Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good morning. We're holding this Committee hearing in room 112 of the Capitol building. I ask that all Members of our Committee be present as soon as possible in room 112 so we can establish a quorum.

Before we begin presentation on today's bills, I'm going to announce the ground rules as well as the bills that are on consent. So the ground rules for all bills today except one, and I'll speak to that in just a second, are that each side will have four minutes. The two witnesses divided two minutes for each witness.

So first we'll take the support, the two support witnesses. If there are two support witnesses, each will be given two minutes and then we'll have the me too presentations. In other words, folks can approach the microphone, tell us what their name is, their position, and their affiliation, then we'll turn the opposition.

Opposition will have exactly the same time, two minutes for each witness, total of four minutes, and then me too testimony, name, position, affiliation. So there's one exception at 130. Today we're going to have special order business. On AB eight. On AB 886, the rules are a little different.

On AB 886, there will be six minutes for each side may be divided between 2 and 3 witnesses, no more than three witnesses, and then we'll turn to support and opposition. Let me announce the bills that are on consent today. They are as follows. File I'm number two, AB 1861 by Assemblymember Addis.

File number 13, AB 2929 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo with amendments, file number 15, AB 2908 by Assemblymember Chen. File number 20, AB 2867 by Assembly Member Gabriel with amendments, phylum number 27, AB 672 by Assembly Member Jackson. File item number 31, AB 3100 by Assembly Member Low. File Item number 34, AB 3013 by Assemblymember Maienschein.

File item number 35, AB 960 by Assembly Member Mathis with amendments, File item number 36, AB 2988 by Assemblymember Mccarty. File number 38, AB 2283 by Assembly Member Pacheco. File number 40, AB 2859 by Assembly Member Patterson with amendments, file number 42, AB 1505 by Assembly Member Rodriguez.

And finally, file number 47, AB 1170 by Assemblymember Valencia. All right, I see Assemblymember Arambula here, Doctor Arambula. We have is item number four, AB 2543. Floor is yours. We're going to be proceeding as a Subcommitee for Members who are presenting will be a Subcommitee.

So I suspect that bills that will be moved will be moved at a point in time when we have a quorum.

Thank you Mister chair. All small business owners should have the same access to opportunity in California's economy. When small businesses thrive in California, California thrives Assembly Bill 2543 ensures that eligible business owners, including DACA entrepreneurs, are able to register their businesses with the state as a certified small business, regardless of their immigration status.

In recognition of the importance of small business, California established a certified small business program.

A small business which is certified under this program is eligible for a number of benefits such as bidding preferences, prompt payment of state contracts, as well as small business qualifiers for prime contractors, which are required to subcontract with a specified percentage of small businesses.

Despite their importance to local communities and their economic contribution to the state, many small businesses are unable to access these benefits of the small business certification program. These businesses offer the same products and services as other certified businesses.

However, some small business owners may not have proof of lawful status in this country, even when the Federal Government has issued them an employer identification number. This prevents them from accessing the benefits of small business certification and restricts their ability to expand and to continue to help the state's economy grow.

Assembly Bill 2543 simply states that eligible small businesses may be certified regardless of their citizenship or immigration status of its owner. Federal and state law already authorized these business owners to be in business. It is time for us to ensure that these business owners can thrive and expand.

Testifying in support of Assembly Bill 2543 is Alejandra Guillen with Immigrants Rising and Janet Esparza, who's a small business owner.

Alrighty. Thank you. First witness, please.

Good morning. My name is Alejandra Guillen. I'm the Deputy Director at Immigrants Rising and I'm here to support immigrants Rising's wholehearted support of Bill 25 AB 2543. Immigrants Rising was established in 2006 and has been dedicated to empowering undocumented people to achieve their educational and career aspirations.

We firmly believe that regardless of immigration status, everyone has the potential to thrive through entrepreneurship. Over the past decade, we've developed programs and resources to educate and empower immigrant communities about entrepreneurship opportunities. Our efforts have yielded tangible results.

We were honored to have received $7.4 million through the state's seed initiative, which we distributed to nearly 1000 immigrant entrepreneurs statewide. This investment has enabled individuals to climb the economic ladder and contribute significantly to California's economy.

Research underscores that immigrants are more inclined towards entrepreneurship, and through our work, we've witnessed firsthand how entrepreneurship serves as a lifeline, particularly for undocumented students for whom face employment limitations post graduation. AB 2543 aligns with our mission and values and by expanding business opportunities through individuals, we support.

This bill not only fosters economic growth, but also promotes inclusivity and equity within our state. So, in conclusion, we are due to support AB 2543 and let's ensure that individuals, regardless of immigration status, are able to contribute to California's prosperity. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good morning. My name is Janet Esparza, and I'm here today to advocate for the passing of AB 2543. I am the proud owner of the residential cleaning business which I established two years ago. Through dedication, my business has flourished, now serving a total of 60 regular clients and accommodating another 70 clients monthly.

This success has empowered me to provide for the family and contribute to my community. During the pandemic, I found myself laid out from a stable job. After dedicating 13 years of my life. That didn't stop me, I seized the opportunity and started my business.

The seat grant provided by immigrant racing was instrumentally helping me with the necessary resources and knowledge to navigate the difficulties of starting a business. With the new skills in business management, I transformed my business into thriving source of income for my family and myself. Today, I provide employment opportunities for others within my community.

I also actively engage in expanding my business operation to include commercial cleaning services. I am excited to offer my services to governmental agencies. This helps create partnership that benefits everyone and make our society better. AB 2543 is not just a bill. It's a pathway to inclusivity and economic empowerment for individuals like myself who may be undocumented.

By granting this access to state certification for all deserving entrepreneurs, regardless of immigrant status, this Bill levels a playing field and opens doors to an opportunity. In conclusion, I urge you to support AB 2543. It will help people like me to try and ensure we contribute to California prosperity. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Thank you. Others in support, please give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good morning. Daniel Sanchez, California Advocacy on behalf of Cheerla and support. Thank you.

Good morning, Committee Members. Jesus Martinez, Executive Director of the Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative. We have been supporting immigrant entrepreneurship since 2020 with a new program that we established, helping helping immigrants establish the business and grow it worse.

Are you in support?

Yes, I'm in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. All right.

Hello. Good morning on behalf of Folsom Lake College in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in support. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2543 please approach seeing no one approaches the microphone. Let's bring it back to Committee. Committee Members, by the way, we have 50%.

Once more, we have 50% of the Republican component to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we have about 10% of the democratic component. So if you're opposed, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. All right, any questions? Comments? Senator Niello.

I'd just like to point out that I understand the positive nature of this proposal, but each contract is a sum zero game. You either get it or you don't. And to the extent that we advantage immigrant businesses and an immigrant business gets a contract, a domestically owned business does not, it's a sum zero game.

And that's the concern that I have. It's a further encouragement for immigration when I'm not sure that encouraging immigration serves us well and it takes away from businesses owned by the citizens of California. So I think it's just important to acknowledge that the sum zero game aspect of this.

Thank you, Senator Niello. All right, so no other questions or comments. Doctor Rambulla would like to close.

Thank you, Mister chair, for the opportunity to present today, immigrants play a major role in entrepreneurship in our great state, and their contribution to our economy, their ability to continue to evolve and ensure that their businesses are thriving, is something that we as a state should continue to celebrate and push forward.

I'm excited that this bill has an opportunity for us to certify small businesses with the state that will allow their small businesses to thrive. All small business owners, regardless of their immigration status, should have the same access to opportunity in our state that ultimately will benefit our state and our economy.

And with that, when the time is appropriate, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right, thank you. We are a Subcommitee. At the appropriate time, I expect there will be a motion. All right, now we're going to turn to Senator Dodd for file item number 50, SB 1524. After Senator Dodd, then we will move to file item number three, AB 2586, by Senate Member Alvarez who I see as present. Senator Dodd.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 1524 addresses questions and unintended consequences surrounding SB 478, legislation I authored to address the deceptive advertising practice of drip pricing or hidden fees.

SB 1524 would require clear and conspicuous disclosure of all mandatory fees for food or beverage sold directly to a consumer in a restaurant, food bar, food concession, cater, or grocery store, or by grocery delivery service.

This clear and upfront disclosure of any fee and a description of its purpose would be required on all advertisements, menus, and other displays that contain the price of the food or beverage item.

This measure is enjoyed unanimous bipartisan support, and recent amendment amendments were directly responsive to the concerns from consumer groups by narrowing applicability and strengthening transparency and disclosure requirements in advertising in the food and service industry. I have two witnesses here today, John Ross, on behalf of California Restaurant Association, and Shane Gusman, on behalf of Unite Here.

All right, thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Shane Gusman, on behalf of Unite Here. I'll be very brief. Our support of this Bill is critical because, as Senator Dodd said, there were some unintended consequences with SB 478, we negotiate various service charges with our employers that provide benefits like, obviously, higher wages, but healthcare supplements and pension supplements.

So without this Bill on July 1, those things become illegal and our Members take immediate cuts to pay and benefits. So this Bill is very necessary and critical, and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Mister Gusman. Mr. Ross.

Good morning. John Ross on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, our thanks to Senator Dodd for carrying this measure and for this Committee taking us on short order. It's critical that this gets done by July 1.

There's major disruptions to restaurants throughout the state that are being avoided by passing this measure, and we appreciate the Legislature's time and consideration. I ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty, thank you. Anyone else in support of SB 1524, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Mr. Chair and Members, Don Gilbert for San Francisco International Airport in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, as a proud sponsor, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Obed Franco on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Beverly Yu on behalf of OpenTable in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone.

Mister Chair and Members, Chris Walker on behalf of the California Craft Brewers Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no else approaching, let's turn now to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB-

-We have one more.

Okay. If you're in support, please approach the microphone. We're going to turn to opposition in just a second.

Hi, Leticia Reyes for San Jose Airport in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approaching the microphone in support--except for one more person. Go ahead.

