Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'd like to begin with a couple housekeeping items, if I might. First of all, I'd like to note that Assemblymember Matt Haney is not with us today, but we want to thank Assemblymember Mia Bonta for graciously stepping up and serving on today's public safety.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bonta. I'd also like to mention that there are some General rules of conduct before we start our proceedings today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, and as we proceed with witness and public comment, witness testimony and public comment throughout today's hearing, I want to ensure that everyone understands, and this part is incredibly important, that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing.

I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Say that part one more time. I will not permit conduct that disrupts or disturbs or otherwise impedes the conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules will subject you to removal and other enforcement actions.

All right. With that intense part out of the way, let's go to our off calendar. I'd like to note that the following four items have been pulled off calendar. Item number eight, Assembly Bill 634 by Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez. This has been pulled by the author. We have item number 12, Assembly Bill 970 by Assemblymember McKinnor.

That has also been pulled by the author. We have item number 13, Assembly Bill 1097 by Assemblymember Avilafarias, pulled by the author. And lastly, item number 16, Assembly Bill 1218 by Assemblymember Soria, also pulled by the authority. I see that we have enough Members to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With the quorum present, we'll next move to adoption of today's proposed consent calendar. I'll read this out loud for everybody. We have four items on today's consent Cal. Item number six is Assembly Bill 476 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez entitled Metal Theft. Item number seven is Assembly Bill 619 by Assemblymember Ransom.

This is entitled California Conservation Corps Training Programs. Formerly incarcerated individuals reporting with an urgency provision. Item number 15, Assembly Bill 1192 by Assemblymember Carrillo, entitled Child abuse or neglect Reporting. And lastly, item number 17, Assembly Bill 1239 by Assemblymember Dickson entitled Human trafficking data. Yeah. With that, do we have a motion? Great. Okay, we have a motion by Alanis. Second by Harabedian.

[Roll Call]

Thank you all. Consent calendar has been adopted. Generally speaking, we will be hearing today's measures in sign in order. However, we will be starting today with item number three in just a moment. This is authored by Assemblymember Petrie Norris. This is Assembly Bill 366.

I will note that standing Committee Members will present their bills towards the end of today's proceedings. I appreciate everybody's patience in advance. And I will just note that every author will have five minutes to present, as will your main witnesses, of a combined total time of five minutes. That applies to both.

Five minutes for those in favor and those against, as that is our standing practice. Also going to note that the Assembly Committee on Public Safety was granted special permission with a file notice waiver to Hear Assembly Bill 379 by Assemblymember Crell. This will be item number 23.

We've also been granted permission to hear Assembly Bill 63 by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez. This is item number 24, and that will be for testimony only. There will be no vote today on item number 20. With all of that said, first up, we have item number three, Assembly Bill 366 by Assembly Member Petrie Norris.

I see that Senator Archuleta is here as well. Good to see you, Senator. Assemblymember, your time will begin once you start speaking.

Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you and present Assembly Bill 366. Before I begin, I'll just note that for the last 17 years, colleagues who have come before us have worked to pass very similar legislation. And I believe that thanks to your partnership, your work with me on this bill, as well as the work of your Committee staff, that we are in a position to pass this legislation today. And so I will begin by accepting the Committee amendments.

And thank you for your continued commitment to ensure that, as this bill moves forward, it reflects the spirit of our, of our shared commitments. Thank you. With that, I'll begin by saying that America is facing a drunk driving epidemic. Every day on American roads, 34 people die. And tragically, California is the epicenter of this crisis.

In fact, 8 out of the 10 cities that are the deadliest because of impaired drivers are right here in the State of California. So that's the bad news, the tragic news. But the good news is that we can do something about that. We can do something to make our roads safer.

And that is the goal of Assembly Bill 366. This measure will save lives before the car even starts. With AB 366, our bill requires the installation of an ignition interlock device, also known as an IID or a breathalyzer, for anyone who is convicted of driving drunk on California roads. We know that IIDs work. In fact, here in California, in 2023, IIDs prevented more than 30,000 starts by drivers who were attempting to drive with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

34 other states already require IIDs for anyone convicted of drunk driving. And more good news, it's working. Across these states, they have seen accidents and fatalities because of drunk driving fall. So, Members, I think that this is a really urgent call to action. As I said, we have an opportunity to save lives. We have an opportunity to keep our roads more safe. I've shared a number of statistics, but we know that these aren't just statistics. These are our family members. These are our friends. These are our neighbors.

I am really honored to be joined today by two folks who are going to share their stories. I'm joined by Senator Archuleta, who is here both as my co-author and also as a grandfather. And I'm also pleased to be joined by Colin... Colin Campbell, who is in a leadership role at MADD and also the parent of Ruby and... And Hart. So we will begin, Senator, with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Assembly colleagues, for allowing me to be here in your home to represent and present Assembly Bill 366 along Assembly Member Petrie-Norris on this very important bill. I want to begin by thanking the Assembly Members and all of you who have families that are so interested in this bill.

Petrie-Norris, thank you so very much for your leadership on this issue, and I thank you for your help and your time and inviting me to speak here today. Today I'm coming to you as a Senator, as someone who served on the Montebello Police Department, and most importantly, as a heartbroken grandfather.

As you know, it's very rare for a Senator to come before you and present as a witness on an Assembly Bill, but it is so important that you recognize the fact that any one of us, whether we're Assembly Members or Senators, janitors, truck drivers, housewives, it doesn't matter.

When something like this affects your family, it affects you for a lifetime. So I'm here today to say thank you for the time that you're allowing me. And I'm here as a co-author of Assembly Bill 366 to expand on the interlock device to all offenders. Over 30 states. Can you imagine, over 30 states, as you heard, already have these laws and California needs to join these states because it saves lives, and it's so many lives are taken each and every year, as you heard.

In December of 2024, just a few months ago, my wife and I received a phone call that I hope you never, ever received in our home that our granddaughter was killed by a drunk driver. We couldn't believe it. Christmas Eve. Imagine the Christmas trees, celebrations, families getting together, and we got that phone call.

Whatever you were doing on Christmas Eve, the Archuleta family and the Hahn family were taken to their knees because of the news that we heard that my granddaughter, Samantha, was driving in Victorville and she was killed by a drunk driver. Our lives were shaken. So we called my daughter, and she said it's true.

So of course, my wife and I jumped in the car and drove. As we drove, and it seemed like it was an endless, endless drive. We kept praying that it wasn't true. But when we opened the door, there was my daughter crying that yes, indeed, her daughter, our granddaughter, Samantha Hahn, was tragically taken by a drunk driver. And Samantha was only 30 years of age.

She was my first grandchild and she had just received her master's degree, ready to begin her work as a social worker to help those in need. This profound loss to our family, it should not happen to any family. With people who drunk drive or drive drunk, we know it's not the first time that it's done.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported for years and years that drunk drivers, people who drink and drive, they do it on an average about 80 times in their lifetime before they were caught. This isn't someone who's having an accident. It is making a mistake. No, this is someone who could potentially take a life.

This device will help. It is so important that, for the first time in my life as an elected official, perhaps in your life, that we could truly do something to help families and prevent accidents and tragedies like this. So it is true. This bill has been debated for the last 17 years.

And so how many are we going to lose? How many families? Let's not do it again for the next 17 days, let alone 17 years. It's been a profound loss for our family, and may it never happen to your family, whether it be Christmas or Easter, just in the summer, anytime. It could happen.

God knows when it will. But if we don't do something, it may. This is not a Republican issue, a Democrat issue, independent. It is a family issue. So I urge you to support us, support families. And I'm proud that Samantha, as Samantha's grandfather, that I'm presenting this bill.

I talked to her this morning. As you were getting ready, I was talking to my daughter and she said to me, thanks, dad, thanks for stepping up along with all the first responders, the Highway Patrol Officers, the firefighters, doctors, paramedics, everyone who works in the emergency rooms when these patients come in.

The accident was so tragic that they had to identify my granddaughter with just her fingerprints. Can you imagine the speed when this man was driving? So, colleagues, please allow us to continue taking this forward so this tragedy doesn't happen again. And I thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask your aye vote you.

You have about a minute and a half remaining to present.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Colin Campbell. I am a member of MADD's National Board of Directors. On June 12, 2019, I was driving my kids to Joshua Tree for summer vacation. My 17 year old daughter, Ruby, just gotten a merit scholarship to study art at the Art Institute of Chicago. And my son, Hart, 14 year old son, Hart, was going to play video games and date girls all summer long. And a drunk and high driver going 90 miles an hour slammed into my car and killed both my children. Both my beautiful children are gone.

My wife and I, our families, Ruby and Hart's friends, our entire community was gutted. Our dentist, our rabbi went to the dentist and burst into tears. And the dentist said, oh, you knew Ruby and Hart too, huh? Because she'd seen a lot of people crying that week. Because when two teenagers are murdered, it's like an earthquake.

It's like a tsunami of grief. Six years later and it is still so hard for me to live without my Ruby and Hart and believe this is real and not some nightmare that just won't end. The drunk driver had a prior DUI, had her license revoked. Nothing was going to stop her from drinking that night except a bill like ABs, AB 366. Why wasn't there an interlock device in that woman's car? Would have saved my children's lives. You know, how many drunk driving deaths is it going to take to understand these people who choose to drink and drive aren't making a mistake?

They're murdering our children. And something needs to be done. The woman who killed my kids, she has two kids of her own. Her family's destroyed too. An interlock device would have saved her life, would have kept her out of prison, kept her a mother instead of a murderer. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for the presentation. And gentlemen, thank you both for your words today and sharing what I imagine are really painful stories. But thank you for sharing all of that with the Committee so they can consider it today. Next, we'll hear from others in the audience who'd like to voice their support for 366.

