Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning. Welcome to the May 7,2025 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 136 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. And before we begin, I have a housekeeping Note to cover. AB284 Alanis is pulled from today's hearing.

We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee's website at apro.assembly.ca.gov Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance.

All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing.

Testimony on any such Bill will be limited to a statement of name organization. If any imposition on the Bill, the Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door.

I encourage Members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules. Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of General courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. I don't think we have a quorum so we will start as a Subcommitee.

Let's actually have as a Subcommitee. Let's just start with Mr. Flora and you are here presenting AB 876.

I am indeed. Thank you Madam Chair and colleagues. Today I present AB876 to clarify the scope practice for certified nursing anesthetists in California. This Bill affirms CRNA's ability to provide Anesthesia services independently. Consistent with their education, training and long standing role in California. AB876 helps maintain access to Anesthesia care in hospitals, rural and underserved communities.

And with me are expert witnesses Monica Miller and Justin Fanslau representing the CRNAs.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology, appreciates the analysis that points there's no state fiscal cost. We received 15 I votes in Assembly. BMP have two experts from our board if there are any questions otherwise we appreciate your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express support in the room? Any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Society of Anesthesiologists here respectfully Opposed to the Bill. AB876. The Bill expands scope of practice for CRNAs in hospitals, outpatient facilities and dental offices. Anesthesiologists, which are medical doctors and nurse, are both essential, but they're not interchangeable.

The physician led Anesthesia care team model is the right solution. There are different roles, different jobs and different training. But the physician leadership and direction is essential in ensuring patient safety. And for those reasons, we're opposed to the Bill.

Good morning, Chairmembers George Sores with the California Medical Association in respectful opposition to AB876 by Assembly Member Flora. I just echo the comments from CSA and say that reducing physician oversight and lowering safety standards can reasonably lead to an increase in chance in patient harm.

The current practices have been in place for over 15 years and should not be lowered. However, there's a conversation to be had around existing practice. I think a more effective solution is possible, but it's not in this Bill. Would respectfully ask that you oppose. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other additional folks wish to express opposition? Name, organization and position, please.

Gary Cooper, representing the California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Bryce Docherty, on behalf of the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery and the California American Academy of Pediatrics, California in opposition. Thank you,

Madam Chair Members. Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology and the California Rheumatology Alliance, in opposition.

Great. With that we'll bring it back to Committee. zero, and actually we're going to hold for a second and take roll real quick.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a quorum. Any questions from Committee? Great. And do we have a motion? We have a motion. We have a second. Okay. Great. That is out on a roll call. A roll call with Mr. Tangipa and Arambula not voting. Thank you. Let's have Mr. Schultz come up now.

We're gonna have the chair's prerogative to bring Mr. Schultz up now first. Thank you. Thank you for being patient. Ms. Wilson, we'll have you go next. And Mr. Schultz, you are presenting AB379.

Yes, that is correct. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I am here today to present Assembly Bill 379. As amended, AB 379 is a much stronger, more comprehensive bill.

While the focus has been on the sentencing piece of the bill, which I will cover today, I will also note that Assembly Bill 379 includes tougher penalties for the businesses that are complicit in the human trafficking industry.

With the amendments before you today, AB 379 makes the following changes and I would like to go over all four topical areas. First, with regards to sentencing, AB 379, as amended, authorizes felony punishment for solicitation of a minor by an adult more than three years older than the minor.

That would be a wobbler under California state law, meaning that a felony is authorized, not required. But ultimately this is about prosecutorial discretion and enabling the prosecutor to make the appropriate charging decision based upon the attendant circumstances in the case.

I will also note that the three year age differential is consistent with how we handle statutory rape under California state law. In addition, AB 379 creates a misdemeanor for loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex. And lastly on that point, AB 379 requires any person convicted of solicitation of a minor who is granted probation.

So whether that's misdemeanor or felony probation, this is also new to the bill. That person would be required to engage in a robust educational program exposing them to the human trafficking industry and the risks and the contributions of their actions to furthering child exploitation in the state of California.

We think this is a critical rehabilitative piece should somebody be granted probation. Second, we'd like to talk about the financial component, the fines.

Under California law, specifically the Civil Code, many establishments such as massage parlors, restaurants, motels, and other institutions have long been required to post a standard human trafficking notice that is promulgated by the California Department of Justice.