So sorry, Mister Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

All right, now, seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1524, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, I'm going to bring it back to Committee for questions by Committee Members. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing no questions by Committee Members. Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. It was an excellent close. So at such time, as we have a quorum, I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd.

Appreciate it.

All right, next we're going to turn to file number 3, AB 2586. Assembly Member Alvarez, floor is yours.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to bring AB 2586 to you for your consideration. I want to start off by sharing with you how I got to this bill and why this is so significant for me and many individuals in the state like me.

As a son of immigrant parents who came to this country and to this state to find better opportunities, the people in my family were the first dreamers that I ever knew. I know the struggles that many mixed status families and non-citizens go through. It's not easy, even when you are working as hard as you can. California's commitment to higher education means that we have invested in access, opportunity, affordability, equity, and success of all of our students, all of our young people.

Yet thousands of students face unjust barriers, unable to secure on-campus jobs due to their immigration status, which significantly impacts their ability to make payments towards their tuition, supplies, housing, and other basic needs. We also know that Congress, time after time, has failed our Dreamers. California is home to about 83,000 undocumented students.

However, the number of DACA-eligible students on campuses has consistently decreased as court restrictions and eligibility criteria has narrowed the access for future generations. That is why the undocumented student-led network's bravery to fight for change inspired me to introduce this true student-led legislation.

AB 2586 is the Opportunity For All Bill, which provides equal access to campus employment for all students while they're earning their degrees, regardless of their immigration status, on the campus of the University of California, California State University and the California community colleges. This bill allows students to be in the applicant pool and levels the playing field for employment opportunities. California colleges and universities have the legal authority to authorize the hiring of all of its undocumented students and graduates today.

Legal experts at the Center for Immigration Law Policy and the UCLA School of Law have identified that the federal prohibition on hiring undocumented people does not include state entities like the University of California, the California State University, and California community colleges. It is an argument that is supported by dozens of the nation's leading legal scholars.

Because the University of California, the CSU, and the community colleges are arms of the state, they face no legal restriction on hiring undocumented workers if you reference the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act. Undocumented immigrants pay both state and federal taxes without getting much of the benefits of social programs that they are helping to fund with their hard-earned dollars. When more people can work and contribute to the state economy, we all benefit.

Today we are going to be hearing from two witnesses who are students that are going to share their story with you of why this bill is important. These students are the students who have been vetted by our academic institutions, who did the work to get accepted into these institutions. These are the students who have been promised that if they work hard, they will have a future. We have witnessed in them, and now we need to allow them the employment opportunities.

Fellow colleagues, California has passed laws advancing the rights of immigrants and their families, including providing identifications for all undocumented Californians and allowing farm workers to vote in union elections. Our state has championed these issues. These students have been working hard to enter our colleges. California has invested in them, and they've done what we've asked of them.

And now it's time for us to give them the opportunity to work and compete with everybody. By removing employment barriers, California not only ensures equal opportunity, but also strengthens our economy and makes us a better state.

It's time for California to empower undocumented students and unfortunately fix what Congress has not been able to fix, which is to provide these young people with their opportunities to thrive after they've committed and done the work--the hard work that we've asked of them. So now I'd like to turn it over.

It's really a pleasure, and hope you have the same sentiment after you hear from our two witnesses. First, we'll hear from Jeffry Muñoz, recent UCLA graduate and entering CSU student at the graduate level, and Alicia Quiroz as a community college student. Jeffry.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Senator Umberg and Members of the Committee. My name is Jeffry Umaña Muñoz and I am an undocumented rising graduate student at Cal State Los Angeles from San Bernardino, California.

I'm also here today joined by a coalition of undocumented students that have been propelling forward Assembly Bill 2586, the Opportunity For All Act. Just two weeks ago, I graduated with two Bachelor of Arts degrees from UCLA, and while I am humbled to join my fellow undocumented scholars who have achieved higher education, I am concerned that incoming generations of undocumented students will face the same grim reality I encountered at the UC and now bracing to face again at Cal State LA.

Despite rightfully earning my admission and paying tuition like the rest of my peers, undocumented students like myself are unjustly barred from fully accessing the educational opportunities promised to us upon admission and enrollment. Every year at UCLA, despite meeting all other eligibility criteria, the university openly prohibited me from accessing on campus employment.

As an undocumented student with limited access to financial aid and scholarships, this meant that each year pursuing my college education was marked by experiences of housing insecurity, food insecurity, financial uncertainty, and the looming possibility of dropping out. Beyond these material deprivations, the current policy at UC, CSU, and the California community colleges to deny equal access to on campus employment for undocumented students further ostracizes and marginalizes us.

Despite the state's claim to embrace and empower all of California's students, I was told I could not work in the bookstore, could not serve on a student government board, or contribute to the university scholarship as a research or teaching assistant. Even when faculty or staff members wanted to support me with employment, I was met with cold, unjust rejection. In the weeks before you register universities promise undocumented students equal opportunities to succeed academically and contribute to our communities.

However, as I and thousands of others can attest to, this promise disappears, leaving us to scrap together community resources and wages from unsafe and underpaid jobs to stay in school and support our families. For many of us, this will cost us our dreams of college education altogether. For over two decades, California has led the nation in providing greater access.

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, I assume you urge an aye vote. Yes. All right. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Alicia Quiroz, and I represent the CDN as well as I'm a community college student studying to be cognitive science. And I'm here to talk about AB 2586, Opportunity For All. Growing up, my mother taught me to give everybody the opportunity to show me who they are.

And unfortunately, I'm being judged based on my immigration status instead of my skills and accomplishments. A year ago, there was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shadow a neurologist in my institution. It was a paid position, and I qualified.

I was one of the most competitive applicants for that position, and they had extended an offer for me to take on the role as the student of the year. Unfortunately, when it came to process the application for the financial part, I was asked to provide a Social Security number. Initially, I was told that my taxpayer identifying number was a correct substitute for the Social Security number, but it wasn't.

So, even though I had imagined all of the opportunities that would come along from the internship, all of the doors that would come open, all of the connections that I would build, and all of the skills that I would obtain, all of those doors were shut in my face only because of my status.

DACA, right now, a lot of us don't qualify for it, and the future of it is uncertain. So the only opportunity that we have to work in these higher educational jobs that are according to our education is AB 2586. Today, you have the power to show that California truly is the land of opportunity by passing the bill, AB 2586.

Thank you very much. All right. Other witnesses in support of AB 2586, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good morning. Kasha Hunt here with Nossaman on behalf of Citrus College in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dolores Huerta, Dolores Huerta Foundation, in support of this really, really important measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Goldman on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges in support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is David and I am a student at Folsom Lake College, and I'm here to support the passing of AB 2586.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Angelica Perez Martinez from Folsom Lake College in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sharon. I am a senior at Cal Poly Pomona. I have been undocumented and without a path to citizenship since I first-

-Thank you. I assume you're in support.

I am in support.

Thank you. All right.

My name is Sylvia Romero and I am a student enrolled at Modesto Junior College and in favor of Opportunity For All.

Thank you.

Kent Wong. I'm a UCLA faculty member, been there for 30 years, and I rise to support Opportunity For All.

Thank you.

Dr. Belinda Lum, Los Rios College Federation of Teachers and Sacramento City College professor, stand in support.

Thank you.

Janeth Herrera Bucio, staff member of CHIRLA and organizer of the California Dream Network, CDN, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Karla Rodriguez Beltran on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity and the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Casey Elliott on behalf of Rancho Santiago Community College District in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Mark McDonald on behalf of the Southwestern Community College District, very much in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Long Beach City College in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Fatima Zeferino, undocumented student at California State University, Long Beach. I am here to urge state leaders to strongly support AB 2586. I still remember how heartbroken I was when the UC fellow-

-Thank you very much. I assume you're in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Ana Luna, representing Bakersfield Community College, and I support.

Thank you.

Leonela De La Cruz, Sacramento State alumni, and I support Opportunity For All.

Thank you.

Lilian Juarez Armenta, Foothill College and UC Berkeley alumni, in strong support.

Thank you.

... Roja Diaz, undocumented student at UC Berkeley in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Maria Reza. I am representing UC Merced and the California Dream Network, and I am in support of the bill.

Thank you.

My name is Victor Hernandez. I am an alumni from California State University Northridge, and I support this bill.

Alrighty. Thank you. If you're in support of AB 2543 please approach the microphone. In a moment, we'll turn to the opposition.

Thank you. I may have misspoken--2586. Okay. Now, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2586-

Good morning, Senators. My name is Ryan Manriquez. I serve as President for the UC Graduate and Professional Council in strong support.

-We still have more support.

Oh, okay. If you're in support, please, please line up. Please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill.

Hi, I'm Diana Ortiz, and I'm an undocumented student with ...DACA and I'm in support of AB 2586.

Thank you very much.

Hello. My name is Leo Rodriguez. I am a alumni of UC Berkeley and President of Ideas at UC Berkeley, as well as member of the Undocumented Community Council under UC Berkeley Division of Equity and Inclusion here in support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Beatriz ... Reyes. I'm here on behalf in support for AB 2586. I'm a recent graduate of UCLA-

-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Randall Santiago. I'm the statewide organizer for the California Dream Network, and I have seen firsthand how these students have Opportunity For All AB-

-I assume you're in support. Thank you. So, just so that we're clear, what we're doing now is we're doing what's called me-too testimony. So if you give us your name, your affiliation, and your position--I assume those that are lined up right now are in support--and I appreciate that. Thank you. Alright.

Hi, I'm Karely Amaya Rios. I'm an undocumented student studying public policy at UCLA, and I'm in strong support because it would change my life.

All right. So, just so we're clear, your name, your affiliation, your position. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brian. I'm an undocumented student, and I'm in full support. Please pass this bill.

Thank you very much. All right.