Please come forward at this time. There's a microphone right here next to Mr. Weber. This will be our standard operating procedure today on all bills. Please come forward and state only your name, any organization or group that you're a part of, and your position, which I imagine would be support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Good morning. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I'm with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I'm Irene's sister, and I strongly support this bill.

My name is Anne Callery. I'm a volunteer with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the widow of Kevin Archibald, and I support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Kellie Montalvo. I'm the mom of Benjamin Montalvo, this beautiful boy killed at just the age of 21, standing here in full support of AB 366. Thank you.

My name is Eddie Montalvo, and we're here in support of AB 366. And this is my son, Benjamin Montalvo, and me and him asking you for your support. Thank you.

Good morning. Joelle McCoy from Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Beverly Yu on behalf of the AAA Mountain West Group in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Justin Fanslau on behalf of the SAFE Coalition, Talk to Lock, Smart Start, and Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho, all in support. Thank you.

My name is Gavin Jean Baptiste Iribarren, and I support this bill.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Mike Knudsen on behalf of the Automobile Club of Southern California AAA, very much in support of this bill. It's time.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Marc Vukcevich, Director of State Policy for Streets for All, in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support.

Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support of the bill. Thank You.

Good morning. Sean Thuilliez, Vice President, California Police Chiefs Association, Police Chief for the City of Tustin. We're in support of this bill.

All right. I believe that is everyone hoping to speak in favor. So thank you all for your testimony in our State Capitol today. Next we'll hear from any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 366. I see we have some witnesses coming forward. These two chairs right here are for you. Your time will not begin until you start speaking, and you will also have five minutes.

Good morning. Good morning. Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to AB 366. I am terribly sorry for your losses and everyone who just spoke up. However, we do have concerns. AB 366 eliminates judicial discretion to address DUI convictions, which encompass a wide variety of behaviors and circumstances.

We need California judges to have the ability to exercise their wisdom and their good judgment in fashioning appropriate sentences. Removing this discretion to delete what may be for some individuals an unduly harsh and counterproductive penalty is not the justice we seek in our courts. Further, research has demonstrated that IID installation has inconclusive effects on recidivism and does not support the installation of these devices for all DUI convictions as an evidence based solution.

Not only does AB 366 balloon and compound the cost of the already expensive administrative program during a budget deficit, it also exacerbates the financial harm imposed on low income individuals and their families. You may think that this discounted amount is not that big a deal, but we have people in this state.

67% of them cannot pay their monthly bills. At least 21% of the people in our state report food insecurity. So does one pay to install the device so they can get to work and therefore fail to pay a utility bill, their medication, their rent? This bill provides an extraordinary windfall for the device manufacturers with no oversight or monitoring by the state. Not only will huge numbers of individuals be saddled with the extra cost, there is no assurance that the device companies will abide by existing ability to pay scales. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association of criminal defense lawyers. We are opposed to the bill even with the proposed amendments. I have a lot of respect for the author as a policymaker and Senator as well. I've worked with them on other issues and, of course, can't put into words the tragedy.

My family and friends have been impacted as well, so this is not just an abstract concept. I've been one of the ones opposing this bill over the last 17 years on the following grounds. DUI offenses. The reason why we have judicial discretion, especially for first time non-injury offenses, is because the DMV statistics show that just under 4% of first time offenders will reoffend in the first 12 months.

So we always look at this bill as to what happens to those 96% of folks who will not reoffend under the current legal protocols and current judicial discretion that we have and whether we should be imposing an IID requirement where we don't have sufficient oversight of the installers.

We hear stories all the time of individuals not receiving the discounts or having problems with the calibration costs or other hidden fees for that 96% who will not reoffend. We are also concerned that there is demographically a disproportionate enforcement piece that still needs to be addressed.

I think the most recent statistic shows that about 46, almost 47% of DUI offenses are Latino drivers and that has been consistent for years, and we're not sure why there's a disproportionate enforcement. So our position is that there should remain judicial discretion in particular for first time offenders that are non-injury.

And as we understand the bill, even as amended, takes away this judicial discretion for this first offense. We all want to prevent tragedies and we have to figure out is what's the right policy and judicial discretion, we believe, is the right policy for now. We think there could be ways to work on it going forward. We think the amendments as I understand them for second where there's an injury I think makes more sense. But for that 96% that will not reoffend per DMV statistics, we still have to remain opposed to the bill.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from others in the audience who'd like to be heard in opposition to AB 366. Now's the time to come forward. You know the drill.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and Debt Free Justice California in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in opposition, also with the Communities United for Restorative, CURYJ, in Alameda County. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty in respectful opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Kellie Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in respectful opposition.

Okay, final call. Anyone else want to be heard on the matter? Okay. Seeing no other response, we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? I will note that we have a motion by our Vice Chair who's absent, but he did make the motion. We have a second by Harabedian. Any questions or comments? We'll start with Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, just... Excuse me, just a comment that has to do with what the defense indicated in the numbers, the low numbers of offending versus those who are not offending. I think there's a big difference between an offense and an identified offense. The odds of being caught while driving under the influence are very, very slim in all truth.

This very, very misleading number to say only 4%. That's why we have so much tragedy, is because we don't know until tragedy strikes. And this bill is a very valid attempt to prevent the driving, so why in the world would we oppose this? I'm still mystified, but I certainly am very thankful for this attempt and very sad because, in my 28 years with the California Highway Patrol, I saw a lot and very tragic, every one of them. And darn, I'll do everything I can to prevent that. And so thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Harabedian, you're next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just want to thank the author for bringing the bill and obviously Senator, for you being here and so sorry, obviously continued to really be with you and your family, and sir, for your testimony. And I appreciate the author working with every constituency to deal with the economics of this. I do think this bill will save lives. Please add me as a co-author. Happy to support today. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Next we'll go to Dr. Sharp-Collins.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you all so much for sharing your testimonies. They were truly heartfelt, and I'm truly sorry for your loss. I do have a couple of questions as well in regards to some of the financial conversations that was mentioned by the opposition.

And so this is quite curious as from what you brought up that it does appear to be the opportunity for the industry to kind of increase its overall revenue. And so I am concerned about the lowest pay scale being 10% for individuals, which is 125% of the federal poverty rate and actually below. And as a result of that, I don't know how folks are going to be able to survive on 125% of the federal poverty rate but also be required to have the actual devices with those types of fees.

So I'm wondering if someone can explain to me the rationale for not scaling this down to zero, as I understand that this is something that has been discussed in the past. So I'm just wondering why haven't we been able to scale that down to zero, knowing that the federal poverty level, the rate itself is 125%, and 10% is quite a bit for those who cannot afford that.

Well, thank you so much for the question. And the proposal before us will expand California's subsidy program by 25%. We already have in the State of California the most generous subsidy program in the entire country. In terms of the actual cost, there's a sliding scale.

The vendors will pay up to 90% of the cost for the offenders or the individuals that are required to install a device. This scale is if you are 100% or below the federal poverty level, the cost is 30 cents. As in 3-0 cents per day. Between 101 and 200% of the federal poverty level, it's 70 cents per day.

200 to 300%, $1.35, 301 to 400%, $2.75. And I guess I sort of reject some of the premise of the opposition's position on this. And I shared, I think last year when we were presenting this bill, I shared the story of my brother who has struggled with substance abuse his entire life.

He lives in North Carolina. At the age of 38, about two years ago, for the very first time, he was able to get a driver's license and he was required to install an IID. My brother is a minimum wage worker who works at a fast food restaurant. And in my mind, the idea that he had to save his money in order to install this IID, that was not a bad thing. That was not a bad thing. It made it clear to him that driving's a privilege.

And every time he steps behind the wheel, he's not just risking his own life behind the wheel of an automobile, he's risking the lives of everyone around us. And so I feel like the 30 cent per day number for the lowest income bracket is more than appropriate.

Anything else, Dr. Sharp-Collins? Okay, thank you. Assembly Member Bonta.

Thank you. And thank you, Chair, for allowing me to sub in during this week's hearing. And it's, I'm looking at faces that I've served on this Committee with in the past. And I just want to bring in the name of somebody that I lost, Arif Davis, who was 17 when he was tragically killed by a drunk driver on his way back from, I guess, he was 17 on his way back from his first semester away at college, and he was not with us.

Beautiful, beautiful person. So I certainly just want to thank Senator Archuleta for speaking to the loss in your family, as well as you as well, and all those who testified here before. I'm reminded in this Committee that we're often faced with incredible tragedy and need to be able to make sure that we're moving forward with policy solutions that don't have unintended consequences and don't do harm. That as we are seeking a solution to the incredible tragedy that we have to face when we're sitting in this Committee. I am most concerned about the removal of judicial discretion here.

I think as we move forward in the nation and certainly in the State of California, ensuring that our judges have the ability to exercise their judicial discretion is incredibly important. I worry and am very concerned that this basically removes that discretion. On its face, that in and of itself is something that is incredibly challenging for me as it relates to my vote on this bill.

I'm also concerned with the opposition's testimony around the fact that this is one device, one vendor at this point, with insufficient oversight, with faultiness of device being something that can really impact on the other side the 96% that you've indicated who would have to install this device. And I worry about the consequences of that as well.

And to Assembly Member Sharp-Collins' line of questioning, I am also concerned about the costs associated with this for everyone. Assembly Member, I am substituting on this Committee today. I will follow the Chair's recommendation on this bill at this point.

But I do hope that you consider the opposition's comments, particularly around a single vendor having so much authority over so many California lives and the impact of that because I don't think that we should ever be promoting one particular device or one particular vendor.

