Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone, and welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety Committee. The Committee is now called to order. I'd like to begin with a couple housekeeping items. I noticed the absence of our Vice Chair, but we will appropriately embarrass him when he arrives. You'll understand more later.

Also want to just give a quick call out. I'll be presenting the first item today on behalf of Senator Sasha Renee Perez.

If you're a Senator with business before the Committee today and your item is not on consent calendar, and if your staff is watching this, please make your way your way to Room 126 in the State Capitol right now. Thank you very much. I'd also like to begin with some housekeeping.

There are some general rules of conduct before we start our hearings today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with witness and public comment throughout the hearings today, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules will subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Next, we have the off-calendar items.

I'd just like to note that Senate Bill 221 by Senator Ochoa Bogh has been pulled by the Committee. Look forward to working with the author and we'll bring this back. I believe we're looking at July 1. Next, we have our—actually, I'm sorry. I see we have enough to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. With the quorum present, we will next go to adoption of the proposed consent calendar. Colleagues, we have five items on today's consent calendar. We have Item Number 1, Senate Bill 4 by Senator Cervantes, entitled, "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Justice Program."

We have Item Number 3, Senate Bill 229 by Senator Alvarado-Gil, entitled, "Peace Officers Deputy Sheriffs." We have Item Number 7, Senate Bill 385 by Senator Seyarto, entitled, "Peace Officers Urgency." We have Item Number 8, Senate Bill 459 by Senator Grayson, entitled, "Peace Officers Confidential Communications Group, Peer Support Services."

And lastly, we have Item Number 10, Senate Bill 553 by Senator Cortese, entitled, "Prisons Clearances." Do I have a motion? Okay, with a motion by Lackey and a second by Nguyen, let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, consent calendar is adopted. Thank you, everyone. We will be hearing today's measures in sign in order with standing Committee Members presenting their bills towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience. As a reminder, authors will have five minutes to present, as will their main witnesses.

Witnesses in opposition will have a combined total time of five minutes. That is the Committee standing practice. With that, we are going to go to the first item under consideration today. This is Item Number 4 by Senator Sasha Renee Perez. In the Senator's absence, I will be presenting this Bill on her behalf.

Given that the Vice Chair is absent, I'm going to turn the gavel over to Dr. Sharp-Collins to run the hearing, or at least this portion of it.

All righty. Thank you. You may begin whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 281 on behalf of State Senator Sasha Renee Perez.

Senate Bill 281 ensures that California judges provide a clear, standardized advisement, as required under current law, to inform noncitizen defendants in a criminal case of the potential immigration consequences of a criminal conviction before they enter a plea.

Since 1977, penal code section 1016.2 has required judges to inform anyone entering a plea that there may be immigration consequences such as deportation, exclusion from the United States, or denial of naturalization.

The intent of the original statute was to ensure individuals are prompted to consult with their attorneys, the criminal defense attorneys and or immigration attorneys to review any potential immigration consequences.

In 1977, the Legislature mandated the advisement and laid out the language of the advisement and specifically and intentionally included the use of the word "may" when referencing the potential for immigration consequences. In 1977, the Legislature considered, but ultimately rejected the use of the word "shall" when referencing immigration consequences.

And this choice was made in part by because judges are prohibited from providing legal advice and cannot predict immigration consequences that are heavily dependent upon the circumstances of the individual and the ever changing State of immigration law in this country.

In recent years, however, some judges have been deviating from the required language in penal code Section 1016.5 by telling individuals that they will face immigration consequences. This incorrect wording misinterprets the law, causes confusion, and may discourage individuals from seeking essential legal advice from their defense attorneys or immigration Counsel.

Senate Bill 281 corrects this issue by requiring judges to use the exact statutory language that has been contained in penal code Section 10.16.5 since its inception in 1977. The Bill does not alter the advisement. It simply reinforces the original intent of the Legislature of having judges follow the advisement verbatim.

In an effort to address more recent concerns that have been raised, the author has committed to adding language that clarifies the Bill will not be applied retroactively in any legal disputes. The Committee is already working with the author on this amendment language.

Ultimately, Senate Bill 281 simply reinforces the original original intent of current law that judges should provide the statutory language verbatim. This will ensure consistency across the state as what is intended by the 1977 Legislature. Testifying in support of SB 281 today is Ignacio Hernandez, who represents the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We are the sponsors of this measure.

As the Assembly Member mentioned, we specifically brought this Bill because in recent years judges have begun going off script and not following the language of the advisement that was adopted in 1977.

And let me point out that the language of the statute has read since 1977, quote, the court shall administer the following advisement on the record to the defendant with colon and then it describes exactly what should be said.

Unfortunately, when the judges go off script, it has created a number of issues, confusion as the Assemblymember mentioned, as well as sometimes conflict between what the judge says and what the attorney is telling his or her client. And so that confusion needs to be addressed.