Good morning. My name is Emily Wong. I'm supporting AB 2586 because I have undocumented-

-All right, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Hi, my name is Abraham. I've been an undocumented student at UCLA, and I strongly support this.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Ana. I'm an undocumented mathematician, and I support O For All.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Karen ... Diaz, and I am an undocumented student at UCLA, and I fully support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Campos Gonzalez. I'm an undocumented student and graduate at UCLA MSW, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Beatrice Torres, and I work for LAUSD as a teacher, and I support the bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Andy ... and I'm an alumni from UCI, and I support AB 2586.

Thank you.

My name is Jose Mendez. I'm a PhD student at UC Irvine. I'm in strong support of AB 2586.

Thank you.

My name is Nelson Guardado. I'm an ally from UC Irvine in strong support.

Thank you.

My name is Betsaida, student at UC Irvine, and I'm here in support of AB 2586.

Thank you.

My name is Angel Valdez, and I'm here in support of AB 2586.

Hello, my name is Luis. I'm from UC Irvine, and I'm here in support of AB 2586. Time is up.

Thank you.

My name is Jefferson Herrera, and I'm a student at UCI. I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Alan Peralta. I'm a student worker at UC Irvine, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ricardo Garcia, and I'm a student at UCI, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Cindy Guzman, and I'm a student at UC Santa Barbara, and I'm in full support of AB 2586.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Diana, student at UC Davis, in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Blanca, MPP student at UCLA, and I support this bill.

Hello. My name is Sylvia, and I'm in strong support of AB 2586.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Victor Hernandez, and I'm a recent graduate from UC Irvine. I fully support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm ... Hernandez, recent graduate from UCI. I strongly support this bill. Viva Palestina!

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Dulce. I'm a recent UCI grad, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Viviahna. I am an undergrad student at UC Merced. I'm representing Undocu Pride, United We Dream and United We Dream Action, and I fully support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jasmine. I'm a current student at UC Irvine. I'm in support of AB 2586 because we're undocumented and we're here to stay.

Thank you very much.

Hello. My name is Janeth, and I'm a recent grad from UC Merced, and I'm here to support AB 2586 not only for myself, but my younger siblings are also undocumented-

-All right, thank you very much.

Hi there. Good morning. Alejandra Guillen, Deputy Director of Immigrant Rising. We're in strong support.

Thank you.

My name is Aubrey Rodriguez on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in support.

Thank you.

Eva Jiménez on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Gloria Vallon, CSU Stanislaus alumni, and I support this bill.

Thank you very much. Now, seeing no one else approaching the microphone except for one. In a moment, we're going to turn to the opposition.

(in Spanish) in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. We don't require you to run, so you're okay. So. All right. All right. Now let's turn to the opposition. You're welcome to sit down or speak from the microphone.

I'll speak from here. Thank you very much. First, we are not in opposition. Mario Guerrero, on behalf of the University of California. We're proud to have programs and policies that support our students. I can say that there is really no difference between the intent that the author and the students have, and we're proud to see our students here advocating for and using their voices for something that I think we all believe in. However, we continue to have implementation concerns. Those implementation concerns have been included in the letter.

I've shared them in Committee prior, so I won't reiterate them here. We appreciate the opportunity to share this. Also, I will mention that we have implemented an alternative experiential fellowship that is expanding across all campuses. We look forward to continuing to work with the Legislature and our students to find alternatives that we believe are workable. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else who is opposed to AB 2586, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. We're going to bring it back to Committee for questions. Questions? Senator Niello.

A quick comment. This bill really screams out for reform of our immigration system in Washington, DC. And because it's not happening is the reason that Assemblymember Alvarez introduces this. But if we listen to UC--now, we had support from some community colleges, and maybe they look at it differently, but in CSU silence, I kind of have to interpret that they are of like-mind of UC and that is that they--

Assemblyman Alvarez, your interpretation of the federal law notwithstanding, the University of California believes that they cannot. And so in absence of that screaming need to reform our immigration system, and given the position of UC that I think probably would persuade other institutions also, given the consequences, if we pass this bill, it won't accomplish anything because now that nobody will be hired. They feel they can't--your interpretation of law notwithstanding. So I wish that our federal representatives would do something about this, but this bill doesn't do that.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I just have a couple of--maybe more than a couple questions. I think--as I understand that there are some programs that are part of the requirements to graduate where you work. Could you, could you talk about that a little bit more? In other words, if you don't put in work hours, it takes away from your graduation or your requirements?

I would say, Senator, that I don't have a 100% certainty in that. And so I don't want to speak out of turn. I did want to give the opportunity, though, to, yeah, to someone from the UCLA Center for Immigration and Law Policy who was part of the authorship group of this legal assessment. If Ahilan, Professor from Practice and Co-Director of the Center can come forward, maybe he has more answers for that specific question.

I did, if I may, want to respond just briefly, respectfully, to Senator Niello about the concerns which he's absolutely right; this is a federal--this would all be solved if the federal government did their job and they, you know, passed immigration reform. And that would be ideal. But the fact is that they haven't done so in almost 40 years now.

The last time they did was in 1986. And specifically, Senator asked about the concerns from UC, which are outlined in the letter that I think we all received June 13 of 2024. And it's four points of which they don't necessarily say they can't implement this. What they say is they're concerned with what would happen if it was implemented.

And I would just say that, you know, if we go line item by line item, not to take time from your questions, but I think there's definitely a response we can provide for all those, including the first one, which is really, I would urge the UC to refrain from using this as a reason because it's really somewhat insensitive to the group of students that are testifying before and who would be benefiting.

And they talk about the exposure. So one of their concerns, Senator Niello, is the exposure of our undocumented students and their families to the possibility of criminal prosecution and deportation. Anybody who's ever lived or knows, as I did in my family, have an undocumented individual. They live with that fear on a daily basis.

And unfortunately, under the current dynamics at the federal level, and certainly in particular with past administrations, that fear continues to exist and would not be resolved with or without this bill. And so, that is one specifically that I would suggest to UC, respectfully, that they refrain from using that.

It's a little bit insulting, to be honest, to talk about these students potentially being criminally prosecuted or deported. They live with that fear, and those families live with that fear on a daily basis already. On the other issues, Senator, we can get into, but I don't know if Professor has anything else to add on the issue of employment, as you asked?

Yes. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Durazo. I'm Ahilan Arulanantham from the Center for Immigration Law and Policy and a law professor at UCLA. Yes is the answer to your question. There are degree programs for which employment is a requirement to complete it. I mean, the obvious one many people will know is medical residency.

Right. You have to work as a resident in order to become qualified to be a doctor. But there are others. We have seen examples of students actually offered PhD positions, placements. And then when the administrative sort of people figure out that they don't have a Social Security number--kind of like what happened to you--they withdraw the offer and the person doesn't get to complete that degree. And then, of course, for many students in their financial aid package, there's a portion which includes work.

So you have to work as part of the whole package to get the tuition, you know, all of it, to afford college. And this is true for undergraduates as well. But they can't work lawfully. And so they're expected to get a job on campus, but under the current rules, they're actually unable, they're barred from doing that.

Thank you. And there was mention of DACA. There's sort of this, I think, public perception that, well, we have DACA and so--and it's for young people--and so isn't that good enough right now? Doesn't that fulfill the needs of people?

So as you are probably well aware of--and others, hopefully are is--unfortunately, in the previous federal administration, that program was challenged and was stopped. And currently, since the year 2017, students are no longer--young people are no longer eligible to receive DACA.

And so now we're going on seven years of young people who have no other country but the United States, and they do not have the access to the benefits and the rights that come with the privilege of being DACA or documented.

And there was--obviously, this is the issue of being undocumented is taking a big public narrative right now, a lot of back and forth. And I just wonder if there's anything about what the current administration is doing that would impact this legislation or anything else that you think is important.

Yes. I mean, I think the Administration has signaled it generally supports trying to let more undocumented people have more opportunities. We saw that with the proposal recently for the spouses, undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens.

But from what we can tell so far, there's nothing in the new proposals, either that proposal or the one, what's called the D3 waiver--which hasn't been explained very well--certainly nothing that would affect undergraduates and nothing that would solve the basic problem here. Yeah. Their proposals, I think, are, from my perspective, good.

They expand opportunities for different groups of undocumented people in the country. But there's nothing that appears to benefit the dozens of students you saw today and hundreds, probably thousands more in California as well.

Thank you. I don't know if there's anything else that we have missed here that you think are really important for us to consider in our deliberations here.

And just one other thing in particular. I spent many months talking with people in the University of California, trying to get them to do this without legislation. And there was a whole movement of students that started there, and they were concerned that they didn't want to go out on a limb. That was how I understood their concerns.

And it seemed to me that if you--when Assembly Member Alvarez then had the idea to have this bill, it would solve that problem, because now UC and CSU and community colleges would be required by state law to hire people who are the best qualified candidate for the job, regardless of immigration status. Right?

For students in that position. Their objection now, that this would put the University's finances at risk or that it would put HR staff at risk seemed very, very much misguided to me because it doesn't take account of the fact that we're talking about legislation that would require them to do these things.

I've never seen a person criminally prosecuted for doing what state law requires. We've never seen it. We've looked. We've looked in the Marijuana laws. We've looked--all kinds. We've looked. We've never seen it. So I think there is a possibility, as you had suggested, Senator Niello, that there could be a lawsuit against this law if it passes.

I think we have better legal arguments. I think we could win that lawsuit. But nobody can predict what will happen. Maybe it won't come out that way. But what's going to happen if that lawsuit prevails is that the law will be stopped. It's not going to cause criminal prosecutions for people or millions of dollars to be taken away in money. They would just say the law's preempted or it violates federal law and so you can't do it. And so there's also a possibility that we would win that lawsuit.

There's also a possibility that it wouldn't get sued at all because maybe the government won't want to attack all of these undocumented students, people like you. So that's why we think this is a bill that's worth passing and why we're so grateful to Assemblymember Alvarez for having taken it up, even though, yes, there is some possibility, possibility that it could get struck down in the courts.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Senator Durazo.