The Civil Code, however, is largely silent on which agency is responsible for enforcing that provision of law, and the financial penalty I would submit, based on my professional experience, is relatively minor compared to their participation in the human trafficking industry.

AB 379 authorizes the California Attorney General and the Department of Justice to enforce the human trafficking noticing requirements and to pursue civil penalties against hotels and other establishments who allow sex trafficking in their facilities. It also increases fines on these institutions that intentionally turn a blind eye on sex trafficking occurring at their facilities.

The current range is from $1,000 to $10,000. That would increase $3,000 to $25,000. The bill also increases fines for failing to post required human trafficking notices for specified businesses from the current range of $500 to $1,000, moving that up to $1,000 to $2,000.

And it requires a person convicted of the new loitering offense or solicitation to pay an additional $1,000 fine. And the real impetus for this change is that this additional influx of revenue that we certainly hope isn't collected, the hope is that these institutions will post the notice and help us combat human trafficking.

But to the extent that there is revenue collected from the enforcement component of the program, the goal is to bolster the survivor grant, that was in the original version of the bill.

Speaking of which, in terms of victim support, topic three, AB 379 requires the California Victim Compensation Board to establish a grant program to support community-based organizations that provide direct services and outreach to survivors of the sex trafficking industry. It deposits all collected fines into the survivor support fund, which is what I was previously referring to.

And last but not least, AB 379, as amended, creates a new vertical prosecution grant program for human trafficking to incentivize local District Attorney's offices to assign specific specialized district attorneys and investigators in their human trafficking units to ensure that the people that are working on this case from the earliest investigative stage are the same individuals who are carrying through prosecution to conclusion.

With that, we don't have any witnesses testifying in support, but I will mention that we have counsel for the Assembly Public Safety Committee and Deputy Chief Counsel for Assembly Public Safety on hand to answer any technical questions, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Any other folks in the room wish to express support? Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? And you will each have two minutes. And if you could press on the mic, that'd be great.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Maxine Doogan. My group is the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project. I'm a currently working prostitute of 30 plus years and I pretty much plan on working as a prostitute for another 30 plus more. And our group violently opposes this bill.

So I'm just going to try to limit my remarks today about the analysis of this bill. So prostitutes and offenses are primarily enforced upon people of color in low income neighborhoods. So the idea that you're going to extract these high fines from people is just wishful thinking. You know, we also see that these human trafficking organizations are unaccountable.

There's no-- They get a whole bunch of private donations into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. They don't need the slush fund. They do not need a slush fund set up through the state. It's a failed approach. We saw it back in 2012 in Prop 35.

That was a big, huge anti-trafficking bill that was touted as trying to extract a bunch of high fines and fees from traffickers because the proponents said that there's hundreds of millions of dollars in trafficking and that money needed to go to victims. And so the bill analysis doesn't include where all that money went, right?

We don't see where that is here. And also the state is also underfunding these, or not underfunding, but they're funding these human trafficking organizations to the tunes of millions of dollars with no accountability. We don't know where that money's going. We don't know who's getting it. We definitely don't want to see any more inflated staff salaries.

So I'm going to pass it on to my colleague Soma to finish her remarks.

Good afternoon Members. My name is Soma. I'm Executive Director and co-founder of the Sidewalk Project. I am also a queer sex worker of over 20 years and a survivor. There's been a lot of talk about safety for survivors without inclusion of stakeholders, ourselves included.

Our community, survivors and sex workers have not been included in these discussions and there's a lot of grandstanding around survivor safety. But I want to tell you a story today about one of our participants who we started working with in 2023.

We came across her in MacArthur park, and I should say that my organization works with sex workers and survivors. We are headquartered in Skid Row and serve MacArthur Park, Skid Row and intermittently the Figueroa Corridor. And we understand anti-trafficking work because we do anti-trafficking work. We also work with victims of intimate partner violence.

In 2023 we came across a woman in MacArthur Park. Her name is Linda Moran and she was fleeing gender-based violence from her own community in Ecuador and came to the United States and faced the same.

She was unhoused in the streets of Los Angeles and we tried to house her but she did not accept the placements that we found for her because she was afraid of being raped in the shelters as she's experienced that before.

On February 7, she was being held hostage in Pacoima in a hotel room and she was being sex trafficked. She called 911 for help and law enforcement showed up. Within seven minutes, they had used deadly force against her and there was no investigation against her traffickers.

