to have a quorum so we can do this people's business. Please come down and establish quorum.

Assembly Members Calderon, Lee, Quirk-Silva, and Wicks, please come to the GO Committee hearing to present your bills.

We'll now move to file item number 23, AB 3150, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Good morning. Welcome.

Today I present Assembly Bill 3150, which strengthens the accuracy of California's fire hazard severity zone maps by allowing the state fire marshal to consider map revisions through a meet and confer process.

These maps evaluate hazard based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50 year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, defensible space, vegetation management, or fuel reduction efforts.

AB 3150 is a measure that establish a mechanism to update the fire hazard severity zone maps for 50 acres or more. Similar to the process used for flood map revisions, AB 3150 moves California towards a safer, more resilient future where everyone can live, work, and thrive.

With me today to provide testimony and support and to answer any questions is Mister Silvio Ferrari with the California Building Industry Association, CBIA, and sponsors of AB 3150.

Yeah, good morning, Mister Chair and members. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, here's a proud sponsor. Don't think I can say it much better than the author did.

And given the time and the pressure of the day, I think I would just say this is a really important bill to ensure that as we move forward, we are getting the best available data, science and what is actually happening on the ground to make sure we have accurate maps. So would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

And was also asked to say support for the California Business Properties Association.

Okay. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the County of Kern, in support. Thank you.

Anybody in opposition?

Hi; Natalie Knacks on behalf of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District and regretful opposition.

Okay. Seeing nobody else coming forward, I'll turn it to the subcommitee. Any questions? Comments? Senator Seyarto.

No, this is a good bill. What's happening a lot in, especially districts that have large brush areas that have traditionally been very high hazard areas, actually, some of those are being replaced by neighborhoods. And the only map that, the map that shows that it's a high hazard area is now actually underneath the neighborhood itself.

And so, it is not, in fact, a high hazard neighborhood. And they can't get a new map in a timely fashion so that they can get the insurance needed to be able to get a mortgage.

So, this is hampering our ability, a lot of people's ability to get their house and in a timely fashion, it's slowing down the housing industry and for no real good reason other than we're just not updating our maps fast enough. Your bill appears, I think we heard it before, it appears to be able to address that.

And so, I appreciate you tackling this and because if somebody from a region out where we don't have that brush, does it, people don't understand as well. I guess they think it's selfish. But no, you're from a region that isn't as impacted.

But certainly, this is a good bill, and so we'll be supporting it someday when we do have a quorum, I'd be more than happy to move it.

Comment, please, Chuck?

Please.

Please.

Assemblymember Cork Savile, thank you for bringing this forward. Often I hear from my constituents, how are we going to solve the insurance crisis in California? And your Bill really does emphasize that multi pronged approach.

We have so much liability right now in our state around catastrophic loss when it comes to wildfires and property and businesses and I think your bill, I just want to appreciate you looking at it from another lens and helping us to right size and bring existing laws up to date so that all of the homeowners and property owners that are doing everything they can to build defensible space can have that recognized in legislation as well.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator. Anybody else? We are in need of one senator to come down here and we may have a quorum. So, when we have a quorum we will take Senator Seyarto's motion, make it, enshrine it. And would you like to close?

I would. I do appreciate the comments, especially from our favorite fire expert. And with that I respectfully ask for a aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are in need of an Assembly author, Calderon, Lee, or Wicks. Please come to room 1200.

I'm texting Archuleta right now.

Who else should text?

If only every Committee was sitting there and waiting for me to arrive.

Okay, now we're going to move to file item number 24, AB 3211. Assembly Member Wicks, good morning. Welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members. Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm here to present AB 3211, the California Providence Authenticity and Watermarking Standards Act. That is a mouthful. First, I give my thanks to the committee staff, the hard-working committee staff, for their engagement and willingness to work with our office on such a tight timeline.

And I'm and I commit that my office will continue to work with your staff should the bill move forward to the Appropriations Committee.

Faced with a newly chaotic media landscape made up of generative AI and substantially modified content alongside human-generated content, real photographs, video, and audio, it has become increasingly difficult to know what to trust, what is real, and what is fake. Undressing apps are rampant now.

They allow a user to pay $1 and spend less than 20 minutes to create convincing, deepfake, non-consensual pornographic imagery. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable and have experienced harms in at least three of California's middle and high schools.