No, and I just want to reach out and thank all of the young people who came up today and everybody who came in support. I think this is an extraordinary opportunity for us to help our youth who work so hard, who have sacrificed so much, and now they're getting this door closed to them. And I want to give a very special shout out to our iconic leader, Dolores Huerta for being here and joining the students. So thank you all. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Other questions, comments? Seeing no other questions or comments. Thank you Assemblymember Alvarez and for all those who have testified here today. The University of California's position I don't think is frivolous. I think that this is an important question that needs to be resolved.

And I recognize that there are legal opinions on many sides of this particular issue. I also recognize that whether it gets enforced or not may be dependent upon who's in the executive mansion in Washington DC, and we can't predict exactly how that's going to go and who might enforce what.

But the way I view my job, at least, here, is to look at policy and try to affect and create good public policy. And this appears to be an unfairness, an unjustified situation that requires us as a matter of policymakers to make our voices known and set law as we think the law should be set. For those reasons, I'm going to support the bill and I believe it's going to be supported by the majority of this Committee. So having said that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate the questions. I think it's important that we put out publicly and into the open what some of the concerns are, and we accept what some of the concerns may be. But we also believe, believe, as you just stated, Mister Chair, that in California we've done what's right for our communities and for our most vulnerable.

And in this case, I am--and I hope you are--as emboldened by the bravery of the young people who have come before us, who have testified, who have put themselves on the line, not just today, but they have been doing so for quite some time to get us to where we are today, and that we support them as they seek these opportunities going forward. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the right moment. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. This might be the right moment. I think we may have the ever-elusive quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll for purpose of establishing a quorum.

Umberg. Here. Wilk. Allen. Here. Ashby. Caballero. Here. Durazo. Here. Laird. Niello. Here. Roth. Stern. Here. Wahab. You have a quorum.

Alrighty, thank you very much. All right, we have a quorum. Is there a motion on--Senator Durazo moves--AB 2586? It's been moved. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number 3, AB 2586. The motion is do pass to Senate Education. Umberg. Aye. Wilk. Allen. Aye. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Laird. Niello. No. Roth. Stern. Aye. Wahab. 5-1.

Five to one. All right, we're gonna put that on call. Thank you, Senator Alvarez. All right, I'm going to turn the gavel. Oh, okay. Let's. Let's do the consent calendar. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Senator Caballero moves the consent calendar.

Let's go ahead and vote on the consent calendar, and then I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Nielo.

We're going to do the consent calendar, then we're going to do. All right, go ahead. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar has been moved by Senator Caballero.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] Six to zero on consent.

6-0, we're going to put that back on call. And then one other matter before I have to go to Assembly Judiciary, file item number 50, SB 1524. That's been heard as a Subcommittee. Is there a motion on SB 1524? Senator Caballero moves it. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number 50, SB 1524. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. [Roll Call]

6-0, that Bill is out.

So, our chair has departed to the Judiciary Committee on the other side of the House, and he has cast fate completely to the wind and left me in charge. And next up is Assemblyman Chen, AB 2677.

Thank you, Mister Chair, for your time and allowing me to present AB 2677. First off, I want to thank the Committee for working with my staff on this bill. Many businesses and professionals are required to maintain surety license bonds as a condition of licensure in California.

Their purpose is to ensure agreed consumers will have recourse available to recover their losses up to a set amount due to the actions or inactions of a business or professional they've engaged. Examples of professions required to maintain a license bond include motor vehicle dealers, notaries, insurance brokers, and collection agencies.

With over 285,000 licensed contractors in California, contractors comprise the largest group of licensed bondholders, while there are approximately 11,500 new and used dealer bonds. The current statutory license bond limit of liability for contractors is now $25,000 and $50,000 for auto dealer bonds.

A recent California appellate court opinion held that a surety under a contractor license bond was liable for the full amount of a 90,000 attorney fee award entered against the contractor, even though the bond limit was only $12,500 at the time.

More recently, in an unreported February 2024 decision, another California appellate court, relying on the precedent set forth in Carton, held that a surety was liable for the full amount of a 264,440 attorney fee award even though the bond limit was only $50,000.

The purpose of AB 2677 is to limit the license bond surety's liability to the penal sum of the bond. This is absolutely critical, particularly since License C identifies the surety for any and all costs that the surety pays out to an aggrieved customer of the licensee, hence the importance of AB 2677.

Approval of this measure will ensure that surety license bonds, including contractor and car deal license bonds, remain affordable and widely available to maintain consumer protections intended by the Legislature up to the license bonds penal sum.

It will also prevent an unlicensed black market from emerging for those businesses and professionals unable to meet the far more stringent underwriting criteria that will become a necessity for sureties if this issue is not rectified. With me today is Phil Vermeulen, representative sponsor of the Flasher Barricade Association.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. I'm Phil Vermeulen representing the Flasher Barricade Association. What you hear all the time about existential threats, this is an existential threat if we don't put the genie back in the bottle, with regard to this measure.

Thus far, we have two surety companies that have already pulled out of the marketplace, SureTech, which was the second largest surety company in the state. And we just learned last week Great American has pulled out of the dealer bond marketplace as well. This is going to snowball if we don't correct this problem.

The whole idea of a bond, for example, with contractors, the bonds have been around since 1939. It doesn't require an attorney. All it does is require the aggrieved party to file a claim with the surety. The surety has an obligation by law to investigate that claim. If it is held valid, then they pay out.

I have statistics here which I'd be happy to pass out to everyone because there's been some opposition from some of the car consumer groups. I want to emphasize that we took an amendment from the consumer attorneys in the Assembly. This measure passed on consent through both the Assembly Judiciary and on the Assembly Floor.

Now we're here, we're facing this opposition. There three concerns, are dealing with dealer bonds. One, the $50,000 dealer bond is inadequate. Two, there is no mechanism preventing a bad auto dealer who's aggrieved a consumer from closing down their business and just reopening again.

And three, sureties don't pay out. Well, let me just take the auto to the used car dealers because I think that's the most important. 2018 sureties paid claims in California, compared to the other state, 235.6%, 2019, 251.8%, 2020, 194.3%, 2021, 410%, 2022, 257%, so I think that that should allay the concerns that the sureties don't pay out.

Senator, I'm sorry. The critical thing is the issues that the opposition raises, we don't have a problem with. But the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to have an interim hearing to determine what needs to be done. We fix the problems that they're raising with the contractors. A contractor that creates a problem is banned from getting a license again.

They should be doing the same thing with the dealers. We raised the bond for the contractors to $25,000 two years ago. They can raise it, too. Again, an interim study. For those reasons, we urge your support. Thank you, Senator.

Next witness. And remember, we have two minutes.

Mark Sektnan with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Along with the comments Mister Vermeulen made, I want to point out that although surety is not a traditional form of insurance, it is regulated by the Department of Insurance.

So, sureties, which now have to face much greater liabilities under the Carton decision, and decisions flowing from that do not have the ability to adjust their rates to reflect this far greater liability. They, like all other insurers, have to go to the Department of Insurance and face delays in rate approvals for up to two years. We have sureties still waiting after two years.

So, I mean, if the Legislature believes that a surety should pay for the legal fees, I think the best idea would be to pass this bill for those sureties that are currently in effect, then pass a bill that does what the Legislature wants and delay the implementation, so the surety companies have the time to fix appropriate rates.

We've already heard about sureties leaving the State of California. It's a very common thing. Inadequate rates, you can't continue to write, and then their only choice is to leave. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Do we have other people in the audience? This is a me too testimony. Name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Jaime Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Sara Noceto, on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and the California Builders Alliance, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association of California. We're pleased to support the bill and also on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Mike Gemnetsky, Contractor State License Board, support. Thank you.

And seeing no other folks in support, and we'll move on to the opposition. Do we have principal witness for the opposition?

Mister Vice Chair and members, my name is William Bradley. I'm a constituent of Senator Niello. On April 2, my wife and I purchased a vehicle we found at an independent auto dealership in Roseville. I looked it over carefully, including taking a look underneath, and saw nothing that set off alarms.

Undercoating was present, but appeared to be a preventative measure against rust. I asked the salesperson about the condition of the car and its history, and he said that it had recently passed a safety inspection. He specifically said that it had been inspected for rust since it had come from Pennsylvania and that it checked out okay.

I took him at his word since he is a professional and in a position to know about the car. I paid $10,500 in cash. I took it to an independent mechanic who hoisted it onto a lift, initially believing that the car looked clean, and was impressed with the low mileage.

However, we were both shocked at what he found. The entire undercarriage was corroded due to rust. Brake components, steering, suspension, and the frame were rusted beyond repair. He said the rust was covered up by an extremely heavy layer of undercoating overtop of duct tape to hide the damage.

He warned me not to drive the car at all, as it was grossly unsafe and used to perform a road test. I took it to Roseville Toyota, who concurred with the opinion. They couldn't even put it on a hoist as the frame began to bow and crumble, I contacted the business, who said I purchased it as is, so I was out of luck. I asked the DMV to investigate, but their safety regulations were scant.

Under the current state of the law, Auto Fraud Legal Center is willing to represent me in the matter because even if the dealer declares bankruptcy to evade a liability, they can get my damages and attorney's fees paid by the dealer's surety bond.

But if AB 267 becomes law, car buyers like me would be totally out of luck because attorneys could not afford to represent us against the bond companies, which may deny my claim even if I proved I was defrauded. Please vote no on AB 2677. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Niello, members, I'm Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. And with your permission, I'll split the two minutes with an expert who's here, who's also representing the gentleman who just testified.

And we're opposing this bill because it's very sweeping and we appreciate the council's thorough analysis of the bill and the concerns that were raised in the analysis with how sweeping this bill is applying to all different kinds of bonds, and that it would basically nullify the benefit of consumers having the bond if they can't get legal counsel, which usually they can't afford, unless the entity that defrauded them is liable for attorney's fees or if they go under, that the bond company would cover their attorney's fees.