Shortly after they shot her in the chest, they handcuffed her and then they transported her to hospital. My team and I repeatedly went to hospital and finally were allowed in and she was under arrest at the time of her death. And I sat with her as she passed away.

The same police department who was responsible for her death, for her murder, this was a police murder, is also the same police division that was sitting bedside as she died. So we don't want to hear about survivor safety with hyper-criminalization bills because this is the reality for our community. This is not an isolated incident.

This is a law enforcement approach to sex trafficking and to sex work. We need a public health approach and we urge you to oppose the bill.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it. Anyone else in the room wish to express opposition, please step up to the mic. Name, organization, if any, and position on the bill.

My name is Sarah Whipple. I'm with the Sex Workers Outreach Project in Sacramento. We work with both adult consensual sex workers and people who have been trafficked. And I just want to echo Soma's statements that this bill, like many bills who have gone through this room, is really like out of touch with the realities of trafficking and sex work that happens in the community. We've seen time and time again that criminalization doesn't help us--

And just name organization and position. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Elena Cruz. I am, as a former sex worker and a sex trafficking survivor, I oppose the bill for myself and on behalf of the Sidewalk Project, Stop the Ray Coalition, Erotic Service Providers, DecrimSexWorkCA, the Stripper Worker Center, SWOP Sacramento, US Prostitute Collective.

Thank you very much.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition.

Thank you very much. Great. We will bring it back to Committee. Are there-- Yes, Madam Vice Chair. Yes, questions and comments.

So I want to thank the author for coming to the table and really putting some good ideas in this bill. You've incorporated vertical prosecution, and that has always been a bipartisan idea. And I'm proud to have brought that forth from the Republican side in 2023.

I'm even happier to see that it's incorporated in this proposal today. My question is, to the author, will you be working with Assemblymembers Ramos and Gabriel to ensure that funds are in the budget so that proposed vertical prosecution grants will be able to be taken into effect?

The short answer is yes. The more elaborate answer is that I have benefited from partaking myself as an attorney in vertical prosecution. I see the value of those programs.

When the same group is with the case from beginning to end, quite frankly, there is more care and handling to ensure that the resolution is appropriate for all parties involved. I believe in the power of these programs. And so this will be a priority to work both with our Budget Chair and our Subcommitee Budget Sub Chair 6 to get this done. Yes.

Yes, Ms. Dixon.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will be voting yes today, but it's a skeptical yes. Just as we've heard the discussion today. Minors used to be in the title of the bill, now it's prostitution. So we've kind of deflected from the real intent of the changes, the suggested proposed changes. I still have major concerns.

This new language does not, in fact, protect all victims. It leaves a window open for those three years older than the minor victim to sell sex, to solicit sex. It does not criminalize these situations. But it is still wrong and illegal to have sex with a minor under California law. Minors cannot consent to sex. End of story.

My vote is contingent on the fact that you continue to improve this measure and fully protect all children in these horrible situations. When it comes right down to the arrest and it's a felony, I'm pleased about that. Although I think that's existing law, although now it's maybe slightly enhanced. Two things. The sentencing. There's still judicial discretion.

The sentencing is no less than two days, no more than one year, which technically means anything from three days to less than one year for soliciting sex, paying for sex with a minor.

And then if there is someone who is arrested for a felony, that person, under the language of the amendment, I hope I'm reading the current language, "victim knows or reasonably should know, is a child age 16 or 17 of the minor." Well, that person who could be arrested under a felony, that's all good.

But to be convicted of the crime that person does under the US Constitution, does not have to incriminate himself, so he does not have to testify and say that I didn't or did not know, I did not know, I don't have--

And so we are never going to get the truth out of that person who is the defendant. So I think there are still holes. There continue to be holes and in my opinion, obfuscation. This is not just prostitution. The title of this bill should be Prostitution of Minors. That is what the core of this discussion is.

And you could dress it up with these other workplace child trafficking signs. Great. Of course I support that. I don't know why it hasn't been enforced, but you're going to try to do that. You've dressed it up.

We still have minors who are being paid for sex in the state of California, and we're now making it permissible until because they'll never be convicted. And I will support it.

But I think there's a lot of work to do and I look forward to working with you and Assemblymember Krell, who feels very strongly about this and I appreciate her name is back on the bill. I understand it.