We also obviously have the issue around elections and integrity and ensuring that what candidates are saying is actually real, and that as constituents see that content, they know if it is real or if it is fake. So, we, as policymakers, need to ensure that our media consumers are able to discern what is real from what is fake.

AB 3211 presents three ways to do this. One, require all content from GenAI, as they say, to be labeled as synthetic. Two, require all content from recording devices to be labeled as non-synthetic, and three, require all online platforms to display these labels.

Digimark, a world leader in financial and data security, is already providing these technologies, and large language model developers like OpenAI and Google are beta-testing these technologies with general users. We need to ensure that we don't let another technology run rampant and hurt our kids, and we need to provide much-needed guardrails.

This bill has bipartisan support through the Assembly process, and we continue to work collaboratively on amendments with stakeholders including Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, Adobe, and many others. And I'll say, before we get to my witnesses, I have like aggressively sought out opposition to come meet with our office industry.

We've met with a lot of the different big tech companies. I want to create a bill that actually can be implemented that can be useful working with industry. We continue to have those conversations. When you're regulating, as you all know, particularly in the tech space, it's very technical and it's hard and it's thorny.

And so, from my perspective, I really need to have industry at the table to try to create something that can be achievable. We're also very mindful of the EU's regulations, the fact that the Federal Government is putting forth different ideas, the fact that other states are putting forth ideas as well.

So, conformity around timelines of implementation has been really important to make it easier for the companies to implement, as well as definitions and making sure we're trying to be as mindful as we can.

Senator Umberg had the bill before, and his committee, he provided, I think, some useful amendments to that effect around the idea of conformity, so that we're all trying to sort of point our row the boat in the same direction, so to speak, around the regulation. But I do believe this bill will represent something that is achievable.

It's sort of the lowest hanging fruit I see around AI regulation, and I think we need to approach AI regulation to have the right guardrails, but still allow for the innovation and all the economic growth that comes from that. And I think that's really important, especially here in California.

So, with that, we have David Harris, Professor with the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, testifying, as well as Ken Wing. Both are our sponsor groups from CITD, and so I will allow them to testify.

Could you hold one second, please? Sorry to have to do this, but we're going to establish a long-needed quorum here.

Oh, you're just establishing quorum?

With two more bills left.

[Roll call]

You know, I would like to take the privilege of being the chair to congratulate Senator Glazer for the first time that he has been in the room to establish a quorum on this Committee this year. You're amazing. Thank you very much. Sir, now that we've gotten that out of the way, welcome.

Is this mic on? Perfect. Good morning, chair Members. My name is Ken Wang, and I'm the senior policy advocate with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, or CITD for short.

We're proud to sponsor AB 3211, which would require watermarking and provenance data for content generated by generative AI systems. CITD came together to seek state-level solutions to the threat that disinformation, artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and other emerging technologies pose to our democracy and our elections.

We approach these issues through a cross-disciplinary approach advised by leaders from civil rights and civic engagement, law and public policy, industry and tech, and more. To that end, CITD is proud to sponsor AB 3211, which would add an important tool to our arsenal to help stem the tide of AI-generated disinformation.

It is no secret that we are all witnessing a rapid erosion of trust in our civic institutions and in our information ecosystem. Without a thoughtful policy intervention, generative AI has the potential to supercharge this truth decay. Various efforts have been initiated, as the Assembly Member mentioned in the EU AI Act, and locally or federally.

The Biden Administration's executive order also tasked Department of Commerce to develop guidance for content authentication. CITD believes that California has the opportunity, as the home of Silicon Valley in the heartland of AI innovation, to lead the U.S. response to these threats. AB 3211 represents an important first step for our state to shape the solution.

We're looking forward to the continuing and thoughtful dialogue that we've had with stakeholders in opposition, and we would like to thank Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership on this issue and for the committee staff for working with us as we continue to reflect.

And with that, I'll turn it over to CITD Senior Policy Advisor David Harris to walk through the technical aspects of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Dodd and Members of the Committee. It's an honor to be able to speak with you about AB 3211, the California provenance, authenticity, and watermarking standards.

My name is David Harris, and I'm here today in my capacity as Senior Policy Advisor to CITD. AI is a powerful tool that can bring great benefits to people, but if not governed judiciously, it can cause great harm. You've already heard from Assembly Member Wicks about the dangers of non-consensual intimate imagery and election deep fakes.