And secondarily, the issue of kind of removal of judicial discretion is something that is something that will not allow me to vote for this bill on the floor, despite the fact that I've been personally touched by the same loss that you all are expressing right now. With that, I would just really ask, as this bill moves forward, that you would take seriously the opposition's concerns and seek to address them.

Well, and thank you, Assembly Member, for those comments. Just to briefly address some of the points that you raised. There's not one vendor, there's 12 vendors. And in terms of the judicial discretion and some of the other points, certainly we will continue those conversations, and appreciate your support today and hope to be able to earn your support if this measure advances and is on the floor. So thank you.

All right, thank you all for your comments. Are there any other questions or comments from the dais? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for your comments, for your feedback, and for your support. In closing, I just want to say thank you to everyone who has been here today. Thank you to Senator Archuleta. Thank you to Mr. Campbell.

Thank you to all of the family members who have joined us, and joined us not just in this hearing, but for the way that they advocate tirelessly and they share their stories. And they're not doing it to protect their kids and their parents and their family members. They are doing this to protect our kids, and I am eternally grateful to all of you for that and for your work. And so, on behalf of Samantha, on behalf of Ruby and Hart and Arif, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I also want to just give a special note of recognition to you. I know that you've been a tireless champion on the issue, and we've had some tough conversations, but you've never shied away from engaging with me. And just on a personal note, I want to say thank you for trusting the process.

Contrary to public opinion, it actually does work sometimes. And I think that we have landed in a much better space, in large part because of your willingness to engage with the Committee. So I really thank you for that. And to everyone who came and shared a personal statement story, I'm so sorry for each and every one of you for your loss. What we can... There's nothing I can do to make that pain less.

But what we can do is continue the conversation today, notwithstanding the very valid points that are raised by all sides from the folks who have spoken on the Committee today. With that, the Chair is recommending an aye as amended. Let's conduct the roll.

On AB 366 by Senate Member Petrie-Norris, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] That measure passes.

Okay, that measure passes. You're off to Appropriations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee Members.

All right. More of that today, please. That sounds wonderful. Okay, next we have... And thank you to all the authors for being so patient. We have Assembly Member Elhawary. This is item number 19. This is Assembly Bill 1380. And I will do a call out, if Assembly Members Ahrens or Pacheco are watching, you should be coming up next in the hopper, so make your way back to the Committee room. Assembly Member Elhawary, your time begins whenever you start speaking.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 1380, which creates a permanent, dignified pathway into firefighting careers for formerly incarcerated individuals who served on Cal Fire hand crews. California has relied on incarcerated firefighters for nearly a century.

Men and women who risk their lives clearing brush, cutting fire lines and supporting fire suppression across the state. These individuals are carefully screened, limited to low level non violent offenders with good behavior and low security classifications.

These are folks who went through Cal Fires, rigorous hands on training, risk their lives on the front lines and have come home with no certificate, no job prospects, and just $250 in gate money. AB 1380 changes that. It ensures they leave with an official certificate and a real shot, a fair shot at a real job.

This bill is about more than just the job. It's about recognition, dignity, and a real shot at rebuilding their lives for communities like mine in South Central. This is about showing people that if you do the work, you deserve the opportunity. And we have the power to open those doors instead of keeping them locked.

While nepotism often helps some individuals entering the firefighting profession, those who have fought in actual fires face significant barriers to joining the force. I want to note that we are fully committed to removing the 15% requirement from the bill and will instead align and elevate with Cal Fires categorical- existing categorical system.

Joining me today are Anthony Pedro, a formerly incarcerated firefighter who was also awarded the Correctional Partner of the Year by CDCR from the Future Fire Academy, and Shervin Aazami from Initiate Justice Action.

Okay, yeah. How are you doing, everyone? Thanks for having us. My name is Anthony Pedro. I'm the founder and the CEO of Future Fire Academy. And like she had mentioned, I am justice involved as well. And I came from these programs.

After released, I was able to get into the fire service and it was a hard struggle, but eventually I was able to obtain the cert- certifications myself and put myself through school, sleeping out of my car, you know, it was a struggle in the beginning and- and I was able to see, like, how other people.

When I was doing my prison sentence after doing nine years, I could see people come and go and I would just mention like, hey, I just want to go home once. And then after going through that struggle and seeing like, man, like that's how hard it is for folks because getting these certifications is huge from this.

And if- if only, if we can all have that, then they won't be recidivating. Right. Like that's how we could prevent that by giving them the certifications. So that way when they come home, it's an eathi- easier pathway to get into the employment. You know, I was able to do it successfully. Started our program.

It's an organization that helps people statewide. We've helped hundreds of folks get in the fire service when they come home. But this, by this bill would be helping us too as well. And that's really paving the way for them to get in and that transition and wraparound services is what we need most of. Yeah.

So yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Shervin Aazami and I am policy director for Initiate Justice Action, a proud co sponsor of AB 1380. I want to thank the committee for their close engagement with us on this important legislation to fight recidivism and wildfires in tandem.

We want members to know that the author and sponsors have been in close contact with the opposition since day one. In fact, we started conversations when this was still a bill concept and was not yet in draft form. We continue to have open dialogue with them and are discussing additional amendments.

We want to get this right, but we also want to ensure that there are direct pathways to employment for formerly incarcerated firefighters, which currently make up 27% of the state's firefighting force, according to the bill analysis. This committee knows better than most how essential employment is for reducing recidivism.

The Conservation Camp Program is among the most successful in achieving these goals and giving folks a real opportunity to give back to their communities and invest in their own personal growth. AB 1380 gives incarcerated hand crews the credentialing they earned and deserve and honors their service by requiring the state to open doors for future employment.

As the bill analysis noted, Since 2018, when the Ventura Training Center was established, only 272 formerly incarcerated firefighters have been hired by the agency out of thousands of seasonal and permanent staff. We believe much more needs to be done. AB 1380 makes California safer, more fair and more prepared to deal with the constant threat of wildfires.

For all these reasons, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember for your presentation and thank you both for your testimony today. Next we'll hear from us other members of the public.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Prosecutors Alliance Action, in support, proud co sponsor.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and Debt Free Justice California, in strong support.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Laura Ridolfi from the Haywood Burns Institute, in support.

Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong support. Also Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Thank you.

My name is Felipe Kelly on behalf of California United for Responsible Budget, in full support.

Hello, my name is Rakim and on behalf of the Ellis Baker Center we are in full support.

Hello, Mayra Lombera with the Michelson Center for Public Policy, in support.

Yesenia Jimenez with End Child Poverty in California, in support.

Leo Morales from the Youth Advisory Council and I strongly support

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Griff Ryan Roberts, student in McGeorge School of Laws, Legislative and Public Policy. Working with Michelson Center for Public Policy in support. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support.

Good morning. Kelly Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in full support.

Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Strong support. Thank you.

Hope Williams, Sustainable Economies Law Center, strong support.

Good morning. Annalise Zamora on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in strong support.

Good morning. Hasmik Geghamyan, Sustainable Economies Law Center, fully support.

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California, in strong support.

Gray Gardner, Drug Policy Alliance, in support.

Hi, my name is Felicia. I'm from the Young Women's Freedom Center and I strongly support.

Hi everyone, my name is Layla. I'm from the Young Women's Freedom Center and I strongly support this bill.

My name is Miliana Elizondo, I'm from the Young Women's Freedom Center and I strongly support this bill.

Hi, my name is Lisa Arellano, I'm from the Young Women's Freedom Center and I strongly support this bill.

Claudia Gonzalez on behalf of your California, in strong support.

Jose Herrera from Courage, in support.

Rose Lavalle with Fresh Lifelines for Youth AKA FLY, in support.

My name is Cassandra and I'm with the Young Women's Freedom Group and also fly and I support this bill.

Thank you, everyone, very much for your testimony today. Next we'll hear from those who'd like to be heard in opposition to the Bill. I see two folks coming forward. You'll have five minutes to address the Committee once you start Speaking.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Terry Mchale with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. We have been in opposition to this Bill, but we have not been on opposite sides. I want to congratulate the author for bringing together a great group of people who have been very collaborative and very cooperative. Shervin was telling the truth.

They called us before the Bill was introduced. This has been the way legislation should be handled. I do want to point out that CAL FIRE has been using inmates since 19143 years before the first or entry into the First World War. And hundreds of firefighters have found their way through into CAL FIRE by being inmates first.

This legislation, however, will ease the path, gives them credit for the work that they have done, credit that they deserve to take. And so we are going to remove our opposition. And with the caveat that we've also spoken to the Assembly woman and to the sponsors.

We do have some concerns that this will have a two tier system with the inmates and that there will be some questions on consistency in discipline, but we will work on that in the next House. But we would ask that the Committee support this Bill and move it forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We represent 35,000 firefighters in California. I just want to echo a little bit of the comments that were already made and state that.

I know this Committee is not asking for amendments, but we understand the authority will be making amendments to remove the 15% hiring requirement for CAL FIRE and address some of the certifications that are required in the first part of the Bill. We look forward to seeing those amendments.

I think it's important to note that there are existing pathways for individuals to get hired in the fire service, as noted by one of the proponents, and also that there are 4,000 people on the statewide eligibility list, 4,000 people that are trying to become firefighters in California with varying levels of experience and backgrounds.

So again, we appreciate the work of this Committee, all the Committee Members that I've spoken to, the author and the sponsors, and we look forward to reevaluating our position once we see the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you both for being here today. Before we turn it over to the Committee. Is there anyone else in the room who'd like to be heard on the Bill? Okay, I see no affirmative response. We'll now turn it over to the Committee. Does anyone have a question or a comment or would like to make a motion?