And we feel the bill would be unfair to both victims of fraud and honest businesses. And we note that a lot of the victims that we hear from are members of our armed forces and they really need the benefit of legal counsel.

Thank you. Now we'll move to the me too testimony. Name, organization, group. Beg pardon?

She wanted to share her last minute with the.

Okay. Excuse me. Misunderstood. You have about a minute.

Okay. Thank you. My name is Gregory Babbitt. I'm an attorney. I've been a consumer advocate representing consumers like Mister Bradley since 2002 with the Auto Fraud Legal Center. I ask you to oppose this bill. I use the bond company statute regularly in situations when people buy cars, and they pay cash, or they get their own financing.

Typically, these are lower-income individuals and also service members. I'm in regular contact with the JAG people in San Diego because I provide training to them. They tell me what happens to the service members. Used car dealerships that are set up along Camp Pendleton, 32nd Street regularly cheat consumers.

And this bill would hurt my ability to represent those people because the bond company statute won't provide me to obtain attorney's fees and costs. The decisions that have come out recently have actually helped in my experience, having handled these cases since 2002. The bond companies are starting to settle cases.

Wrap your testimony up,

Sure. They're settling cases that they wouldn't settle before. So, in the Harris decision, they indicated that the Vehicle Code is dominant purpose is to provide protection to consumers. I'd ask that you oppose this bill because it will prevent the ability to protect consumers. Thank you.

Thank you. Now me too testimony. State your name, who you represent, and your position.

Good morning. Danielle Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition, in opposition.

Good morning, Mister Vice Chair and members. Robert Herrell with the Consumer Federation of California in opposition. And Mister Vermeulen kind of made our points for us at some level. Thank you.

Any other testimony in opposition? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments?

Yeah, I mean, my comment is I wasn't aware of some of this controversy, so I'm going to, we have until late tonight to cast votes. So, I'm going to spend a little bit more time delving into the bill. There's 50 bills on the agenda. So, I wasn't as prepared as I would have liked to be. Typical.

So, I'm going to lay off right now. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote for the bill. I just need to spend a little more time on it.

I think we all feel the same way. The key here is, I think, protecting consumers. My understanding is that this bill would allow for the payment of attorney's fees. Am I wrong about that?

You're correct, Senator.

Okay. So, the issue that was raised by the attorney in regards to this, I understood him to say that this would change that because of the bill, he would not be entitled to attorney's fees.

And I guess, and my concern is that the full amount of the surety should be available for payment out, whether it's to cover court costs, damages, and attorney's fees. Do I have that wrong?

No, Senator, you're absolutely correct. So, the surety bond would be able to compensate the attorneys for their fees. Furthermore, I would say that when it comes to payout, the compensation doesn't necessarily have to go through a lawsuit, and it comes up the logistical details. Happy to defer to Phil for some additional technical information, Senator.

Senator, the amendment that we took in the Assembly Judiciary Committee allows attorney fees up to the top of the bond. So, for example, this gentleman that was aggrieved for $10,000 he collects without having to hire an attorney, goes to the surety company. The surety company investigates, concurs, pays the 10,000.

That leaves $40,000 of that $50,000 bond that the attorney could collect on because of that amendment we took. So, we specifically addressed the consumer attorney's concern with that amendment, and that's why the bill passed on consent through the Assembly.

Very good. Sir, you're the attorney who. Can you give me your analysis of it, please, sir?

Mister Babbitt, again, thank you, Senator. Two comments to that. Number one, the Vehicle Code, Section 11711, specifically does not allow the recovery of attorney's fees from the bond.

The current version of the statute, with the amendment, would limit the amount of attorney's fees to be recovered to the limit of the bond, which is $50,000, which would not, to litigate a case all the way to trial, would not be feasible under those restrictions. So really, it's an amendment that doesn't help us.

One other important point that doesn't preclude an aggrieved party to file a civil suit against that auto dealer. So, in essence, they could collect 100,000, 200,000, whatever that number is, if they are successful in a civil case over and beyond what the bond is. So, you know, the, I don't see where the problem is.

You've got $40,000 in my example there that the attorney could collect on.

So, the bond doesn't limit what the, what the court can order. If it goes to trial, and you can get excess against the company.

You can file a separate civil lawsuit against whoever the party is over and beyond the bond. The bond is a simple way for the consumer to claim on, and that's the reason it's been there forever.

But it doesn't limit the amount that could be obtained against the fraudulent seller for example.

To the face value of the bond. So again, for an auto dealer, it's a $50,000 bond. So, in my scenario, that 10,000 would go to the aggrieved party, 40,000 would be there for the attorney or the homeowner, or the aggrieved party could get all $50,000.

In that case, then the attorney would have to file civilly to collect anything on it. But the whole idea of the bond is a simple, easy way not to have to hire an attorney. And for contractors, it's a $25,000 bond that we increased that two years ago from 15,000.

With respect to the car dealers, since COVID in my practice, I've noticed that even used cars now are costing $20,000, $30,000. So, essentially capping at $50,000 doesn't allow this. This bill, really what will help do is to weed out the unscrupulous dealers and allow the market.

It's going to correct in the market because dealers that are going to cheat people are the dealers that are going to go out of business. And consumers aren't going to have anybody to collect.

But the dealers that can pay to get an adequate bond if there is an increase in the price, those are the dealers that we want in business. We want those dealers that have the ability to, if they make mistakes.

And the case law that we're seeing here, these cases, the Harris case, the Carton case, the Gonzalez case, those are cases of egregious fraud, which should have settled, and they didn't. The bond companies, as the cases say, the bond companies chose to fight these cases and then they complain when they fight them, and they lose.

If they really were concerned and wanted to protect the consumers, they could have settled these cases.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Any other comments? So, I had, in an abundance of caution, I must abstain, because obviously the conversation has been mostly about automobile dealers. As an automobile dealer, I am licensed and take out bonds. And if I was in the audience, I could take a position.

But back here, I'm, as I said, in an abundance of caution, I will abstain. Assemblyman Chen, would you like to close?

I really appreciate the discussion, as well as from the Committee Members. Going from the Assembly to the Senate, we worked with the consumer attorneys and took all the amendments that the consumer attorneys had. And if it comes out of this Committee, I assure you I'll continue to work with the opposition.

Primarily the main, for me, the four reasons why we continue to work on this policy and work on this bill is, for one, is to risk the exposure to unlimited fees that would impact California constituents.

The second, knowing that the unlimited fees could impact consumers, that this could tighten underwriting standards, which would be very difficult for an individual to receive a surety bond. And the third is, quite frankly, that surety-licensed bond companies would lead the State of California. I think this is a financial impact for them that is very severe.

We've already seen some of these companies discuss this and it's something I don't want to see the surety license bond withdrawal from this market.

But you have my promise, as I did go through the Assembly Floor as well as the committees, that we will work with the opposition as we have done through the Assembly, with the consumer attorneys, and we'll continue to do that. So, with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, as well as your consideration moving forward.

Thank you.

I'll move it for procedural reasons, I want to spend some more time on the bill and I'm going to go present in the Assembly, but I'm going to move it now.

Thank you Senator.

So such as it is, we'll call the roll.

This is file item number 14, AB 2677. The motion is do pass. [Roll call] You have one to zero.

We'll hold that open. Next, we're taking an item out of order. Assemblyman Maienschein, item 33, AB 2095.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments as outlined in the analysis. For more than 100 years, public notices have served as vital channels for transparency and accountability in our legal system, informing citizens about crucial events shaping our communities. Public notices have traditionally been published in paper newspapers.

However, as the digital age is here, it's crucial we ensure equal access to this information for all citizens, regardless of their preferred medium. AB 2095 seeks to achieve this by establishing standardized publication protocols across print and online platforms, eliminating any additional charges for accessing and publishing public notices online.

The bill would require legal notices to be published in print, on the newspaper's website, and on a statewide website maintained as the clearinghouse for notices by California newspapers. This ensures every citizen can stay informed about important events, whether they were to rely on newspapers or digital sources. Thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Mister Vice Chair and Members. Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California News Publishers Association, this morning here, as the sponsor of AB 2095. There has been a significant shift in terms of how Californians get their news and also in the way that we deal with public notice.

We have over 1,400 places in California statute that require public notice so that communities can get access to information that affects them in a timely and meaningful way. Having the third estate deal with that, the journalism estate, is critical because we are the independent arbiters of what that information is. What AB 2095 seeks to do is to put things into one main category, to ensure that newspapers are kept whole and that the public has a singular place to get their public notice from.

There have been a number of attempts over the last number of years, not only in California, but across the country, to bring public notices in-house to the purveyors of that information, which could lead to the public not having access to the information that they need. So for these reasons, we have struck a balance with AB 2095. Are open to further conversations, but respectfully request your aye vote.

Do we have anybody in the audience in favor of this? For me-too testimony. You have just one primary witness. And now for the opposition. Is there a primary witness in opposition?

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Black Media Association. And we do have concerns with the bill, recent amendments related to the entity that would be the deposit--be the main entity in charge of managing the public notices, and I'll let Regina Wilson also speak.

We have reached out to the author's office, and we are hopeful that there will be a way to address our concerns going forward. But other than to say that the public notices are a primary source of revenue for our members, and when there are policies, I know they are designed to be beneficial. We just want to make sure that they are done, it's done right and it doesn't add burdens to some of our small publishers. Again, we're opposed, but we're hopeful that we can work with the author going forward and Regina Wilson, if she's able to-

-So you're opposed unless amended?

Correct. Correct.

Proceed. That should work.

Well, I think he just said everything, but yes, we are. I did get a note, though, that the author spoke to somebody else I spoke to earlier and said that he was willing to look at some of the suggestions that we put forward. And so we're hoping that that will take place.