But I think there's a lot more work to do for the 16 and 17 year olds who are victims of prostitution for paid sex. So thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And through the Chair if I can have a very brief response. Appreciate the comments. Certainly this bill will continue to be a work in progress. I hope you will work not only with me and Assemblymember Krell, but also Assemblymember Nguyen, who's a joint author on the bill as well.

And the last thing I would say, and it might have just been a slip of the tongue, so to speak, but in your comments I did want to be extraordinarily clear. Under existing law and even under the changes to 379, soliciting a minor is a crime.

You may have objection to the discrepancy between a wobbler in most instances or a misdemeanor in others. But I do want to be extraordinarily clear. It is against the law in the state of California to solicit a minor of any age.

I would also note that any prosecutor, I would submit worth their weight and salt if they want to pursue a felony, will charge this conduct under Penal Code Section 288 which does have in place a mandatory straight felony for contacting or communicating or attempting to contact or communicate with a minor for a sexual purpose.

The last thing I will note is that in preparation for our conversations in Committee, we actually wanted to understand how often Penal Code Section 647 is utilized in the state of California. This is the Penal Code section that AB 379 addresses, as well as SB 1414.

In the year 2023, the last year for which we have data, according to the California Department of Justice, there were less than 10 arrests, 10 arrests statewide using this Penal Code Section, and approximately, I believe, five convictions according to that data.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reason that number is likely so low is because if a prosecutor seeks a felony in almost every instance, and speaking from professional experience, we would use 288.3 to pursue that felony.

Okay, just one more comment. It's so few for a number of reasons, but regardless, the number is the absolute number. It is a fact. I understand that 10 or 5 lives were permanently damaged by that sexual activity with a minor, with a criminal using that minor for criminal activities.

I don't care if it was one. One too many. So don't let us be swayed by the fact that it's only five people, it's only 10. And we know that there's a lot more work to be done and I do look forward to it.

I appreciate you doing this and it's been a struggle the last seven days, but I think there's still more work to be done. And I am voting yes because half a loaf is better than nothing. But we have work to do and I appreciate your leadership on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And just for the record, because there has been a lot of misinformation out there. No one at this table, certainly not I am suggesting that any number, even one, is an appropriate number. The goal should always be zero. Just want that to be extraordinarily clear.

Ms. Elhawary.

I just want to start by thanking the Chair of Public Safety and the author for bringing this forward, as well as my colleague from Sacramento for really championing this work to protect specifically survivors, to protect young people who are being trafficked.

But I do want to specifically ask questions to the opposition because I represent the Figueroa Corridor, I represent South Central LA, where we know this is a huge, huge issue.

And just want to thank you for the work that you all are doing with the Sidewalk Project, the fact that you are protecting survivors, the fact that you're uplifting the story of someone like Linda Moran who was killed by police when she needed support as a survivor, I think showcases that we have to do more and we have to bring everyone to the table to have those conversations.

And so I wanted to ask if you could elaborate a bit more. I think both of you talked about the impact to black and brown communities and low income folks.

But in particular, as we even think about our foster care youth who, you know, are really impacted by sex trafficking and what it means for us to maybe even consider some amendments on the loitering side of this bill.

Yeah, thank you for your question. I think it's really important to note that some of the highest numbers for human trafficking charges are for co-conspirators who are predominantly young women of color. So young women of color who are survivors and victims themselves are being charged with trafficking.

And that is one of the major concerns that we have around this bill, is the impact for BIPOC communities. I would also say that, you know, this is an economic issue for survivors. For foster youth, leaving the system and prostitution is a social safety net.

And if we don't want that to be the case, then we need to offer housing and basic income for foster youth because how else are they going to survive? And sometimes they're teaching each other how to do sex work to survive and it's not a trafficking situation.

And an older teen, about 18 years old who has gone through the same process is teaching someone how to survive. If we don't like that dirty, ugly truth, that messy truth, then we need to put money into services to prevent trafficking instead of money into law enforcement and faith-based groups that use coercive tactics.

And we do have data and reports that we want to share with the Members. We did drop some off at your offices, but we would like to share them. And we're doing a lot of research that we want you to see the numbers that we are seeing that we are pulling from arrest data and that we know from our personal experiences. I'll pass to you.

So we did provide to you all our fact sheet that we created for the Los Angeles area on the prostitution arrests that are available publicly.

I just wish that data would be publicly available in all of your other jurisdictions because our group has done public records requests to many of your jurisdictions and have not received a response in violation of the California Public Records Act, right?