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, this is. This is different. Congratulations on that. I had some concerns when you guys were talking because we have a group of young men and women who have tried really hard to get into the Forestry and the Fire Department, like LA County Fire Department, Explorer Post Cadet Programs, Wildland Fire Explorer Program.

I was in fear that this may bump those that have been trying really hard to stay within the boundaries that they should be to make sure that they get into the industry. And I was afraid that this was going to bump them from that opportunity.

And I wanted to make sure at least those that have been trying really hard to not get in trouble and stay the way so they could do that. It's very unique to see opposition come off like this.

I know that I was not in support of this in Natural Resources, but I don't think you're getting a no vote for me today. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other questions or comments from the dais? I'll just go out of turn and say one thing. Assemblymember Elhawary, I have found you to be a very pragmatic and balanced and thoughtful author. I think that this, again, is a testament to how you legislate.

And as one of the opposition witnesses mentioned in their testimony, this is exactly how we should be doing legislation. So I did have some concern. I love what you're doing with the Bill. I think the intent is commendable. I had some concern just about the efficacy of the 15% requirement.

But hearing that you're already working on that and in active conversations with the opposition, I am absolutely comfortable moving this forward. And I have every belief that you'll continue to engage with both of them and get this Bill into a really solid position where it can do a lot of good for a lot of people.

Any other questions or comments from the dais? If not, we can certainly take a motion. Do you have a second chair? I'll second. We have a motion by Wynn, a second by the chair. Assemblymember Elhawary, would you like to make a closing statement?

Yes. And thank you so much for working with me, Mr. Chair, as well. These are people who have stepped up and protected our communities, your communities, under the toughest conditions. And when they come home, we owe them more than a thanks. We owe them a real chance. At the very least, please give them this chance and vote.

I thank you.

Thank you very much and colleagues. Yes, the Chair is recommending an aye. And I will just add one comment to Assembly. Assemblymember El Hair. In this Committee, all too often we talk, and appropriately so, about throwing the book at people and having stiff consequences for those who break the law.

One thing we don't do nearly enough of though, is really talking about true reentry pathways. Vast majority of people that leave our state prisons fall into homelessness, they reoffend and they make our communities less safe. This is a direct solution to that problem.

I commend the author and I recommend a Strong Aye on AB 1380 by Senate Member Elhawari. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee.

Alanis not voting, but looking forward for print on the floor.

[Roll call]

Okay, that measure remains on call. You need one more vote. We'll see if we can get it for you later. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Next we have Assemblymember Aarons. Thank you so much for coming. Sir, this is item number five. This is Assembly Bill 461.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My bill, AB 461, ensures that families facing school attendance challenges receive the support that they need rather than punishment.

Under current law, parents and guardians of students in kindergarten through 8th grade who fail to ensure regular school attendance may face misdemeanor charges punishable of up to $2,000 in fines and up to one year in county jail. AB 461 aims to eliminate punitive measures that exacerbate economic hardships and instead promote supportive non criminal responses.

Joining me today are Yesenia Jimenez, Senior Policy Associate with End Child Poverty California, and Jose Herrera, Dream Beyond Bars fellow with the Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Yesenia Jimenez, Senior Policy Associate with End Child Poverty in California. AB 461 ensures that families navigating school attendance challenges are met with support, not punishment. Under current law, our system compounds family hardship rather than address root causes related to chronic truancy, such as bullying, trauma, fear of deportation or even poverty.

These punitive policies are ineffective, outdated and disproportionately harm low income families, immigrant and queer youth. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are much more likely to have their absences labeled unexcused. Black students experience the largest disparity followed by Native American students. What's more, research indicates that children of incarcerated parents face cognitive and health related challenges throughout their development.

As a minor, one of my parents was incarcerated due to working while living undocumented in the US. This led to some of the hardest years of my family's life. It was acts of kindness for my teachers, my church group and our social safety net were the reasons where I was able to thrive in school.

This bill before you is especially urgent considering the Federal Administration's removal of Sensitive Locations Policy. These actions have heightened fears of deportation among immigrant families, leading many parents to keep their children home and resulting in increased chronic truancy because families are scared.

Just this month, Homeland Security agents attempted to enter two elementary schools in South Central LA, that's my hometown, and failed thanks to LAUSD school officials denying them entry. This has led to a decline in average daily attendance in schools where immigration actions occurred nearby.

These are not signs of parental neglect, but parents protecting their children the best way they know how. AB 461 is an invitation to break the cycle of criminalizing families. When we choose support over punishment, we begin to repair generational harm and build the foundation for true educational equity. For those reasons, I urge your I vote.

Dear Chair and members, My name is Jose Herrera. I am a Dream Beyond Bars fellow with Communities United for Restored Youth Justice, known as CURYJ. I'm also a student at Contra Costa College studying automotive collision repair. I'm here to share my story.

You can't always know what a student is going through, whether it's financially hardship, transportation challenges or disability. Yet too often people assume youth are not trying. In reality, they're doing their best with what they have. Instead of finding the parents or who are or who are really struggling, we should be reaching out with support and resources.

In my experience, I received multiple truancy letters, some of them mistaken, and even when I tried to fix the errors, they weren't always corrected on top of daily things that I already have to navigate and deal with. This created extra stress not only for myself, but for my family.

If these errors were not corrected, I knew the problems that it could cause my mom, including extra financial burdens in the forms of truancy fines. In addition, my mom had a fear of things escalating leading her to jail or even me possibly going to foster care.

Despite having all this, I still didn't give up my family and I still shouldn't have gone through that stress. These harmful policies are unaffected, outdated and especially harm students and families like mine. AB 461 brings hope to youth and families navigating school attendance and challenges and ensures families are met with support, not punishment.

Having systems that are flexible and work with you play a big role in my success. I was able to do independent studies, successfully complete high school, graduated with a 3.1 GPA, more credits than I even needed, and now I'm currently attending Contra Costa College. It's important to meet students and families where they are at.

AB 461 reflects a better way forward. One rooting dignity, equity and compassion. I urge your I vote on AB 461. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation, Assemblymember and both of you for your testimony today. Next we'll hear from others who'd like to speak in support of the bill. Please come forward. Name, organization and position, please.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud co sponsor of the bill. Also me too on behalf of End Poverty in California, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California Black Women for Wellness Action Project and the Children's Partnership.

Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice La Defensa and Debt Free Justice California in strong support.

Good morning. Amanda Kirchner with County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Dafna Gozani, National Center for Youth Law in strong support.

Analisa Zamora with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong support.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California. Proud co sponsors in support. Thank you.

Grey Gardner on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Laura Ridolfi with the Haywood Burns Institute in support.

Forrest Jones on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice. Smart Justice California in strong support.

Shervin Aazami, Initiate Justice Action. Strong support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

My name is Layla from the Young Women's Freedom Center and I strongly support this bill.

Meliana Elizondo from the Young Women's Freedom Center. I strongly support this bill.

Hi Felicia from the Young Woman's Freedom center and I strongly support this bill.

Hi Lisa from the Young Women's Freedom center and I strongly support this bill.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony today. Next we'll hear from those who'd like to be heard in opposition to the Bill. Do we have anyone here to testify in opposition? Okay, I see none. Is there anyone else who'd like to be heard on the bill whatsoever? Seeing none.

We'll turn it back to the dais. Questions or comments or motions from. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Got a second. Any other questions or comments? Vice Chair? Take it away.

So, in my former career, I was a school resource officer, and I also chaired our school attendance review board and was a board member. Congratulations on going to college or at least attending college right now. And I understand that, I'm assuming that was a school attendance review board that you attended. Yeah.

And was told, in my mind, I think they did their job. Because it got you to go further, right? Exactly. School attendance review boards are to help with attendance, so that way the schools can get paid, so that way they can continue to educate our kids. There are other ways. There's independent studies, there's homeschooling.

I understand the current Homeland Security issue that you bring up, but in my experience, in my neck of the woods, we do provide resources. We do everything we can. I've taken kids to school, but if the parents aren't being pushed that way, then nothing really happens.

Cause for the most part, it's the parents that are in charge of the kids. That's why they're the minors. That's why they're under 18. And that's the way it goes across the board. I'm actually. I'm shocked that nobody's here for opposition, so I applaud you. You did a good job. I can't support this yet.

I still need to talk to my people on this. But congratulations.

Well, thank you so much. Assemblymember, if I may, I will just say that removing this from the penal code does absolutely nothing to stop the many, many interventions that our counties and school districts do to get kids to go to school.

And putting truancy and absenteeism in the penal code does nothing to address the root causes of why students are absent or truant, does absolutely nothing.

The data shows that very clearly we should be actually addressing the root causes of why the truancy rates and absenteeism is higher now with the penal code enforcement than it is before the pandemic. And I will just say, as a point of personal privilege. Both my parents were incarcerated. I was truant several times.

And that had largely to do with economic hardship, issues of how I grew up. And so this is not only a policy I care about. This affected me personally, which is why I care so much about it. I know when you talk to your people, you're gonna be a yes.

That was very sly, Assemblymember Ahrens. My goodness. Any other questions or comments? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzalez, please.

I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. And he and I have very, very somewhat similar stories. But, you know, truancy is a thing. And I remember so many obstacles and communities of color, in particular in poor communities. I represent the fifth poorest district in the state. The bus doesn't show up.

You couldn't pay the rent, so you had to go work and figure it out in cash cans like I used to do. Something happened between your families. Multiple families live in one unit and stuff happens. And you shouldn't have to be penalized for the life that you were sort of born into, but you can certainly fix it.