AI is particularly powerful in the area of misinformation campaigns. It can supercharge these efforts. We're already familiar with this because of the Russian efforts in 2016 to undermine the U.S. elections, and we've already been warned by the Department of Homeland Security that China, Russia, and North Korea are already making plans to interfere in the 2024 U.S. Election.

Watermarking is the best tool available to allow us to identify what content is produced by AI and what content is authentic. AB 3211 requires that tech companies, AI companies in particular, make good on promises that they've already made to add watermarking to their AI systems.

These promises were first made in the White House voluntary AI commitments almost a year ago. They were made again at the Munich Security Conference's AI election accord in February of this year. Yet the companies making AI tools have failed to deliver in a serious way on these promises.

Now, counter to statements from the opposition, we know that this bill's requirements are not impossible to comply with.

Compliance can't be impossible because the tech has already been deployed by Google just over a month ago now, any AI-generated audio, images, video, and text from Google's generative AI systems are watermarked, and if they work as advertised, they're very likely to already be compliant with AB 3211.

Given that it's already been almost a year since the White House AI commitments were made and we've seen little progress, I see no other option than to legally compel the AI companies of the world operating here in California to add watermarks and provenance information to their generative AI content. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in support please come forward.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Anybody in opposition?

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Technet we are respectfully opposed to AB 3211. We fully agree with the intent to create greater trust in user-generated content online by fostering the adoption of content provenance, verifications, and watermarks.

And just to very quickly say we've also supported efforts to address some of the more concerning and dangerous use cases of AI. We've supported bills to criminalize the use of AI to generate child pornography, as well as deepfake election content, and fully agree with the author's intents to go after some of those more dangerous.

And certainly, watermarking plays a role in preventing those. But just want to also say we've tried to address those issues as well, head on, and we greatly appreciate the author's willingness to work with us, our member companies, our organizations in opposition, and we fully commit to continue to do so.

I believe the bill still has a number of issues to continue working out. I want to just very quickly address a couple in the time I have. So first, we would prefer to have a federal standard. I think that should come as no surprise, understand the need to sort of address some of these standards in state law.

However, the Federal Government is moving forward. A lot of non-governmental entities, the EU, are also moving forward. So, there will be a lot to learn from some of those other efforts that will be pertinent to this, and then also want to just highlight that the reliability of this technology sort of exists on a spectrum currently.

The proponents are 100% right. Much of this technology does exist. Many of my companies are moving forward in their efforts to roll out watermark technology and detection tools, but in various forms of unreliability. So, researchers are still able to break many of the most common forms of watermarking.

They're able to insert fake watermarks into genuine authentic content as well. And even for some of the largest companies, they have success rates that when sort of extrapolated across the volume of content on their platforms, would result in millions of mistakes sort of across their platform.

So, we want to continue working to ensure that this is something that we can implement. Appreciate the author's willingness to meet with us, but at this time, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, associate our comments with Technet, and if I may, colleague stuck over in Senate Judiciary, Computer and Communications Industry Association in opposition.

Morning, Mister Chairman. Members. Carl London here on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America. We're not a full-blown opposition to this. We are concerned about some of the provisions of this bill.

The interaction, as was noted by the analysis with the provisions of other bills, there seem to be some counter objectives, some that seek to regulate, some that seek to have full transparency. We're going to have to reconcile these bills out. It's well noted. And we've had a productive conversation with the author. We hope to continue that over the recess. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Estrada with the Motion Picture Association. We're in a tweener position. We appreciate the author and staff for working with us to clarify that the bill is not intended to apply to the motion picture and entertainment industry. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that's the end of public comment, so we'll move back to the Committee. Anybody wishing to address the bill? Senator Glazer.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Chair Dodd, you run a really impressive committee and I think that's why some of us feel we don't have to be here all the time. Congratulations.

I knew that was coming.

Assemblywoman I want to just say thank you for your leadership in this space. It has a lot of us worried and distressed. I thought that the muted opposition that we hear today is, I think, an indication of your hard work to try to find that balance in a new space with new technology.

I know that it's something that you'll continue to work on if the bill moves forward today and I'm happy to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

I also want to just thank the author for her hard work on this and particularly the negotiations. So much is riding on this, the safety of our democracy, as was stated by some of the witnesses. So, I'm looking forward to what comes after summer, and I'm ready to support the bill when, when the time is right.

Thank you. I'd like to thank the author for highlighting this important issue and for attempting to address one of the most pressing and concerning negative consequences of generative AI. I'd also like to recognize that this bill is a work in progress, as we've heard.