And so what we see with the focus, the enforcement is only going on in low income neighborhoods. So it's only going to be targeting people of color. That's in violation of the Racial Justice Act. So you guys are up here passing these acts all the time.

But then you're continuing to enforce the criminalization of the prostitution law, which should be repealed outright so that you can separate and you can have a better view of what going on here. And you want the money to go directly to people to provide housing.

In the research, housing is the number one thing that prevents young people from selling sex. Stable, safe, permanent housing. And there's nothing in this bill that goes towards that. And you should reject this bill.

Thank you.

Assemblymember? If appropriate, I have a brief response if you'd be willing to entertain that through the Chair. First of all, I do want to thank the opposition testimony. I think they have raised several good points. And I offer this just as the perspective of the Assembly Chair on Public Safety.

Our approach to keeping safer communities needs to be an all of the above approach. We do need to have investments in law enforcement. We do have consequences under our justice system. But I don't disagree with anything they have said here today about the importance of investing in people on the front end.

When you invest in housing, education, health care, these things matter. The other thing I would just humbly submit is that so much of our job is looking at one narrow aspect of the issue. Obviously, we're here today talking about Assembly Bill 379.

Another bill you'll be considering, I don't believe you've taken it up yet, but in future weeks will be Assembly Bill 938 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, which deals with the issue of vocateur relief for those who are directly victims of human trafficking and may violate certain aspects of our criminal law.

I bring that up to say that I agree with you that we need a balanced approach here.

And I think that if you look at not just this bill in isolation, but in the context of all of the work, all 120 bills that the Public Safety Committee has passed out this year, I think that we are striking that right balance.

The last thing I will say, Assemblymember, is that I agree with the opposition testimony that I don't think there's been nearly enough dialogue to date in terms of working together and trying to find that common ground.

I'm new on the bill as the lead author, but to those in opposition to the bill, you have my commitment should this measure move forward today out of the Appropriations Committee that I can't make any guarantees we will find common ground, but we will make that effort to see how we can constantly improve this bill.

I believe that good legislation requires talking to everyone, taking every perspective into account and constantly fine tuning it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Would you allow me to respond to that?

I want to move on to the-- But thank you. Anyone else, any other members of the Committee wish to ask any question? Mr. Tangipa.

I just want to thank the author and the original author as well. This is part of the necessary step in the right direction, as we understand. Obviously, I've always shared my opinion on how this is and not only how personal it is for me.

So I look forward to advocating for this in the budget to make sure that we can allocate the proper resources so we can protect the ones who need to be protected and go after the ones who need to be gone after.

And so that way we can find friends and family of mine that were affected by this horrible, horrible situation and we could allocate the proper resources. And I look forward to working with the authors and the original author as well to make sure that we can make that we're prioritizing the victims and we're going after the Johns. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks wish to express comments, questions from the Committee? With that, we will let you close, Mr. Schultz.

Yes. Just briefly, Madam Chair. I appreciate the work of the Committee in getting the analysis done and letting us have a chance to unveil the new, the new proposal today. I know that there will be more questions that stem from today's hearing and we're committed to engaging in those conversations, constantly perfecting the bill.

But I can tell you that in closing that California has tough laws on the books to protect children and people of all ages from exploitation. I think that this bill-- No bill is ever going to be perfect. No bill is ever going to fully solve the problem.

And that's why we're still committed to having these informational hearings in the fall. I wish I could tell you that one bill will solve the world's problems. That won't happen. But I can tell you that this bill substantially improves our approach to combating human trafficking and child exploitation in the state of California.

And we ask for your support.

Thank you. You know, the Committee analysis obviously identified state costs that normally would result in the Committee moving the bill to the suspense file to be considered at a later date. But this obviously, I think, has garnered a great deal of interest in this bill.

And so we believe it is in that interest of the public to make a final determination today on the bill. And, and before we have a motion, I also just want to recognize and acknowledge the work of Assemblymember Krell, her long standing work in this space and her co-authorship of the bill.

It is appreciated. And I also want to acknowledge our Public Safety Chair, Mr. Schultz and with joint author Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen. You know, you all have landed, I think, a very strong, thoughtful bill aimed at protecting some of our society's most vulnerable people.