But you shouldn't have to be penalized. And certainly for some of us who are on this dais, who speak about being the representatives of second chances, this is that chance to deliver. So I just wanted to thank you for bringing this up. And thank you for sharing your story. Appreciate it.

Anyone else? Extraordinarily well said. Assemblymember Gonzalez. Mr. Ahrens, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your I vote.

And an I recommendation you shall have. Colleagues. I think this is a step in the right direction and I commend the author on bringing the bill.

And thank you both so much for being here and thank you for telling your story. Very impressive. Expect great things from you.

On AB 461 by Senate Member Ahrens, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[roll call]

All right, that measure will be on call. It needs one more unless the Vice Chair wants to change his vote. Vice Chair, did you want to.

Hopefully on the floor, everything's all right.

Stay tuned. We got you. Thank you all very much for being here. And I see that we now have Assembly Member Pacheco back. Assembly Member, come on up. Colleagues, this is going to be a little bit different than our normal item. This is ACR 60 that we're talking about. This is item number 22 on your agenda.

Assemblymember, whenever you're ready, you can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I am pleased to present ACR 60, which highlights the ongoing efforts of police officers across California to successfully interact with residents with mental illness, developmental disabilities, sensory processing challenges, and other conditions that may affect communication during interactions with law enforcement.

According to the National Alliance of Mental Illness, one in four people with a serious mental illness has been arrested by the police at some point in their lifetime, leading to over 2 million jail bookings. Several police departments, such as Downey PD, offer a free and completely voluntary special needs stickers for constituents to display in their cars or homes if they wish to do so. The goal of the visual indicator is to assist police officers and the community members that they may need additional accommodations or resources.

This inexpensive, yet effective program exemplifies how police departments can proactively improve interactions with vulnerable populations. While comprehensive data on police interactions with individual special needs remains limited, programs like these create important bridges between law enforcement and families, fostering mutual understanding that ultimately leads to safer communities.

With me today, and I'm honored to have her here today with me, is Captain Maria Villegas from the Downey Police Department. I'm going to hand it over to her so she can explain what we're doing in Downey. They have been doing it since I was on City Council in Downey and when I was Mayor, and so I've always taken great pride, and so I'm going to hand it over to my witness.

Thank you. Captain, go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you for having me here. My name is Maria Villegas, and I'm a Captain for the Downey Police Department. We implemented the Special Needs Program in November of 2021. And I have some here for, I'm a visual person, so I have to share the visual aid.

And these are our special needs stickers that we ask our community members with special needs to either place in the residence window or their vehicles. We didn't stop there though because, as you know, as law enforcement, we respond to calls 24/7.

So we decided to also offer a yard sign that says a person with special needs stickers lives here so that the officers would have more visibility. In addition to that, we created a form in collaboration with the Los Angeles County mental health clinicians that we are lucky to have right along with our officers.

And we asked them what would be the important things that needed to be on these forms. Some of the important... And these forms are completely voluntary. The special needs community does not need to fill out the form. If they want a sticker, they can just simply come in and get one. The same for the sign.

In that form, the clinicians recommended that we ask for if they wanted to provide triggers, coping mechanisms, diagnosis. Anything that they wanted to provide to us, the individual's nicknames, what they like to go by, how it's easier to interact with the individuals.

Once we did that, we enter it into our computer aided dispatch center, which then alerts officers before they get to the residence. If it's attached to a vehicle plate, then it also alerts the officers that somebody with special needs may be driving the vehicle or in the vehicle.

We, in our 12.5 square miles of Downey, which is a little small town, we have 35 group homes that are residential homes. So we've also offered these placards and stickers to them. Our hope at the Downey Police Department is that we can help officers recognize someone with special needs versus someone who is not complying with officers' demands or asks. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please step up. And name and organization. Okay. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? All right. Seeing no one in opposition. Bring it back to the Committee. Committee, any questions?

I'll move the bill, Mr. Chair, but I want to make a comment.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. As you know, I have a daughter with special needs. So this is really dear to my heart and absolutely something that is crucial and is needed because an individual with special needs can look absolutely normal and you don't know. Some little thing can trigger and the whole situation can be avoided, but yet it can become worse. And so thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I'd like to be added as well, but happy to move this.

Thank you. Now hand it back over to the Chair. And Mr. Chair, we got some questions.

All right. Assembly Member Lackey.

Yes, certainly this is a welcomed communication tool. As someone who's served in law enforcement and began my professional career as a special educator, I will tell you that anything that enhances communication between those two is very, very helpful because it can prevent tragedy. What can be seen, misinterpreted as threatening behavior is part of a condition.

And so why in the world wouldn't we do everything we could to enhance communication to prevent needless tragedy? So you're to be commended on this, this front. This is long... I mean, we've needed this for a long time. And we have other communication tools like the Blue Envelope Program that's also very powerful that signals to law enforcement that someone has a unique condition that should be taken into account and to allow good judgment to be exercised. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Assembly Member Bonta. Oh, okay. Sorry. Okay. Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this program. Some questions. Do you guys maybe have it also for premise history?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Premise histories. I know as a watch commander, when I would watch calls, if I saw that on the premise history, that would also help.

That's how it's actually entered. It's actually entered into our alerts, which then becomes a history on it. But we have history in all of our locations in our city.

Awesome. Perfect. Thank you. Looking forward to supporting.

All right, any other comments? All right, colleagues, we have a motion by Assembly Member Nguyen. Before I proceed, is there a second? Okay, we have a second by Alanis. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I want to thank everyone for allowing me to present this resolution. This is a great program that we are doing in the City of Downey. I also want to commend and thank Captain Villegas for being here to talk about this program. I know she took time out of her busy schedule just to fly up here to Sacramento this morning, and she'll be flying back. So I want to thank you personally for being here. Great program we have in Downey. Providing these types of tools for law enforcement is crucial. So I encourage all other police departments to do this, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Colleagues, the Chair does recommend an aye vote. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

On Assembly Concurrent Resolution 60 by Assembly Member Pacheco, the motion is to be adopted. [Roll Call] Measure's adopted.

Okay. Measure is adopted. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay. I see Assembly Member McKinnor is present. Colleagues, this is going to be item number nine. This is Assembly Bill 746. Assembly Member McKinnor, whenever you're ready, you may begin. Feel free to take your time and get situated and see if your witnesses are here.

I am so.

Thank you.

Sorry. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. AB746 takes a bold and innovative step toward reducing recruitment recidivism by establishing the Inmate Cooperative Program within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR. While rehabilitation is a key goal of CDCR, many incarcerated individuals, excuse me, still face significant obstacles to successful reentry.

Low wages, limited access to job training and a lack of economic opportunity leave people unprepared to bail special stable lives after their release. AB 746 addresses these challenges by allowing incarcerated individuals to form worker Cooperatives inside a prison setting.

Through these Cooperatives, participants can build business skills, develop economic self sufficiency and gain real world experience that supports their long term success beyond incarceration. AB746 also establishes the Green Cooperative Reentry Reserve which directs 40% of wages earned in prison Cooperatives towards seeding community based Cooperatives.

These funds will support reentering citizens, crime survivors and system impacted communities and launching sustainable socially beneficial businesses. AB746 is about empowering incarcerated people with the tools they need to rebuild their lives, rebuild, reduce recidivism and strengthen communities from within.

With me today to testify in support of this bill is Hope Williams and Hasmic Close though close from the Sustainable Economy Law Centers. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Schulz and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Groth. I'm the Co-Director of the Let Us Contribute Initiative and this is a coalition led by incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people to incubate green cooperatives all across California.

As the Executive Director of the coalition as well as an incarcerated person in San Quentin, Kelton O'Connor would like us to read the following statement.

I have found a sense of purpose in policy work that will allow system impacted communities to have the opportunity to become productive Members of society and do our part in a world that needs all the help it can get. Research shows that most jobs available to incarcerated people do not significantly reduce recidivism.

More important than wages and benefits, many individuals value the sense of purpose and meaning their work provides. Most incarcerated people or reentering citizens want to work and make a positive contribution. Yet many remain unemployed due to a lack of available jobs.

Assemblymember McKinnor's AB746 addresses this issue by expanding access to meaningful, dignified employment, therefore reducing prison unemployment and improving one's readiness for the job market. On behalf of Kelton O'Connor, we respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB746 and thank Assemblymember Mckinnon for her leadership on this transformative issue.

Good afternoon, Chair Schultz and Members of the Committee. My name is Hasmeh Gagamian and I'm a Staff Attorney with the Sustainable Economies Law Center. Thank you. We are proud co sponsors of AB746 and are deeply grateful to Assemblymember Mckinnor for introducing a bill that puts labor, public safety and community repair at the heart of California's economy.

AB746 expands the existing CDCR labor programs by creating the Inmate Cooperative Program to support worker cooperatives inside state prisons. Through this program, incarcerated workers will be trained in financial literacy, teamwork and Democratic decision making. They'll write bylaws, build business plans and learn to co govern real enterprises. All necessary skills that support successful reentry.

This model works at Argentina's maximum security unit 15 in Mar Del Plata. Prison cooperatives reduced recidivism to nearly zero by fostering ownership, dignity and real economic opportunity. Similar models have succeeded in Puerto Rico, Italy, India and beyond. AB746 directs 40% of prison cooperative earnings into the Green Reentry Cooperative Reserve.

The Reserve will Fund grants, loans and technical assistance for crime survivors and system impacted entrepreneurs to launch cooperative businesses in green industries critical to California's future. By voting aye on AB746, you're supporting an evidence based approach to reducing recidivism and strengthening public safety. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, Assemblymember McKinnor, for the presentation and both of you for your testimony here today. Next we'll hear from others in support of the bill. Please come forward.