I don't know if he comments to that, but ethnic media, for instance, does not get its lion's share of public notice. And so, before we make these type of changes, we want to make sure that we're not putting more burden on small businesses. You all will be hearing a bill later on this afternoon on 886.

And you all know, really, the collapse of what's happening with media--we don't want to put more burden on our media outlets. And basically the way that the public notices happen within communities still, the counties still even require different things. Some counties still require you to go into the county--cut, paste. There's more to this conversation. And so, we just want to work with the author to be able to try to address the concerns we have.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody here in opposition for me-too testimony? Seeing no one come forward. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Yes, Senator Caballero.

Of the author, there were some suggested amendments, and I'm assuming that you're working with them on this?

Yeah. Yes, Senator, we've gone through a number of amendments on this, and absolutely--we kind of got--it's just recent, so we're going to sit down. Absolutely, we'll sit down and make sure. The premise behind all this, obviously, is that people are getting--all of us are getting--our news in different ways than we did just a few years ago. And so that's just to be--you know, to recognize what's already a fact: that there's--people are getting their news and their information through a wide variety of sources.

So it's actually to make it more democratic, more easier for people. So we'll work with Regina. Miss Perry. Right? We'll work with her to hopefully alleviate her concerns as well. We've actually--this is, you know, no good deed goes unpunished. We thought this would be relatively simple, and we have worked with so many people to remove all--so far-

-Nothing's simple.

I know. You're right. This one in particular is a reminder of that.

Understood. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Any other comments?

I'm prepared to move the bill when the appropriate time...

Thank you.

Would you care to close?

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Excellent close.

Thank you.

And Senator Caballero moves the bill again. Call the roll, such as it is at this point.

This is file item number 33, AB 2095. The motion is do pass as amended. Umberg. Wilk. Allen. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Laird. Niello. Aye. Roth. Stern. Wahab. 3-0.

Now back on file item order. Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan. With eight or ten bills, here.

Only four, sir. Only four.

AB 460 first up.

As a fellow lawyer, you know how I love the courts, so I like to spend time with all of you. Okay, wait, did we--AB 460? Is that first? Just so I know where we want to start.

What was that?

AB 460? Perfect. Okay.

However you'd like.

Okay. Thank you, Mister Vice Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this bill. With that, I'm proud to present AB 460. This bill simply increases the penalties for certain violations of cease and desist orders and curtailment orders issued by the State Water Resources Control Board.

Illegal or wasteful water use can become the difference between access to water or dry taps in the future. I'm a believer--as I hope everybody in this room--is that when we have regulations and laws on the books, we should have enforcement mechanisms. Seems very simple.

And those enforcement mechanisms should be sufficient to deter the behavior that we want to not happen, which is to violate the orders in place. And we have seen through actions throughout the northern part of our state that when the cost of doing business is worth violating the orders, that is what happens.

And so this bill merely raises the fines to ensure that people are not violating curtailment orders and that they are paying fines that would deter such behavior. So with me in support today of 460 is--

Yeah, I'm not sure where the on switch is.

It's--you're on, I think. Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

So I am Matt Clifford, I'm the California Director for Trout Unlimited, co-sponsor of the bill. And I'll keep my remarks very brief because I think in its current form, the bill is fairly simple, as Member Bauer-Kahan just said. I mean, the Water Board is charged by law with managing water and protecting stream flows when there's not enough water to go around, situations we're going to have more and more frequently with climate change and increased drought.

And whatever powers one thinks the Water Board ought to have--and we acknowledge there's a lot of disagreement about that in the world--one thing we know is the Water Board has to have the legal authority and the ability to make its orders stick and make sure people comply with them. We saw direct evidence in the last drought that the current liability scheme is not adequate to do that. AB 460 fixes that.

One point I'd just like to make is that when you see the numbers in this bill--keep in mind these are maximum penalties, right? This is not going to be defined in every case. And as with most agencies, there's a separate statute, I believe it's water Code 1848(d), if I'm not mistaken, which basically requires the board to, on a case-by-case basis, consider various factors, including the extent of the harm and the nature of the harm and the wrongdoing, and are just defined in every case. And we need to have this ability.

In some cases, a diversion, depending on the size of a stream, 10-acre feet of illegal diversion may be a huge deal. It may be basically a rounding error. Right? So the board can and will and must adjust the fines, you know, for each circumstance and this bill provides for that.

So, you know, in summary, for this reason, I think there's a lot of things we disagree with different water districts and water users around the state on, but I think a lot of folks just recognize this is common sense as something that needs to happen for the Water Board to be able to do its job. So, thank you.

Thank you.

That's your only primary witness?

Yes.

Others in support of the bill come forward. State your name, organization and position.

I don't know if that's on. Is that one on?

... Criminal Voters and the Trust for Public Land in support. Thank you.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee in support.

Lily Scurria with CalTrout, on behalf of Friends of the River, League of Women Voters, San Francisco Baykeeper, and South Yuba River Citizens League, all in support.

Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC in support.

Mister Chair and Members, Don Gilbert for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in support.

Good morning. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. And also for the Turlock Irrigation District, which was listed as opposed on the analysis, but has moved to neutral.

Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association in support.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Glenn Farrel on behalf of the State Water Contractors, in support.

Okay. We will move now to the opposition. Primary witness opposed to AB 460? Seeing no one come forward. Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to express opposition to the bill? Seeing none come forward. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions, comments? Senator Caballero?

Move the bill when it's appropriate.

Okay.

Thank you, Senator.

Seeing no other hands raised. We have a motion for the bill. Would you like to close?

I just want to thank--many of the support you heard today were in opposition just two weeks ago, so we've come very far. I want to thank them for being here, and with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I would agree the opposition was rather extensive.

Not anymore, sir.

Good work. Again, we have a bill, and I see that the Chair has returned, and I will hand the gavel over to him. But first I get to call for the roll, such as it is.

This is file item number 5, AB 460. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg. Aye. Wilk. Allen. Aye. Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Laird. Niello. Aye. Roth. Stern. Wahab. 5-0.

5-0. We're going to put that back on call. All right. Thank you very much, Senator Niello, for your leadership. I see there's still bills. You didn't get them all done, though, I see.

I tried, sir.

I tried to rush through the agenda completely, but you just got back too soon.

All right, well, I'm going to leave again in a little while, so I'll let you finish the entire. All right, all right, all right. So I believe next is filing number six, AB 1846.

Yes, thank you, Mister chair. And Members first, I want to accept the Committee amendments on the Bill, which clarify that the training in this Bill should be informed by research and evidence on the impacts of abuse on assault victims and to limit the number of required trainings.

These answer some of the concerns raised by the Judicial Council, although perhaps not all, I'm pleased to bring AB 1846 before you today. As you'll hear from eyewitnesses, we have done immense work in this Legislature to protect survivors when they enter our courtroom.

And it is the role for any of us that have been in a courtroom of the judge to make sure that they are playing referee, to protect everybody in the room, to get justice and to feel safe.

And far too often, the laws we have put into place that especially allowed children in our courtrooms to be set up for success and to not be re traumatized when they walk in or not being followed, because judges don't have adequate information about the protections that are in place for individuals. And so this Bill is very simple.

It trains judges to ensure they know how and why they should be protecting survivors who walk into their courtroom. And as someone who practiced law in a courtroom, I was anxious when I walked into a courtroom, and I was just there to do my job.

And so I can only imagine what it feels like for the survivors who show up and are brave enough to seek justice. And I think this is a small step in the right direction to make sure their experience is not re traumatizing.

With me today in support is Nancy O'Malley, retired Alameda County District Attorney, and Janice Baker Kinney, a survivor.

All righty. Thank you. You need a mic? Welcome, Miss O'Malley.

Thank you very much, Senator, it's nice to see you. First, I just want to point out that Judicial Council, one of the arguments is that this improperly impinges on judicial Independence under the separation of powers document. But in fact, your Legislature has passed legislation that has mandated certain training. Particularly I'll reference training around domestic violence for judges.

Very specific. And that that training involves the voices of survivors and victims of domestic violence to help educate the judges. The second point that I want to really bring to your attention is that the Bill addresses the critical need for judges to receive training on the impact of sexual assault and sexual abuse.

It's not telling judges how to rule. It's just educating judges about the impact of sexual assault. And that impact is well documented through research. It is documented for the survivor. It's also research that even talks about law longevity impacts and that carry over to the children of survivors of sexual assault.

We've seen too many examples where the court, in their ignorance, I give that the benefit of the doubt. The court, in their ignorance, has been allowed abusive behavior by the defense attorney or disrespectful behavior. So this legislation would ensure that judges are trained and that judges are receiving that training and understanding.

The proposal should already have been, the Judicial Council indicates that they would include something like this in all training, but in fact, that should have been done already and so mandated. These specific training will ensure that it does, in fact, occur.

Newer judges with whom I've had contact have told me that in their new judge college, there was not one session, not one session on victims of crime who actually have constitutional protections under Article one, section 28B, so many of which are being ignored and discounted in the courtroom, I will say mostly out of ignorance of the dynamic.

So at the end of the day, it's imperative for that victims of sexual assault not be re victimized.

Thank you very much. All right.

Hi. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you. My name is Janice Baker-Kinney, and I'm with Stand with survivors, and I strongly, strongly support this Bill. Stan with survivors has spent years supporting hundreds of survivors of sexual assault and violence, and I am also a survivor. I was raped by Bill Cosby.

Judges set the courtroom's tone, yet some show a shocking lack of concern, which in turn can also impact how a jury views the survivor. I'm going to give you some examples. Judge Robin camp asked a survivor, why couldn't you just keep your knees together?

Judge Todd Bowse said of a 14 year old student who was raped by her 54 year old teacher that she was probably in as much control of the situation as the defendant. Judge Todd Bow said, I'm sorry, excuse me. Judge Derek Johnson remarked about a survivor who had been beaten with a metal baton.