But given the tight legislative timeline and the ongoing negotiations between the author, opponents and committees, I'm confident that I can support the bill today knowing that if the bill reaches the Floor, many of the issues that have been raised today will be addressed.

And I trust and know that there's no one better than this author right here to work through the details and ultimately get the policy right. I'm certain that all parties will continue to discuss in good faith and keep the Committee in the loop. And with that Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Appreciate the vote of confidence. I will do my best not to disappoint that. And we have, we're in the middle of a lot of negotiations with both the trade groups as well as specific individual companies, and we will continue to do that.

Want to again put something on the Floor of the Senate that is workable, that can be implemented, and that provides, I think, the necessary guardrails that I think we all know we need. So, with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, I thinking that that Senator Smallwood Cuevas, that that was a motion. Oh, Glazer made the motion. See? So, the bill has been moved by Senator Glazer. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call] Six to one.

Six to one.

Thank you.

So put that on call. Why don't we run through the while we're waiting for two Bill authors, we're still waiting for Assembly Members Lee and Calderon. We'd like to finish our business today, but we'll go through the.

Mister chair, can I make the motion for the consent calendar?

You can. Motion made by Senator, will, can we call the roll on the consent?

I think we. I didn't announce them when I was chairing, so you probably need to announce them.

Okay. File item. Thank you. File item number 10. SB. Excuse me. AB 2174. Aguiar- Curry 13. AB 2322. Hart. AB 2777. That's item number 15. Item number 18. AB 2991. Valencia. And item number 20. AB 3025.

We have a motion by 3027 by Assemblymember Baines. We have a motion by Senator Wilk. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That is 10 votes. We will put that on call. Yes, we'll lift the calls now.

Good call. So now we'll open the roll on file item number one AB 1768 Geo Committee. We need a motion there. Archuleta had the motion, and so we'll. Secretary, please open the roll.

AB 1768 motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

10. Bill has 10 votes. The bill will remain on call. We have file item number two. AB 1135. Archuleta makes the motion. Archuleta made the motion. Secretary, please open the roll.

AB 1135. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Continue through this. What?

Yeah, let's keep going.

All right, so you mean with her now or just do this? Okay, so that was nine to one that bill's on call. We'll now open file item three. AB 2375. We need a motion. Motion. Motion. Archuleta. Secretary, please open the roll.

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

That bill has 10, but bill's on call. We'll open up file item number 4, 2389 Lowenthal Archuleta made the motion. Secretary, please open the roll.

AB 2389. Lowenthal motion is you pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

And we'll put that on call. We'll open up file item number five, AB 2402. Lowenthal Archuleta has made the motion. Secretary, please open the roll.

AB 2402. Lowenthal motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

We'll put that on call now. Move to file item number six. AB 1296 Assemblymember Grayson, Archuleta made the motion. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is do pass to Environmental Quality Committee. [Roll Call]

Bill has 12 votes. We'll put that on call. Move to file item number 7, 1511. Santiago, Wilks makes the motion. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to Appropriations Committee [Roll Call]

Item Seven

File item number seven.

[Roll Call].

What is that?

That's 10 to 2.

10 to 2, that bill is on call. We're going to move to file item number 16. That's AB 3193, Assembly Member Calderon. Thank you for your patience and waiting for us to go as we went through that. Please proceed. It's still morning. Good morning.

All right. Thank you. That's better. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I want to thank your staff for working with my staff on this bill, and I will be accepting all the committee amendments.

Thank you.

AB 3193 would authorize the Department of Rehabilitation to award contracts for assistive technology without competition or advertising if the value of the purchase is less than $25,000. Assistive technologies can fundamentally improve the quality of life for a person with disabilities.

They can range for something as simple as a wheelchair to a more complex technology, such as a speech recognition software. There's a lack of vendors for several of these types of technologies, and for decades, the state has struggled to obtain sufficient bids for a competitive process to take place.

This has resulted in delayed purchases, which impacts the Californians who rely on these devices and need them most. AB 3193 ensures that assistive technology devices and services are procured in a timely manner. Here with me today speaking in support of AB 3193 are Jeff Thom and Patricia Leetz on behalf of the California Council of the Blind.

I also would like to thank them for their patience all day and waiting here as during this busy time of year. Good morning. Welcome.

Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jeff Thom, Director of Governmental Affairs for the California Council of the Blind. I'll try not to repeat what, for the sake of time, Assemblywoman Calderon has already said, I merely want to highlight three reasons why, after decades of trying to negotiate a workable solution, there is still a problem with the Department of Rehabilitation providing goods and services needed for employment in a timely manner while still complying with the state's competitive bidding model overseen by the Department of General Services.

First, as was said, there are very few vendors, often merely one or two vendors, in the entire state, for many of the items to be purchased. Secondly, the bids are often needed to be very complex in nature to meet the specific and detailed needs of an individual with a disability. No two people with disabilities are necessarily exactly alike in the needs that they have for employment.

Finally, if bids are not made in a timely manner, unlike paper or desks or things like that, a person can miss a year of school, a job offer, or even if they are able to get a job, they may not be able to perform the job duties, and therefore lose it. Thus, I ask this committee to pass AB 3193, enable more people to be employed, to live independently, and pay taxes. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, all. Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee. My name is Patricia Leetz, and I worked at the Department of Rehabilitation, and I worked there for over 20 years, and I was a vocational counselor and then a supervisor. And my job was basically to help people who are blind to be employed throughout that time. And over that time, there had always been this cumbersome procurement process, and it had led to delays in us getting people's assistive technology for them to go to school and work in a timely manner.

And yes, the competitive bids were very cumbersome and challenging to obtain, and yes, even the under 10,000, fair and reasonable. Those methods were actually very cumbersome and challenging as well. With all of that, I urge your support of this bill today. The clients deserve a system that's designed to work in their favor so they can be employed.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Anybody in opposition? Oh, there is one more. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Welcome.

Am I right? Is this it?

Can somebody help her? Maybe put the mic down.

Okay. My name is Regina Brink, and as a client who has benefited from Department of Rehabilitation services and lost a job because of the lack of ability to purchase the equipment in a timely manner, I'm in support.

Thank you very much. I didn't see anybody else. And nobody in opposition, so we're going to turn it back. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Anybody want to make a comment or a question? Seeing none, would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Yes. Again, I just want to thank your staff for helping us work through this bill. Really, really appreciate them. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion on 3193, Archuleta. The motion is do pass is amended to Human Services Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 11 votes. We will put that on call, and we are going to call up now Assemblymember Lee for file item number 21. AB 3031. Good morning and welcome morning.

Thank you, Mister chair and Senators, I want to start by thanking your Committee staff for working with my office on the bill. And as noted in the Committee analysis, I accepted the amendments from the prior Committee.

The bill creates the LGBTQ Commission in state government to serve as a state level focal point for a wide range of issues facing the LGBTQ community and will serve as a valuable voice for Legislature to consider policies that impact our state with the amendments.

The bill is modeled after existing commissions, particularly the Commission on the Status of women and girls. And in support today, I have Craig Pulsipher with Equality California, who I'm testifying in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor.

As you all know, because of the work of this Legislature, California has been a nationwide leader in the fight for LGBTQ civil rights, passing laws to protect and improve access to gender affirming care, create safe and supportive schools for LGBTQ students, and establish some of the strongest non discrimination protections in the country.

But even with this progress, our community continues to face significant challenges. Just last week, the California Department of Justice released its second annual State of Pride report showing that hate crimes and violence against LGBTQ people are on the rise, with 151 hate crimes motivated by anti LGBTQ bias between 2022 and 2023, an increase of 86.4%.

LGBTQ young people, in particular also continue to face significant challenges, including higher levels of depression, anxiety, and suicide. And at the same time, there have been growing attacks on our community nationwide with over 500 anti LGBTQ bills introduced across the nation this year alone.

The establishment of a statewide LGBTQ Commission is not only an important demonstration of the state's commitment to LGBTQ Californians, but it will also have enormous tangible benefits.

Similar to the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, the Commission will empower our community with independent representation to advise the Governor and Legislature on policy and assist lawmakers in implementing supportive policies and programs. And we believe this is an important and timely measure to elevate and address the unique challenges facing LGBTQ people.

And I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in support, please come forward.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Erin Taylor, with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, as well as the California Dental Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Anybody in opposition? Seeing none, come back to the Committee. We have a motion by Senator Padilla. Where are we here? Assemblymember just wanted. You already said that you would take the amendments. We have a motion. And would you like to close?

In recognition of pride month, respectfully ask your aye vote.