Danica Rodmel, on behalf of Transformative Programming Works in support.

Tan Tran, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Kelly Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong support.

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California in strong support.

Jay Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Justice. Strong support. Thank you.

Shervin Azami, Initiate Justice Action. Strong support.

All right, thank you all very much for having your voices heard in the State Capitol today. Next, we'll hear from any witnesses who would like to testify in opposition. Do we have anyone here? Okay, I don't see any affirmative response.

So with that I'll ask, is there anyone else who'd like to be heard on the matter at all? Just giving it one minute, everybody. Okay. All right. With that, we will turn it over to the dais. Does anyone have a question or comment from the Committee or a Motion the bill.

All right, we have a motion by Wynn and a second by Gonzalez. Any other questions or comments? All right. Assemblymember McKinner, would you like to close?

I would just like to say this is one of my favorite bills because this, it really is. This is a way that our folks that are inside can. Our system, impacted folks can, you know, learn for themselves. This is called real rehabilitation and real public safety.

Because if with this bill, they can be inside, they can learn how to run a business, they could take their money, save it, invest it, learn how to be a board Member so that when they come out, they're self sufficient. And they're not. They're not asking folks for a handout.

They're just asking right now for a hand up. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Assemblymember McKinner, and I recommendation you do have and I applaud you for yet again thinking outside the box about how we can build safer communities. Yes. Part of that is having stringent penalties. And the other aspect is ensuring that we really set people up for true rehabilitation and success. I applaud you.

With that, we have a motion.

[Roll call]

Okay, that measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Assemblymember. Thank you all very much. And next, I see we have Assemblymember Crell here. Assemblymember, before we begin, I just want to confirm, would you like to start with item four, AB379, or would you like the other way around?

379 would be great.

Okay. Okay. So colleagues will next Hear Item number 23. Item number 23. This is Assembly Bill 379, authored by Assemblymember Krell. Assemblymember, you can come forward. You'll have five minutes. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. And your witnesses and support will also have combined total time of five minutes as well.

Thank. You.

And while Assemblymember Krell is getting situated, this is just a call out for other authors in the building. After Assemblymember Krell, we can take up items from Assembly Members Flora, Rodriguez, Brian, and of course, our Committee Members, Bonta, Sharp-Collins. So if you're watching, please do start to make your way to the Committee room.

Don't start Talking. The time starts to start as soon. As you start talking.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning Members of the Public Safety Committee. I just want to first thank the Chairman for working with me for getting this important Bill back on calendar. Assembly Bill 379 does two really important things in the fight against human trafficking.

One is it supports victims and two is it gives law enforcement better tools to target those who are buying victims. It does it in two ways.

The first is setting up a first of its kind Fund that will go to community based organizations led by survivors that are doing the difficult work of pulling people out of human trafficking. This takes a lot of resources.

They need housing, they need mental health support, they need job training and they need a variety of support systems throughout their lives. This is a small start, a small deposit in the right direction to help victims. The other part of this Bill is really targeting what's called demand. Demand is the buyers.

It's the rows of cars of men lined up on street corners to buy teenagers for sex. These teenagers are particularly vulnerable. Most of them are escaping difficult situations at home. Disproportionate number of them are from the foster care system and a disproportionate amount of victims are girls and women of color.

What we haven't done well in California is address demand. We've figured out how to go after sex traffickers a little bit better than we did before. But we've really left this gap of not going after the buyers. Without the buyers, we don't really have sex trafficking.

So this Bill allows us to criminalize loitering for the purchase, loitering for the specific purpose of purchasing commercial sex in order to allow law enforcement to stop some of these crimes before they take place. With me today, I'm proud to have two experts in this field. Yasmin Vafa from Rights for Girls has been a leader.

Her work led to the no such thing as a child prostitute work. She's led national studies and I'm so pleased that she's come out to California to share her expertise today. I also have with me the Executive Director of Community Against Sexual Harm.

Sawan Vaden is a survivor leader and she's running an organization that does the critical work that I was referring to earlier on the Blade, talking to people, helping folks out, helping people get health care, jobs, housing. So I'm really proud of them, appreciate their support.

Also appreciate the survivor coalition that's been working on this Bill and working on this issue for decades.

Sawan Vaden, when people talk about demand, it can sound so harmless and abstract. But survivors like me, demand looks very different. When I think about demand, when I think about sex fires, when I reflect on my experiences with sex buyers, I don't recall them being as positive moments that empowered me in any way.

In fact, the only memories I have are about all the times I was mistreated, when my life was in greatest danger and when I felt the most unsafe. Every interaction was an interaction that could have been my last. Every time a new person came to the door, I never knew what to expect.

You don't have to search hard to see what demand looks like in our cities. Demand looks like long lines of cars pulling up. Men freely buying women, girls, boys, Trans, without shame, and a person being bought repeatedly time and time again. All while sex buyers continue to act without facing consequences.

And survivors are left to carry the violence they've endured. Every car, every buyer, every so called transaction is another risk, another trauma, another stolen piece of someone's life. Survivors don't need more risk. Survivors need real pathways to safety, healing and freedom.

Survivors need communities that don't turn a blind eye to the suffering happening every night on our streets. Survivors need laws like AB379 that finally give tools and resources to fight back and to protect survivors and to hold buyers accountable. AB379 is justice. It stands with the people who have been sold, silenced and forgotten.

It demands that buyers no longer get to walk away from the devastation they leave behind. I urge you to stand with us, to stand with survivors and to vote yes.

Thank you. I'm Yasmin Vafa. I'm an attorney and Executive Director of Rights for Girls. Rights for Girls works to end policies that punish young women and girls when they survive violence, violence and advocates to provide them with safety and support.

Earlier this year we published a report called Buyers Unmasked exposing the Men who Buy Sex and Solutions to End Exploitation. Featuring quotes from sex buyer review boards across the country to expose the way these men view and discuss the individuals they purchase for sex.

A report reveals that buyers are wholly aware and indifferent to signs of trafficking, violence and desperation in the people they purchase. It also shows that demand reduction is a proven form of sex trafficking prevention. Through various case studies and other evidence.

By showcasing buyers in their own words, highlighting key trends among their attitudes, and revealing demographic data of sex buyers versus sex trade survivors, we demonstrate all the reasons why these predominantly men need to be held accountable for the devastating harm they cause. It is for these reasons that we strongly urge the Committee to support AB379 today.

To hold buyers accountable while simultaneously working to provide survivor services. Across the country, prostituted women and girls bear the brunt of prostitution arrest, while the men who purchase them enjoy anonymity and impunity.

AB 379 follows the national trend of shifting our focus away from survivors onto their buyers by penalizing loitering with the intent to purchase and subjecting buyers to $1,000 fine to finance services. This is a crucial form of demand reduction that will help deter exploitation while helping to provide survivors with vital support.

At a time when federal dollars are uncertain and state budgets are scarce, this legislation takes a reparative approach to funding services by offsetting the negative consequences of exploiters, something several other states are already doing. Prostituted people are among the most vulnerable in our communities. The majority are there not by choice, but due to lack of choice.

And many, if not most, were child trafficking victims that have simply come of age in the industry. And more than 90% have suffered extreme violence, including being shot, strangled, burned, beaten and raped, often at the hands of sex buyers. Criminal records merely serve to keep them trapped in this violent industry.

AB379 will shift this landscape in California by ensuring those charged with prostitution be offered diversion instead of criminal penalties. It's beyond time to allow survivors the chance to rebuild their lives while holding accountable those who exploit their vulnerabilities and keep this violent system churning. We ask you to please stand with survivors and pass this legislation today.

Thank you all for being here. I just want to make a personal note in saying thank you for the presentation, Assemblymember Krell, and to the survivor community. You could have no stronger, more fierce advocate in Assemblymember Krell.

So I thank her for allowing us to have the conversation today and for both of you for being here and for sharing your stories and your words, I thank you with that. We'd like to next hear from anyone else in the audience or in the Capitol building today who'd like to be heard in support of AB379.

Please come forward. And as a reminder, please state your name if you're with an organization and presumably your position of support for the Bill.

Libby Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California. In support.

Khadisa Phelps, formerly incarcerated youth and also a current survivor leader and attorney.

Marjorie Saylor, Survivor Leader Network, San Diego. Also District Attorney's Office, San Diego and. The survivor advisory board, 3 strands global. In support.

Megan Escoto. I'm a former foster youth survivor of human trafficking. I'm also a former first responder and I strongly support.

Mindy Wagner with Love Never Fails, a survivor supporter. Strong support.

Vanessa Durazo, founder and Executive Director of Love Never Fails. Strong support.

Rochelle Dittmore, City of Refuge. Strong support.

Ashley Faison, I'm part of the Survivor Coalition with Shannon Grove's office and also the founder of Diamond Collective in strong support.

Monica Wilson, councilmember for the City of Antioch. Strong support.

Helen Taylor, Vice President of national anti trafficking organization Exodus Cry in strong support.

Christina Rangel, sex trafficking survivor, formerly incarcerated and director of public policy for Exodus Cry in strong support.

Good morning. Pat Espinoza on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and also on behalf of elected DA Summer Stephan of San Diego County co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Sloan Wilson with Exodus Cry and strong support.

Brenda Grisham, co-chair of the violence of Relationship Coalition in Oakland and I am a business owner that is on the blade in Oakland 17th and international. I own businesses and I see those. Young ladies out there every single day. I support it fully.

My name is Anita Chen and I fully support this Bill.

Emerald May Ruby with Love Never Fails for the sex trafficking panel. But most importantly survivor also holding healing circles strongly support this Bill.