The victim, although she wasn't necessarily willing, she didn't put up a fight. Judge Thomas Lowe called a two time rapist an extraordinarily good man, but great men sometimes do bad things. Judge Raymond Dean said at a rapist sentencing, when a woman says no, she doesn't always mean it.

And Judge John Paul Braun claimed a teenager seduced her 49 year old attacker. Maybe she's a little overweight, but she has a pretty face. No, she was flattered by him. Maybe it was the first time he showed interest in her. Judge James Vossi dismissed a survivor's claims and blamed her. She was highly intoxicated.

She was dancing on tables. She drank 10 glasses of wine, and her dress was hiked up so everyone could see. And we all know about Judge Erin Persky, who gave a Stanford student who raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster a lighter sentence. Thank you. Every survivor deserves her day in court or his day in court.

And I thank you for listening.

Thank you. And I would ask that you, if you have that information. This is not homework. Just if you have that information, if you would communicate the information as to those judges who made those statements and whether they're still sitting on the bench and what disciplinary action, if any, had been taken against them, you wouldn't mind.

Okay, thank you. Let's now turn to those who are in support. If you're in support of AB 1846, please come forward and give us your name, your affiliation and your position.

Jackie Stern, on behalf of consumer attorneys of California and strong support.

Thank you.

Erin Taylor with political solutions on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and girls in strong support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. All right, now let's turn to opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1846, please approach. You're welcome to either use the microphone or come and sit at table.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister chair and Members of the Committee, Tracy Kenny on behalf of the Judicial Council, in respectful opposition to AB 1846, I want to point out that we very much appreciate the amendments that the Committee had proposed and the author has accepted, and they do address some of the specific concerns that we had about the language in the Bill.

But we remain opposed on principle to any kind of judicial training mandate in statute. We understand that some of these have been passed by this Legislature previously. We don't think this is a good trend. We believe that the judicial branch, as a separate and independent branch, is capable of determining the training priorities for judicial officers.

And the fact is that we do provide intensive training on this topic. Already we have a two day training on handling of sexual assault cases that goes into many of the issues that we've been talking about here today day.

There are limited hours that judges can spend in training, and we believe the branch is in the best position to allocate those hours and determine the priorities for our judges. Issues arise constantly in our legal profession that need to be trained on. Artificial intelligence is one that is currently coming up.

The more of these mandates that are put in statute, the less flexibility the branch has to be able to address emerging issues and ensure that our judges are well informed and able to treat the public. This is a vital and important issue and it absolutely needs to be included in judicial training. As it is.

We simply object to the statutory mandate as not allowing Independence for the branch and our ability to make these decisions. The substantive law is for the Legislature to determine, but we think that training should be within our Bailey week and our prerogative. And for those reasons we are opposed. We remain opposed to the Bill all right.

Others in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaches the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions? Comments by Committee Members? Seeing. Yes, Senator Niello.

just would like to. Hear the author's response to the opposition.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the comments. I think that what you heard from our witness here is the problem. Our job as legislators is to protect our communities, and, I think to protect survivors and our most vulnerable. Top of the list as it relates to that.

And that isn't happening in our courtrooms, and we're seeing it every single day. So I appreciate the Judicial Council saying it is in their purview, had they actually done this. And by the way, none of this is mandatory. What is suggested is being provided. I believe it's being provided.

But those in the courtrooms, as specified by the amendments that are in the role of protecting survivors, need this mandated, and I believe it is our job to enforce that.

Thank you. Other questions? Comments? Seeing none, is there a motion? Senator Durrazo moves the Bill. All right. Would you like to close?

Oh, yes. Respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Okay. There's been a motion. Madam Chief counsel, if you would call the roll, please.

Sure. This is AB 1846, and the motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. Committee of the Senate. [Roll Call]

All right, we put that on call. Thank you. All right, next. File number seven, AB 2837. It's.

Maybe it'll go. There we go. Okay. Thank you, Chair and I want to thank you and the Committee staff for your incredible work and collaboration on this bill. And I'm accepting Committee Amendments. With that, I'm proud to present AB 2837.

This is a measure that protects low income consumers who are subject to debt collection judgment by preserving their retirement savings, ensuring due process and accuracy in wage garnishments and bank levies, and providing that amounts wrongfully seized are returned to the consumer.

I would be 100% clear nothing in this bill gets someone who is in debt out of paying their debt. It merely protects those for whom they do not get notice and their wages are wrongfully garnished and expands the protections for critical savings that they have.

With me in support of this bill is Alexandria Long, Senior Staff Attorney at Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. Ghirlandi Guidetti, staff I knew I was going to get that wrong. I apologize, and everyone gets my name wrong. Staff Attorney at Public Counsel.

All right. Thank you very much. First witness.

Would you want the mic?

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alex Long and I partner with a legal aid clinic that serves low income consumers in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The Post Judgment Fairness Act addresses the problems of consumers who are being over levied and over garnished because of judgment collection. The problem starts with notice.

Just last week, one client from San Mateo found out about a debt that had doubled with interest only after garnishment had begun. All of the documents were being sent to a 13 year old address, the same address on the complaint.

The problem is then exacerbated as clients scramble to pay bills while losing money to mistake or delays in the court. One single mother of five children in San Jose who was working two jobs lost hundreds of dollars in income while waiting 45 days for a hearing.

The garnishment happened so fast she had no time to plan putting their housing at risk. How many of us could live without a fifth of our income with two days notice? When she finally got the hearing, the judge determined she needed all of her money from one job, and most of it from the second job.

However, the judge did not order the return of the hundreds of dollars that had already been taken, even though the judge acknowledged that the mother and her children could not live without it, even though the creditor would still get $300 a month until she had finished paying off the debt. People can't pay if they can't survive.

That's why funds are protected and claims of exemption exist. However, stale address diligence and the unenforced obligation to return funds leads to consumers having no time to prepare and being pushed further into debt when judges split the baby.

The Post Judgment Fairness Act looks to fix these problems and for that reason, I urgent aye vote on the bill. Thank you.

All right, next witness.

Good morning. My name is Ghirlandi Guidetti. I'm a Staff Attorney at Public Counsel in Los Angeles.

As the author and my colleague Ms. Long said, AB 2837 will make the post judgment debt collection process fairer for individuals by increasing the chances that they actually get notice of a garnishment or levy before that happens and giving them time to research their options, find counsel, and present to the court information about their financial situation so that they can protect the assets that they need to survive.

I want to flag that the author has taken extensive amendments to address the opposition's concerns here, and the compromises on this bill balance the competing interests of due process and fairness for debtors against the interests of the $1.4 billion debt collection industry in California. I'll highlight quickly the five main aspects of the bill.

As I said, first, it will make sure that debtors actually get notice of a garnishment before that begins. It expands the type of retirement savings that are automatically protected from levy and helps courts determine how much of those retirement savings should be exempt.

The bill gives debtors the opportunity to stay or pause a garnishment or levy while, as we often see, the court is unable to set a hearing within 30 days as is required by law. Fourth, the court's existing authority to return funds that were improperly taken as made explicit.

And fifth, the bill addresses a loophole that banks have used to take more money than they should from individuals when they have multiple accounts with one institution. So I thank the Chair and the author and the Committee for your Time. Urge your support and happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you very much. Others in support please approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation and your position.

Hello. Dani Kando-Kaiser on behalf of both the sponsors of the bill, California Low Income Consumer Coalition, as well as National Consumer Law Center, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Centro Legal De La Raza, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, Contra Costa Senior Legal, Elder Law and Advocacy, Legal Aid of Marin, Legal Aid of San Bernardino, Legal Assistance for the Elderly, Legal Assistance for Seniors, Open Door Legal, Public Counsel, Public Law Center, Riverside Legal Aid, Santa Clara University, Alexander Community Law Center and Watsonville Law center. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Horrell with the Consumer Federation of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're in opposition to AB 2837 you may sit at the table or go to the microphone, whatever you would like to do. All right, go ahead.

Senator, I'm actually just here to thank the author for work. I represent Encore Capital and thank the author for working with us. We were opposed, but with recent amendments around the affidavit verification process to make it work operationally for us, we are now neutral. So I want to make sure to convey that today. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Appreciate that here. Alright.

Cliff Berg here on behalf of the California Association of Collectors, I do want to thank the author and the sponsors for working with the opponents on this bill. We have moved the bill forward.

We had a good conversation last night, but there are issues remaining with the bill which I want to bring to the Committee's attention. I think the biggest issue for us is what we call the look back. So basically, California law allows a consumer to file what's known as a claim of exemption.

We've expanded the claim of exemption over the years thanks to Senator Wachowski's work on this Committee. And this bill apparently allows someone to come in and tell the court that they were entitled to a claim of exemption. They didn't file it, and now they want the court to order the money back on a wage garnishment.

Well, the bill is unclear and we believe unworkable in terms of how that process would work, because once the wages are garnished, the money has been taken by the employer, it goes back to the creditor, it goes back to the collection agency.

So the bill is unclear on who exactly is supposed to pay back this wage garnishment retroactively. We have indicated to the sponsors and the authors that if there's a change of circumstances and someone is now qualified for a claim of exemption, then we're fine with that.

But to be able to retroactively go back after a wage garnishment, the money is gone. Who's going to pay it? So we think that part of the bill remains unworkable. I do want to remind the Committee that wage garnishment is a post judgment remedy, which means that someone just doesn't wake up in their wage garnishment.

It means that they owed a bill into collection. The creditor tried to collect on the bill. The creditor determined that there was an ability to pay. They went to court. They got noticed that the item was in court. The court issued a judgment. The judgment creditor then tried to collect again and only after through that entire process.

Mr. Berg.

You are welcome.

Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Good morning. Thank you, Committee. Chairperson and Committee, Gretchen Lichtenberger. I'm the Legislative Chairperson for the California Association of Judgment Professionals and we stand opposed respectfully, and thank the author and the sponsors for the communications. We would like in sections 1, 4, 5, 6 and 12 to add two little words because this was a recent amendment, and it references personal debt.