And I always say the number one, the number one thing that we do as lawmakers, the number one thing is to keep our community safe, particularly our most vulnerable people. That is above and beyond everything else that we do here. I also want to recognize the opposition bringing up housing.

This is a place that I've spent seven years working in. I agree with you completely. Housing security. If we can provide that for all of our people, people would be able to make different choices, wouldn't be put in such precarious situations. So thank you for raising that and for bringing your testimony here and your opposition.

I think that is an important element of the conversation. You know, there's been a lot of feelings and opinions about this in the past week or so but personally I don't question anyone's commitment and intent to keep our children safe.

So with that I would love to be added as a co-author as this bill moves out of my committee. I too have yet to write a perfect bill that hasn't been amended six ways till Sunday as it makes its way through the process, that is a part of the legislative process.

I know that you will continue to work as the bill moves forward assuming it's out today and onto the floor and appreciate your commitment to that. And so with that, do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Great. And we have that out on an A roll call with Mr. Arambula not voting.

Thank you. And now we will move on to Ms. Wilson.

And Ms. Wilson, you are presenting AB 435.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. I am pleased to present AB 435, a Bill that will implement the five step test standard to our child passenger safety laws, otherwise known as CPS laws here in California. This Bill has negligible cost to the state but will have a valuable benefits that avoids harm to the youth of California.

While effective, the current California CPS law contains elements that needs to be better aligned with research based practices. Extending the required age for booster use and implementing straightforward testing can significantly improve child safety.

Endorsed by the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Occupant Protection Committee, the five step test was designed to consider the varied internal dimensions of vehicles which the previous height criterion cannot address adequately.

That is why we want to join the states of Louisiana, Minnesota and Minnesota to specifically implement the following here in California to require children under the age of 10 to be properly secured in the backseat and appropriate child passenger restraint seat.

To require that children from the ages of 10 to 13 continue to sit in the rear seat in a child passenger safety seat unless they meet the five step test. And to require that children starting at the age of 13 must must meet the five step test before being allowed to sit in the front street seat.

Additionally, the analysis points out of the few things we are getting clarified in Legislative council such as clarifying you can start sitting in the front seat at the age of 13 and correcting some technical errors that mistakenly excluded 10 to 13 year olds from riding in the front seat in with no rear seat.

We anticipate taking these amendments on the Assembly floor, And with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And do we have folks in the room that wish to express support? Name, organization and position.

Mark Farouk, on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any other folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay. Do we have questions from the Committee? Would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask her an aye vote.

Great. And we have a motion. We have a motion and a second. I will say I don't know that my 8-year-old's gonna like it, but I appreciate the safety, so I support it.

And with that we are out on AB roll call with Ms. Dixon and Mr. Todd not voting. Thank you. Thank you. And with that now we have Ms. Banta and Ms. Bonta, you are presenting AB 1415.

I am. Thank you Chair and Members. In 2022, the California Healthcare Quality and affordable, Affordability Act established the Office of Healthcare Affordability, or OHCA, within the Department of Healthcare Access and Information because we recognize that health care affordability has reached a crisis point as healthcare costs continue to grow.

OHCA's three primary responsibilities are managing spending targets, monitoring systems performance, and assessing market consolidation. To do this, OHCA collects, analyzes and publicly reports data on total health care expenditures and enforces spending priority set by a Health Care Affordability Board.

Under current law, OHCA cannot collect information directly from health systems or from private equity groups, hedge funds, and management service organizations, also known as MSOs. MSOs provide administrative scheduling and other services to a variety of healthcare entities, including physicians offices, and are increasingly the subject of private equity investment.

This Bill gives OHCA access to the additional information that it needs to understand cost drivers and to help rein in healthcare cost growth. The costs are minor and absorbable. I respectfully request your aye vote.

You can begin.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Katie Van Deynze with Health Access California and we are proud to sponsor and support AB1415. Healthcare costs are the biggest barrier for consumers accessing care and those costs lead to worse health for Californians.

AB1415 helps OHCA achieve their goals of lowering cost for consumers and improving outcomes and equity and will ensure that OHCA has the full picture of healthcare entities that are affecting Californians care and can address the drivers of healthcare costs. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Beth Malinowski, SEIU California. SEIU California is proud to strongly support AB1415 and proud to have worked with Health Access and many consumer groups and labor as well to stand up the Office of Health Care Affordability. We still proudly engaged with that activity and deeply proud of the work of OHCA to date.