My name is Heidi Gerke and I strongly support this Bill. We also belong to Love Never Fails from the Survival Panel.

Christy Keifer with the Three Strands Global Survivor Advisory Board historically support.

Good morning. Janelle Louie with on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kunalakis. Proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sarah Hendy. I'm the Director of Survivor Services with Three Strands Global Foundation and strong support.

Hi, my name is Noel [unintelligible]. Fellow with Three Strands Global Foundation. Strong support.

My name is Bella. I'm a survivor advocate and I strongly support the Bill.

Joel Mccoy on behalf of PORAC in support.

Sarah Brennan with The Weideman Group on behalf of Valor US in support.

Mike Monaghan on behalf of the Building and Construction Trades Council in support.

Mr. Chair, Members, Kobe Pizzati on behalf of Bakersfield Mayor Karen Goh in strong support.

Scott Governor on behalf of California Nations Indian Gaming Association in support.

Chair, Members, Jonathan Feldman with the cities of Riverside and Long Beach and the California Police Chiefs Association all in support. Thanks.

Dylan Lisofsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support.

Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Stockton in support.

Mr. Chair, Members, Matthew Sieverling on behalf of The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association both in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, co-sponsor of the measure in strong support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Mccarty in support.

Good morning. Zach Suffolu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

And Jeff Neal representing San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Also in support.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in support. Thank you.

Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.

Anna Byeri with Crime Victims United. And we strongly support.

All right, thank you all very much for having your voices heard today in our state Capitol. Next we'll hear from any folks testifying in opposition to the Bill. I see a few folks coming forward. Your seats will be right here.

Your time does not begin until you start speaking and you will have a combined total time of five minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jess Torres and I'm a survivor of child trafficking and the Director of Programs at Rising Worldwide. With 20 years of leadership roles within the anti-trafficking policy sector and I strongly oppose AB 379.

First, I would like to say that I don't want to be here reliving the worst things that ever happened to me or causing secondary trauma. But because voices like mine are so often excluded from this dialogue, I had to come and speak for myself. Sex and labor trafficking robbed me of my childhood.

I have been waiting my whole life for the police to rescue me and all they ever did was arrest me over and over and over again. I was seen by cops the same way buyers and traffickers saw me as unworthy of protection and sexually available.

My experience began when I was 2 years old by a family Member in LA County.

Two other people chose to traffic me after that and I was only able to escape my situation when I was 19 because a violent buyer who became my child's father was my knight in shining armor in a world that couldn't offer me any empathy or love.

Myself and two other survivors I was trafficked with collectively have 64 arrests for intent based loitering. We carry what feels like an endless arrest stories within us because it is severely traumatic and degrading to be arrested for your own victimization.

This Bill will only escalate violence against survivors because persons who are trafficked in commercial sex are harmed when they operate in a criminalized environment. When buyers believe they are taking on greater risk, they often become more demanding and that pressure frequently becomes compromising.

Survivors are routinely coerced into unprotected sex and face dramatically increased risks of severe and even lethal violence from Buyers from both buyers and traffickers. A trafficker is only concerned with quotas. They are only concerned that their quotas are met no matter what the costs. My trafficker required to make at least $1,000 a day regardless of the circumstances.

AB379 would be a triple edged sword. Violence through arrest, violence from an unvetted buyer or violence from not meeting my quota. To be clear, the police don't need anti loitering laws to protect or help survivors or hold traffickers accountable.

Human trafficking continues to be illegal and we already have a trafficking law that criminalizes persons who pay for sex with minors. So we don't need this law to investigate trafficking. No matter what the intent written on paper in these chambers. Policing loitering laws will always result in the criminalization of my community.

AB379 will be no different because it hinges on the vague definition of intent to do something criminal rather than evidence. Convicting street based poor folks to create a survivor support program is also highly problematic because we all know who's going to bear that cost.

We all share the goal of ending sexual exploitation, but AB 379 is not the way to do so. Thank you so much for your time.

Hello everyone. My name is Leigh Lachapelle. I'm here to represent the very respectful opposition of the Coalition Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. We are the nation's oldest and largest comprehensive service provider. We've been serving survivors in Los Angeles for 25 years.

About the same amount of time that loitering with intent has been on the books in a long legacy of of shameful loitering laws that have been found unconstitutional and we know harm the very communities that this Bill claims to protect. We know the intention of this Bill is not to harm survivors and we believe that.

And we want the words that have been spoken to you today by all the survivors here to move you to action.

But we do believe that this will cause the same issues that we have seen over and over again that we spend our resources clearing the the criminal records of survivors that should not have happened in the first place. These criminal records that prevent them from lives of stability.

And we know that during crackdowns survivors tell us they do not feel safer, they feel hunted. We also do not believe that this is the appropriate way to Fund survivor services. It is not ethical and it is not sustainable.

And we do not believe that these types of loitering laws or that these types of methods should be reinstated based on anecdotal evidence of a rise in sex trafficking in certain areas that is not founded in any type of actual research or any actual dialogue with the people who are most harmed by these laws.

Law enforcement's hands are not tied. Survivors have been telling us that they are afraid of losing their lives, as we have seen in Los Angeles recently, and they are afraid of being continually criminalized. At this moment, when survivors are facing so much, especially immigrant survivors, to a single charge of prostitution can trigger all automatic deportation.

We must ask ourselves what we do and we must think carefully about the policing that we reinstate. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony and thank you very much for sharing your story. Thank you. Next, we'd like to hear from anyone else who'd like to be heard, presumably in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward. Name, organization and position, please.

Danica Rodorma, on behalf of Initiate Justice Law Defensa and Debt Free Justice California. In support or in opposition, thanks.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. In opposition.

Mercy Gray, co-founder of Survivor Policy Coalition, child sex trafficking survivor.

[Unintelligible] people and descendant of the Apache tribe. Strong opposition.

Good morning. Craig Pulsar, on behalf of Equality California, we do have an opposed and less amended position. Appreciate the thoughtful dialogue we've had with the author and sponsor on this Bill, but do continue to have concerns about the loitering provision and would welcome continued dialogue on that if the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Claudia Gonzalez De Viera, California and a criminalized survivor. In respectful opposition.

George Bramthieu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, Access Reproductive Justice, Artists Revolt, APLA Health, Center on the Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley Law, Decrim Sex for California Oasis, Larkin Street Youth Services, Proction Trans Latinas, Swap Behind Bars, Swap La Valor, Woodhall Freedom Foundation and the Women's Foundation California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Israel Villa with the California alliance for Youth and Community justice. In respectful opposition.

Felipe Kelly with California's United for Responsible Budget in respectful opposition.

Alasia Green on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Eric Lofgren with the LA Public Defenders Union. In opposition.

Jay Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Justice opposition. Thank you.

Film Melendez with Smart Justice California in strong opposition.

Minouche Gandel with the ACLU of Southern California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office and opposition.

Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. And opposition.

Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in respectful opposition.

Shervin Aazami, initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Laura Rudolfi with the Haywood Burns Institute, in opposition.

Alison Rubenfeld, Loyola Anti-Racism Center and Check the Sheriff in respectful opposition.

Tatiana with the Ella Baker Center, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Kelly Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in respectful opposition.

Sarah Brennan, fixing my previous statement. Valor US is in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Excuse me. Late support on behalf of- Carolyn Veal Hunter on behalf of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Shingle Spring Band of Miwok Indians. Unfortunately, Nati- Native Americans represent 40% of the human trafficking victims. though they're only 3% of the US population. So we urge your strong support.

Thank you very much. Because you are in support. I'll just do one final call. Anyone else want to be heard with a position on the bill, either support or oppose? Final call. Okay. Alright. Well, thank you all very much, very much for being here today and sharing your perspective with the committee.

We'll now turn it over to the committee. This would be the appropriate time for questions and or comments. Would anyone like to. Yes. Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this. Board I've worked with you for many years, and your heart has always, always been behind those that were trafficked. And I commend you on just fighting this fight for victims. And you said two things that resonated with me. It does two things.

It's support for victims and it gives public safety better tools. I appreciate the testimony from both sides and I hear your hearts, of those in opposition as well, too. But I know this Assemblymember and her heart is in the right place to help our victims.

And I think there's more that we can do and that we should do, because as Californians, we want to protect the victims and the survivors as well, too, so that they can live a life as well after the traumatic years of what they've- they've gone through.

And I know, Assemblymember, that you are that type of person that tries to find ways in which we can support everybody that has gone through this. Human trafficking is a huge issue up and down California. I- I grew up in South Sacramento, just in the Little Saigon district.

And I grew up watching these cars line up to pick up young girls and young boys as well, too. And I always thought there- there are things that we need to do here to fix this.

So proud to support this bill and move this forward and just really happy to see that this is going in the right step. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen. I will construe your comment as a motion. Is there a second to the motion?

Second.

We have a second by Alanis. Okay, we'll continue discussion, but we do have a motion in a second. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yes. Thank you. And to the author, thank you very much for the courage that you've demonstrated on this particular issue. And I'm going to actually talk about the elephant in the room. And I think everyone in this room that's familiar with your work knows what I'm talking about.

And somewhere among the decision tree of this committee, it was determined that your original proposal was also to include protecting 16 and 17 years old. 16/17 year old victims from these predators. For some reason, it was believed that it was inappropriate to proceed with that tenant.

And I have to tell you, and I- I mean this with all due respect, but I say this unapologetically. When we talk about demand, we're not focusing on those who are part of that demand, and those are these predators that we call Johns.

And when we talk about demand, the greatest demand I have learned is among 16 and 17 years old. These are girls, and these are people that our society should be doing everything they can to protect. So why are we protecting the predator by removing this tenant? That's a question I don't have the answer to.