How is the court going to know if the judgment is based on personal debt? So we'd like it to say instead of where the judgment upon which the writ is issued is for personal debt, we want it added where it says that where the judgment upon which the writ is issued states it is for personal debt. In other words, the court will look to the judgment to determine it.

It won't have to be an issue for the courts to waste a lot of their time. And last year the Judicial Council amended their judgments so there's a checkbox. So now it's because that checkbox is there because of Senator Skinner's Bill and amendment. That will be simple for the courts to look at the judgment.

So we would just like it corrected to say amending the judgment. I mean, as it states in the judgment, and we concur with the claw back period of 12 months, that's a violation of the judgment creditors due process rights.

Because the claim of exemption hearing is for a recent levy, the court would have no jurisdiction to look back 12 months. And there's no reason in sections 1 and 4 for the court to stay a levy because the hearing is extended beyond 30 days.

The levying officer is holding those funds as the measure says itself in section six. The funds aren't going anywhere. So that would be a waste of judicial resources for anybody to do a notice. In section three, the notice to the judgment creditor.

Thank you very much.

Should be served concurrently.

All right, thank you. Just a note. Is that at least in terms of the delineation of personal debt, we've not heard this suggested amendment. I don't know if the author has or not, but I would just suggest that you continue to work with your author. I'll ask the author to comment on Mr. Berg's suggestions as well, in your close, if that's acceptable to you.

Yes, it is. Great. Okay, thank you. If you're opposed to AB 2837 please approach the microphone.

Mr. Chair and Members Cliff Costa, today, on behalf of the California Creditors Bar Association, would like to associate my comments with those made by Mr. Berg and the California Collectors. Appreciate the continuing conversation. Look forward to continue to have them. Thank you.

Good morning. Melanie Cuevas with the California Bankers Association. Also in opposition for the reason stated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tim Lynch, on behalf of the Receivables Management Association International. Aligning our comments with the collectors. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. All right, bring it back to Committee. Questions, Comments by Committee Members? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Durazo has moved the bill. All right. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan would you like to comment?

Thank you Chair and Members. Okay. I think you can hear me. Yes, no, I appreciate. This was also the first time I heard this. So we will absolutely take a look at that and continue conversations as we have. We want to make sure we're protecting individuals. But also understand that one needs to pay their debts.

So we're really trying to strike that balance. And we'll continue to. The look back period is already available. We've had many conversations around that. But we will continue all conversations as we move forward. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. I appreciate your amenability to taking into consideration some of the comments here today. Madam Chief Counsel, it's been moved by Senator Durazo. Please call the roll.

This is AB 2837. And the motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call] You have three to one so far. Members missing.

Three to one. All right, we're going to put that on call. I've got a couple housekeeping announcements here before we move to your next Bill. First is that we are going to break at noon or just before noon in order to allow Members to attend caucus today.

So we're going to get as far as we can till noon or just before noon. And then we're going to break. That's announcement number one. Announcement number two is at 1:30. We have a special order of business with some Member Wick's Bill concerning Newspaper Preservation act. And then we'll proceed with our normal agenda.

And then announcement number three that I've mentioned before is that next week on July 2, we have a robust agenda. And we're going to be going in reverse order. We're going to be starting with the end of the Alphabet and moving to the beginning. Alphabet Assembly Member Barkan, you may want to focus on the cahin part. So.

Yeah, okay. All right, next Bill number eight, AB 2877.

I will also urge Mister Zuber to be fast next week. Thank you Mister Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 2877. This is a measure which simply restricts the abilities of companies to train AI systems using the personal data of our kids without consent of the parents.

As you all are aware, AI is developing incredibly rapidly. This state has passed incredibly robust laws that protect the privacy of children and their data across the Internet.

But the bill was not written with the anticipation of artificial intelligence, and so this Bill merely expands the protections of personal data to children under 16 as it relates to the training of AI tools. With me today is Robbie Torney, program manager from the ratings and family team at Common Sense Media.

Thank you. And I assume you're accepting our.

Yes, sorry, Senator. Happily accept your amendments.

Happily. Okay, great, thanks.

Good morning Mister Chair and the honorable Committee Members. My name is Robbie Torney and I'm the program manager for ratings and family at Common Sense Media. I'm also a California resident actually in the Assembly Members district, and a former educator of over 15 years.

Common sense media is proud to sponsor AB 2877 and we are thankful to the Assembly Member for championing this critical issue. We're also thankful to the chair for your work on this important bill. At Common Sense Media, we recognize both the benefits and the risks associated with AI.

We support AB 2877 because it takes a responsible approach to managing these risks. By limiting how miners data can be used to train AI, this bill helps protect vulnerable young people while still allowing for innovation. This bill addresses a significant gap in our current privacy protections.

With the rise of AI directed to our kids and teens, AB 2877 is a critical step in safeguarding their information. Children's data should not be used or exploited without proper consent. AI systems are powerful tools that learn from the data that they are exposed to.

Allowing developers to use personal information from children without restrictions poses significant risks, including misuse of data, invasion of privacy, and creation of biased or harmful AI models. This bill aligns with and enhances the protections established by the CCPA.

These privacy rights were enshrined by California voters into law, but this occurred before widespread use of AI in consumer and education apps and products. Luckily, the voters made explicitly clear their support of future amendments to strengthen privacy.

By prohibiting the use of personal information from minors for AI training without explicit consent from a parent of a minor under 13, or from the teen themselves, AB 2877 strengthens our commitment to protecting the privacy of young Californians.

In conclusion, AB 2877 is necessary to ensure that children's personal information is used responsibly and ethically in developing AI, and we urge the Committee to support this bill to safeguard the privacy and well being of California's youth. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing no other witnesses in support, or at least that primary support. If you are in support of 2877 AB 2877 please approach the microphone and give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Hi, Jay Jessima with the Transparency Coalition in strong support.

Thank you.

Mikey Houthi with Common Sense Media in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approaches microphone in support, let's turn to the opposition. If you are opposed to AB 2877 you may approach the microphone or the table, whichever you choose.

Thank you, Chair Members, and thank you to the author, Ronak Deylami with Cal Chamber. Respectfully and strong opposition to AB 2877. It's imperative that any regulations of AI take a risk based approach and focus on the uses or outputs of technology as opposed to regulating the technology itself.

Unfortunately, by limiting inputs, this bill does the opposite, interfering with the development of the technology itself. At its core, the bill seems rooted in the assumption that it is inherently harmful to use the information of a minor to train AI, and that PI must be both De-identified and aggregated to be adequately privacy protective.

We disagree on both principles and have significant concerns that the impact of the bill will be the opposite of what is intended, harming minors by undermining the ability of developers to properly train AI to avoid negative outcomes for youth in critical areas such as healthcare, education, online safety, and more, access to data specific to children and teens is essential to develop tools to provide them the unique support for risks and challenges specific to their age groups.

Individualized data can significantly enhance the performance, personalization, and accuracy of an AI model. Stated another way, effective tools to address such serious concerns cannot be built on the data associated with adults only.

Such limitations make it more difficult to train AI and to, among other things, be more privacy protective or to avoid certain outcomes such as bias and discrimination. On this point, we do know that there is an amendment in the analysis and thank the author and the Commissioner for taking that into consideration, so we will be reviewing that.

Nonetheless, we don't believe that limitations on training AI is a necessary step. From a privacy perspective, kids have some of the strongest protections under the CCPA, rightfully so, to protect their interests and data. Excuse me.

As such, given our concerns with the impact that the Bill will have on the development, the technology itself, and the importance of taking a risk based approach, we must oppose. Thank you,

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair Members, Jason Schmeltzer, on behalf of Technet, Associate my comments with Cal Chamber. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Others opposed to AB 2877 seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. Senator Allen.

Okay. I'm an enormous fan of the author, enormous fan of the sponsor. And my challenge here is if we could sort of, if we were ruling the world and we could pass a law like this that would impact everywhere, I'd be all for it. I think that the goal of the Bill is a great one.

The concern I have, you know, I think some of the bills, when we can, when we have the right to regulate the activity, business activity within the state, where will actually provoke a change because they have to do business in the state, I'm much more amenable.

What I'm concerned about here is that this has to do with where the learning takes place. Right? So this seems so easy to offshore. If we pass a Bill like this, it just means that these companies can do this. So you're shaking your head, which is great, because I love to vote for the bill.

So tell me more about why I might be wrong.

Yeah, so it's the data. So no matter where a company is, where the learning happens, they may not use the data of a California. child. So if it is a British based company, for example, or French, France has a very big AI company, they cannot take our children's data from here in California and use it to train.

May I add on, just to add on to that, this bill does not actually oppose the use of individualized data. And in fact, it recognizes, as the chamber seat spoke, that it's really critical to have that data included in training.

It simply requires clear permission to be given, consent to be given from the parent of a minor under 13 or from the teen themselves before that data is used to train the model. These models are complicated and they're not well understood. The output data, in many cases, can be used to produce input data.

So if that data has personally identifiable information associated with it, we could be disclosing information about minors to the world. So it's really critical to aggregate and De identify the information when used for training, except in certain cases, as amended, in order to keep young people safe.

We don't want something like chat GBT, spitting out identifiable information about a young person as a result of prompt engineering.

And if I may, 1 thing to note on this is the sale of data. Now, for the training of AI is a big business. People are making a lot of money selling our data tai models to train these models.

So what is happening now is you have brokers selling Californians data to people all over the world to train their AI models. And what we're saying is you can't do that with kids data unless they have consent.

And we've already said that in many arenas, but I think it's clear that that is a value of this Legislature, and it should extend to the sale of data for purposes of training as well.

Thank you, Mister Allen. No, it's interesting. I mean, it raises some interesting legal arguments about kind of cross border business practice. But have you. I mean, I'm flipping through the analysis. I wish I'd read everything word for word. This is the challenge of a 50.

I'd be impressed.