As we reflect on that work, and as my colleague Katie noted, we know there's some refinement needed and that's where AB1415 comes into play today. So thank you in advance for your aye vote and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any additional folks in the room wish to express support any opposition to the Bill?

Mark Farouk, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, respectfully opposed to this Bill. I'll be brief. Our opposition is based on that the Office of Health Care Affordability already has extensive authorities. We don't believe this expanded authority is necessary.

The office has already imposed healthcare sector targets which will result in significant cuts to healthcare spending and potentially damage patient access.

On the fiscal part of the Bill, we have identified at least a million dollars in cost to the state as well as potentially 11 positions needed by the department in order to carry out the provisions this legislation. And for those reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, we'll bring it back to. Oh, sorry. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion? Motion. And we have a second? Second. Would you like to close, Ms. Bonta?

Thank you. Californians with job-based coverage are facing higher out of pocket costs with a share of workers with a large deductible: $1,000 or more increasing from 6% in 2006 to 54% in 2020. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you and appreciate your leadership on this, Ms. Bonta. And with that, this is out on a b roll call. Thank you. We're going to move really quickly to the consent calendar. We will take up the consent calendar in two motions.

The first motion is a do pass to consent applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this Committee and are eligible for the Assembly floor Consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have. We have a motion for that and we have a second.

[Consent Caledar]

That is out on a roll call. And then we have a second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in the Committee but are not eligible for the Assembly floor. Consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have a motion on that? The motion and a second

[Roll Call]

Great. And those are out on an A roll call as well. I have to go to housing Committee, so Ms. Sanchez is going to take over.

And Ms. Krell, you may present when you're ready.

I have an important Bill for California and it won't cost the taxpayers a dime. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today is Tiffany Brokaw from the Attorney General's Office to answer any technical questions. Do we have any witnesses in support?

No. Okay. Witnesses in opposition. Any questions of the Committee okay with that, you may close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Do we have a motion? Second. Okay. And with that, this is out on a Republicans not voting with Mr. Mr. Ta voting no.

Thank you,

Mr. Bryan. When you're ready, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. This is a fantastic Bill supported by our firefighters. The costs are negligible. Doug Stuber here is with me as. A technical witness and I respectfully ask. For your eye vote.

Any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? Questions from the Committee. Do I have a motion? Second. And this is out on an A roll call. Thank you.

Madam Vice Chair, can I do a vote change? Yes. AB 379 not voting to aye.

Thank you.

AB 379. Schultz Arambula Vote change from not voting to aye.

It you I'd like to call on authors Calozza, Schiavo, Hart and Irwin. Please come to approps as soon as possible.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present AB539, the timely care Act. No one battling a chronic illness should have to fight their insurance company just to keep getting the treatment that's already been prescribed and approved. But right now, that's the reality.

For prior authorization for too many people, patients and healthcare providers. This Bill eliminates unnecessary red tape and helps ensure patients get the care they need when they need it.

By extending the duration of an approved prior authorization for one year or the duration of a physician's prescribed treatment, this will ease the burden on physicians to help patients stay on track with treatments that they need. As noted in the analysis, this Bill has minimal fiscal impact on state agencies, but will have a huge human impact.

Kevin Guzman is here. Was here is here is still here from CMA to answer any technical questions if needed.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association, proud sponsors of the Bill want to. Say thank you to some Member Schiavo. And Assembly Health Committee as well as Assembly Appropriations here to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition? I'll move it back to Committee. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. And this Bill is out with Republicans not voting. zero, would you like to close? I apologize.

Oh, just thank you so much. Appreciate an aye vote today. And you know, I'm looking forward to this Bill putting patients back where they belong at the center of care. Thank you.

AB539 is out with the Republicans not voting. We will proceed with the suspense file. Suspense calendar is deemed approved.

Suspense Calendar

The suspense calendar is deemed approved it it's heavy.

Thank you very much for your patience. I was over chairing a Budget Subcommitee and raced over to be with you and I'm pleased to present AB 1466 after the state passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014, local groundwater sustainability agencies were formed and tasked with developing and implementing groundwater sustainability plans.

As SGMA implementation progresses, legal disputes over groundwater cutbacks have led to costly litigation and delays in sustainability efforts. AB 1466 will help streamline groundwater disputes by requiring parties seeking an adjudication to have a higher burden of proof. The Bill ensures that parties challenging actions taken by a groundwater sustainability agency must present strong evidence to support their claims.