But I will tell you this, that it's inappropriate that we should do anything to protect such an evil thought. Because the damage that's done to these young girls is long lasting. And the penalties. All- All you are asking for is to reduce the penalty from this wobbler consideration.

And for those of you who don't know what a wobbler is, it's making the consideration for the judge to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor as opposed to a felony. That's the way current law exists. And you wanted to amend that to hold these Johns more accountable to a felony standard.

Wobblers are designed for consideration of value in- in the offense. For example, auto theft. That's a wobbler. Where, depending on the circumstances, was it just some kind of, I don't know, child's play, joyriding, or was this a more serious offense that's appropriate. But in this offense, who thinks that that's appropriate to reduce the charge?

And- And the way it's being applied in current law is the wobblers wobbling down in order to get these offenders to plea out and to move on. The fact is most of these offenders are never incarcerated. They're cited out. Just think of what they've just done. And this is considered to be justice?

I'm sorry, but protecting predators in this arena isn't restorative justice. It's an injustice to survivors. And I'm so sorry you did not get what you really were pushing for. Maybe someday we'll get there.

Thank you for your comment, Assemblymember Lackey. Would anyone like to go next? Assemblymember Gonzalez.

This is a heavy one because I've heard it from many different people. So I want to, first and foremost, sincerely thank everyone who came to testify in this bill today, especially the survivors. I recognize how important this issue is from across the board. I mean, my own mother was a victim of domestic violence herself for 13 years.

So sharing any sort of those stories does affect you, and it affects why we're here today. But, you know, I recognize that we all want safety for survivors, right. We can all agree on that. We want safety, we want healing. And there's been a lot of folks talking about justice, and that's what this is about.

And so, to my understanding, to the author, you do take the amendments, correct?

I do.

I'm sorry.

I disagree with the amendment. I needed to take it to get this hearing. I'm grateful for the hearing, and I accept the amendment.

And I look forward to working with the committee, including Assemblymember Lackey, whose comments I really appreciated, to make sure that we bring another bill to protect 16 and 17 year old's who are being purchased for sex, they're victims.

I understood, and I apologize. I stepped out of the room, so I wasn't sure if you accepted the amendments or not. I apologize. So it sounds to me like you do. And so- so with that, though, there's been no support or conversation. And as the sole LGBT person on this committee, we've been left out of this conversation.

And that's- that's hurtful and it's disappointing, because if we're supposed to be under this umbrella, then we've been excluded from this dialogue alone. Just last night, KTLA just posted a story that said transgender women in Los Angeles sexually assaulted, beaten, pepper sprayed. So our communities are continuing to be under attack.

And there is a provision of the bill that creates a new crime of loi- of loitering with the intent to purchase commercial sex.

I'm concerned that the provision could unintentionally reinstate discriminatory policy practices, practices- practices that we all know that have historically and disproportionately impacted communities of color, particularly black and brown communities, as well as members of the LGBTQI + community.

In my district, there's an area called Virginia Street off of Western and Santa Monica, which is known for sex trafficking. I also represent Beverly and Temple where there is massive amounts of human trafficking covered under the guise of karaoke bars.

When I tour those, LAPD can't necessarily close them down, but I did a ride along with the Alcohol Beverage Control of California, who went in there and was able to shut them down on the basis that they had folks names under receipts. And it was all state provisions that were able to shut them down.

But this exists all across the board. Although the bill particularly outlines those certain behaviors intended to demonstrate intent, the language remains a bit vague and the vagueness could just lead to the unfair application harming not only buyers, but also commercial sex workers and trafficking victims. And so I think that the clause on the liability piece is concerning.

Folks can sometimes be standing on a corner here and there and get accused of something, get arrested, and that's a dangerous slippey- slippery slo- slope for us. And so look, my ask of you to the author is- is please work with the LGBTQI+ groups, get their buy in in this conversation.

Trafficking organizations, sex worker groups, California loitering law, harm- which we know harms marginalized communities is extremely important. But have as part of that dialogue in that conversation to strengthen the bill, if- if you truly do believe in that.

And I- I- I want to just emphasize the fact that the- I preface this conversation talking about justice, and there's a lot of justice in both sides of this in the conversation.

And so as much as I've heard from our community and- and where I think we need to go, what I've heard from my constituency is that we need to get this going to continue that conversation. So if I'm asking a commitment, I have to sort of do the same.

So look, as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. So I will support this bill today. But please make that commitment to work with our community. That's all I ask.

Thank you. Assemblymember Gonzalez, who'd like to go-

May I respond?

Yes, you may.

Okay. It felt like a question a little bit.

Do you have a- Would you like to pose that as a question? Assemblymember Gonzalez, would you like to get the author's thoughts or feedback.

To commit to come to working? Yes. Will you commit to working with the LGBTQI + community in particulars of this bill as it addresses the loitering?

My answer is that I already have. I've had 27 meetings, including meetings with LGBTQ caucus, caucus leadership, and as well as the consultants, I've also had several conversations with EQCA. I arranged a survivor led panel for EQCA consultants to listen to. So I've engaged with the LGBT community as much as possible on this bill.

I've tried to engage with you as well, both one on one in my office and every chance that I've got, I will continue to do so. It's really important to me to your comments about selective enforcement and discriminatory enforcement. I make no excuses for that.

We need to root out discrimination in law enforcement and all of our other systems. I'm committed to doing that. But this bill gives us the ability to help people who are truly victims. And while the LGBT community is overrepresented in the victim population, they are not over overrepresented in the buyer population. This bill specifically goes after buyers.

I misunderstood. Are you saying that there's overabundance of LGBT buyers?

No, I'm saying that there are not. They are overrepresented in the victim population, but not in the buyer population.

And I know we did have. And I apologize for misunderstanding that, and I know that we did have some dialogue on this, and I appreciate the engagement that you've had, but none of that is reflective in your support.

In the support for the bill?

Correct.

Can you talk about the organization?

No, we don't have to go through that piece. I'm just saying in all of the letters that are here, there's no LGBT organizations that are in support of the group. Did I miss that?

Yes.

Okay. Which ones?

Well, Eduardo Christian was one of the panelists.

An individual.

He's an LGBTQ survivor. Love Never Fails is an organization that works with transven- transgender survivors.

Well, I don't want to go through the weeds on individuals. I'm saying is get the organizations that represent these individuals, which would be helpful. That's all I'm asking. And I think that- that my supporting the bill today showcases the fact that I believe in you. I believe in what you're doing. I believe in those efforts.

I'm not discounting them. I'm just asking you put as part of that conversation. And when we get to the steps in the bill, we have that reflective in the support. That's all I'm asking. I think that's fair. You might.

Okay, I'm going to construe that as a comment. Assemblymember Gonzalez reminding Assemblymember Krell, of course, that she can in her closing address anything that's said on the dais today. Are there other.

I would just like to make a clarification on my remarks.

Yes, Mr. Lackey.

Just real quickly. When I talked about the wobbler situation. Wobblers only apply to victims under 16. Otherwise it's a misdemeanor. It's not even a wobbler. For 16/17. And I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Lackey. Let's go. I think I had the Vice Chair first. So if I-

No, go ahead.

Okay. Alright. Okay. He's still collecting his thoughts. So, Dr. Sharp-Collins, would you like to go next, followed by our Vice Chair?

Okay. Alright. Thank you. I'm sorry I had to step out, but thank you so much, Assembly Crow- Krell, for bringing forth the bill. I do have some concerns about the vagueness and the crimin- the criminalizing something such as loitering within itself. You and I had a brief conversation also. You and I talked about this a little bit.

And so history has shown that these types of crimes are disproportionately used against people of color and those truly experiencing poverty. So when laws are vague, they are ripe for profiling.

And that goes into part of the reason why we do have the actual rip aboard as well, to help us address the overall racial profiling that currently exists. So can you speak to the merits of the vagueness for the terms such as loitering, but also the term intent?

Sure. Thanks for your question, Assemblymember Sharpe Collins, and for engaging me on this bill. I actually agree with you that loitering can be a vague term, and historically has been a vague- vague term, and it has led to enforcement that has been discriminatory. I agree with you on that.

What I did with the language here was I described circumstances that I actually have a visual on, because I've seen many, many times on the blade. And the blade is an area that's known for prostitution. It's where people are forced to stand there, and cars drive through, drive up, and pick them up. As uh- As Ms.

Vaden described earlier, and um, you know, what- what we would see. And law enforcement would need to have what's known as probable cause in order to pull a vehicle over. It would be based on the totality of circumstances that exist, such as circling multiple times, making unauthorized stops, beckoning to a passerby to come over. Sometimes you even see a deal being negotiated.

Person gets in the car, then they drive to a dark parking lot where there isn't any kind of business, that would be enough to be probable cause for the officer to inquire. Now, if the officers- if the- if the person in the car says, hey, I'm a, you know, I'm a Uber driver, or there's some other explanation, then there isn't evidence of- of intent there.

But more often than not, officers that do this, they do surveillance of this. They see video of this. They're there every day, and they know what to look for. And it's pretty clear. It's pretty clear what's happening in these transactions.

I'll also just note because there's been, you know, the word vagueness is a legal term and it sometimes gets, you know, it's a- it's a constitutional challenge. You can- You can challenge a law based on vagueness. This language has actually been upheld before from when it was part of the law. So it's been found constitutional.

We see loitering in other contexts. There's a- a um loitering for a drug deal that's been used to clear out places like the Tenderloin. So we have had that kind of law before and had it be upheld.

But I agree with really the kind of the spirit of your comment, that there is potential for discrimination in laws, in all laws and in laws like this. And it's something that we really need to look at.