Fantastic. Thanks, Assemblymember. So we. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. Put that on call.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Who's not here? All right. Yeah. Where's Port? So we don't have to worry about him or Jones. So who do we have to worry about now? Who else is not here? But they voted on a number of them, I think. Okay, so we'll start out. Secretary, please open the roll on the consent calendar.

Absent Members. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Portantino. Rubio. Aye. Seyarto. Aye. Yeah.

14. That consent calendar is out. Now we'll move to file item number 1, AB 1768. Open the roll.

Absent Members. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Portantino. Rubio. Aye. Seyarto. Aye. That's 14.

14. Close it.

Yes.

Bill's out. Move to file item number 2, AB 1135 Lowenthal. Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Nguyen. Portantino. Seyarto. No.

11-2. That bill will be on call. File item number 3, AB 2375. Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members. Alvarado-Gil. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Portantino. Seyarto. Aye.

13. Keep that on call. File item number 4, AB 2389.

Do you want to close that one? You could close item--

Okay, back to AB 2375. That bill's out. Excuse me.

Item 4.

Item 4, 2389 Lowenthal. Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members. Alvarado-Gil. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. So we need Smallwood-Cuevas on that.

It's 12. That bill's on call. File item number 5, AB 2402.

Absent Members. Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Bill has 13. Bill's on call. File item number 16--excuse me--6. I wish it was 16. AB 1296.

Absent Members. Ashby. Aye. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Bill has 13. Bill's on call. File item number 7, AB 1511 Santiago.

Absent Members. Ashby. Aye. Jones. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. Seyarto. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Bill has 10 and the bill is on call. Item number 8, 1635 Ward.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Still has 11-2. The bill is on call. File item number 9, AB 2832 Ward.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Still 13. Next one's the same, too.

Just out of curiosity, are there any--Ashby. Basically what I'm interested in is that anybody that's here have any bills left over so we're not going through them all? Which one?

I don't know if I missed them while I left.

Yeah, we still got to go to the Lee. No, 21. You're right. So what else is new? So what else is new? So we'll go to file item number 21. That's AB 3031 Lee. 21. It's open.

Item--absent Members. Wilk. Bradford. Aye. Jones. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. Seyarto. Smallwood-Cuevas.

That's a Commission Bill LGBT--

Item 21. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. So it's 10-0. That's closed.

10-0. That bill is out. Okay, we're gonna go back to the top. No, we're--which--file item number 3? What's the--what I want to do is go through the open items.

Item 2.

Okay. Item 2, 1135. Secretary, open the roll.

Absent Members. Jones. Nguyen. Portantino. 11-2.

That bill's out 11-2.

Item 4.

Item 4, 2389. Open the roll.

Absent Members. Alvarado-Gil. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. That's 13-0. It's out.

13-0. That goes out.

Item 5, AB 2402. Absent Members--Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. 14-0.

14-0. That bill is out. Number 6, 1296 Grayson. Secretary, open the roll.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

14-0. That bill is out. File item 7, 1511. Open the roll.

Absent Members. Jones. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. Seyarto. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

11-0. That bill is out. File item number 8, 1635 Ward. Open the roll.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

12-2. That bill is out. File item number 9, 2832.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

14-0. That bill is out.

Item 11.

Item 11.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas.

14-0. That bill is out. File item number 12.

Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Item 12, AB 2802. Absent Members. Wilk. Jones. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

10-2. That bill is out. File item number 14. Secretary, open the roll.

AB 2660. Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

14-0. That bill is out. 16.

AB 3193. Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Seyarto. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

12-0. That bill is out. Item 17. Open the roll.

AB 2816. Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas.

13-0. That bill is out. 19. Open the roll.

Item 19, AB 3006. Absent Members. Jones. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

11-2. That bill is out. 21. Please open the roll.

22.

Excuse me, 22.

AB 3089. Absent Members. Jones. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. Seyarto. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

11-0. Thank you. 11-0. That bill is out. 23, 3150. Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members. Jones. Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye.

14-0. That bill is out.

24.

File item number 24, AB 3211. Open the roll.

Absent Members. Jones. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Portantino. And we're good. 10-2.

10-2. That bill is out. That concludes the business for the day. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization is going to be adjourned after I thank our great staff and everybody in the room that's helped facilitate this. This is our last Committee hearing other than a compact of the year. Appreciate all the great work that you've done all of the years that I've been chair of this Committee. I want to thank you all very, very much. This meeting is adjourned.