AB 1466 will also require the groundwater sustainability agencies to provide a technical report that quantifies and describes all water users to the courts. This ensures all water users, especially small farms and community members without the financial means to litigate are represented. The Bill has minor and absorbable cost to the state and.

Not sure my experts are here, but I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. So any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. I can open it back up to Committee for any questions. Do we have a motion? Wonderful. Would you like to close?

Respectfully requested an aye vote. Thank you.

AB 1466 is out on AB roll call. Thank appropriation Members. We have several bills on call, so if you were able to come down to committees to vote, that would be wonderful. AB 1466. Hart. AB 54. Crell. AB. Correct. But we're at. We don't. On call. 5. AB. 539. Shavo.

[Background]

You may proceed.

What am I doing wrong? There. Wrong button. See? I already failed. Good morning, colleagues. On behalf of Assembly Member Erwin, I am pleased to present AB 1207. California must ensure that our ambitious climate policies are science based, affordable and provide tangible benefits to residents.

AB 1207 helps achieve this by setting the price ceiling in the state's cap and trade market to correspond to the social cost of carbon, which reflects the real world impact of greenhouse gas emissions as assessed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2023. Costs for this policy as estimated by Air Resources Board are minor and absorbable.

At a time when the Federal Government is unfortunately dismantling environmental programs and in defunding related research, this Bill ensures that California's cap and trade program will be informed by the best available science. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much for presenting any witnesses and support, witnesses in opposition.

Good.

I'll bring it back to Committee. Any tough questions?

No.

Do we have a motion? Second. Thank you. Okay. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Wonderful. AB 1207 is out with Republicans not voting and is on call. On call.

We are still waiting for one Member to present and we have several bills on call. But while we're waiting, why don't we open it up to the hearing to public comment on any bills not presented in Committee today.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Glendale in support of AB91.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the Pacific Coast Rendering Association, California Grain and Feed. We have provided some amendments on AB411 which is on suspense and believe that the risk based system it would be cheaper and better and a better way to address the issues. Thank you.

Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, proud to sponsor and support AB588. Thank you. Thank you.

Benjamin Shi, on behalf of the Davis College Democrats in support of AB11.

Will Brooks on behalf of the Associated Students of UC Davis in support of AB11.

Darlene Dupree on behalf of the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support of AB346 and AB350. Thank you.

Now that we have additional Members in the room, the following bills are out, are not on call and out of Committee. AB 54, Crell, AB 539, Schiavo, AB 1466 Hart and AB 1207. Irwin. Oh, she is she on her way? Mr. Fong, you may proceed.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members, good morning and thank you to Chair Wicks Chair Sanchez and colleagues. Assembly Bill 672 is about protecting our public employees and a right to collectively bargain. AB 672 will require public employers to notify the Public Employment Relations Board if they file court action involving the statutes PERB administers on behalf of Summer Coloza.

This would also give per the right to protect public employees and intervene as a party to help maintain a consistent application and enforcement of labor protections and policies across the country, especially at the federal level. Public employees are vulnerable and needing more protections in the workplace.

Many of our public employees are union Members, predominantly women of color, immigrants and working class people. These are the jobs that help forge the middle class.

Child care providers who care for young people, teachers who educate the next generation leaders park employees who keep the public parks available to all and to all public employees who are the backbone of our state deserve more protections in the workplace.

I believe that California can show the nation that public employees are public servants and and this is a honored profession. It is imperative that we treat public servants fairly in order to produce a more responsive, more representative government where we are all valued. But we cannot accomplish this just with words of thanks and recognition alone.

It's important that structures, policies and practices of our state ensures fairness for all. AB672 would safeguard California's workers and their rights by promoting fair and consistent application of the laws intended to protect all public employees. This Bill passed through the Assembly Committees on Judiciary and Public Employment and Retirement unanimously.

Here with me to support this Bill is Sandra Barreiro from SEIU California.

Thank you Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California. Thank you Assembly Member Fong for filling in for Assembly Member Kalra. We're the sponsors of this Bill and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And AB672 is out with Republicans not voting.

We have a vote change. AB876 Flora and Mr. Tangipa. Not voting. Oh, voting aye. Going from not voting to voting aye. Great. Okay. That's the vote change and I believe that is it. Would you like to hit the gavel there? Meeting adjourned. Thank you.