We have been saying this for quite a while that judges need to follow the law. By inserting one word into statute verbatim, we hope that judges will actually follow the law. Let me just mention that the opposition will bring up that following the laws that's been in 1977 creates problems on a motion to vacate.

Our Bill does nothing to change the statute on the motion to vacate. In fact, I was involved with a number of individuals, including some of the DAs in drafting that Bill in 2015 and also amendment in 2018. We do not change anything.

The confusion in those motions to vacate comes up because some Das are using the misstatement by judges of will have immigration consequences and trying to impute legal knowledge. That is a requirement in that motion. That is not what the intent of this statute has been since 1977.

The DAs are trying to, as I've been saying, trying to treat a tricycle like a Escalade. That is not the same thing.

This advisement was supposed to be General advisement, not legal advice, not case specific, and definitely not used against someone who's facing immigration consequences and now wants to withdraw their plea because they legitimately did not know the consequences. Because perhaps the law changed as it's changing now weekly.

So we just want to treat the law as it has always been. It's a tricycle. It's not an Escalade. And for those reasons, we ask for your support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses to testify in opposition? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Everybody who was in. In support. Do we have anyone in. In support? Please, please go ahead and step forward. And please state your name and your organization.

Good morning. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thanks.

Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA in support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union, Local 148. In support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance, Prosecutors Alliance Action, and Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU, California Action in proud support.

Elmer Lizardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. In support.

Thank you. Now I got it right. All right. Do we have any witnesses here to testify in opposition? Please make your way and you will have two minutes. Okay. You have a total of five minutes. And please feel free to start whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Nina Salerno. I am the District Attorney of Modoc County. I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. It is with respect that we oppose unless amended on this Bill.

Although it seems innocuous in the language, the effect of it would be huge in resulting in adverse and appealed decisions on otherwise valid convictions.

We strongly support what has been proposed by the Los Angeles District Attorney, which was language that was sent to the chair in their opposition letter, which they did amend and put in language that would ensure the rights of the accused and the defendant as they plead, but also strike a balance with public safety and upholding convictions on appeal.

So we would strongly ask that for a no vote unless amended to reflect the language as proposed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tamar Tokot. I'm here on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. We are respectfully in opposition to SB281, unless it is amended. We do thank the author for the recent amendment, for the clarification, for the retroactivity issue.

But there are still other serious concerns that we hope to address in Los Angeles. In the last few years alone, we have had several cases where valid convictions were reversed years after the defendant had already pled guilty.

Because years later he made a motion to withdraw his plea, claiming that when the court had told him that he may face immigration consequences, he didn't think that would actually apply to him or happen to him. And some of these cases include sexual assaults, child molestation, even murder.

When defendants are allowed to withdraw their plea in these cases, there are serious consequences for the victims and surviving family Members who are re traumatized when they thought they had closure years ago. That's assuming we can even take the case to trial.

If we can't take the case to trial because years have passed and now we're missing witnesses or other evidence, that means that someone who committed a heinous crime will have no conviction that reflects what they did and no consequences that flow thereafter.

That means, for example, that someone who otherwise shouldn't have guns can now have the right to own guns. Or if their crime was something like a rape, they won't have to register as a sex offender.

There are published California appellate and Supreme Court cases where courts have found that advising defendants that their pledge plea may have immigration consequences was insufficient, particularly in cases where the defendant committed a crime considered deportable under federal immigration laws.

So when courts or DA's taking the plea advise defendants that there will be consequences, it's not done to give immigration advice. It's not just done haphazardly or willfully. In fact, even the Committee analysis refers to some cases, appellate court cases, that said that the court should have said, said this will happen, not that this may happen.

So this is as a result of the appellate cases that have come down. And that's because the existing statute, even though it's been on the books for many years, it was never verbatim. And it's been deemed, you know, an inadequate advisement over the years.

So what public safety goal would be served by mandating that it now be recited verbatim? We absolutely share the author's goal of ensuring that defendants understand all of their rights and consequences when entering a plea. We're not trying to kill this Bill.

We're just trying to help fix it by strengthening the existing advisement if it is to be given verbatim. So to that end, we have provided the Committee and the author with our proposed amendments which are intended to address both the author's concerns and ours. And we thank everybody for their consideration.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to line up and provide. Please state your name and your organization.

Hi, my name is David Bullock. I'm speaking on behalf of a coalition of community, women's rights, mental health, religious and legal support groups. While we appreciate the intent of the. Bill and we think it's great, we do have objections to replacing his or her with theirs. We feel that is the further of denying sex based women's rights in California. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. Do we have any questions? Yes, Lackey?

Yeah, I don't have any real questions. I just want to clarify my position that I understand the intent behind this and it's somewhat noble, but there the opposition has expressed my, my position that it's if they took the amendments as proposed by the LA prosecutor, it's supportable, but retro retroactivity would be completely unreasonable and would cause absolute chaos.

And I've understood that the author has difficulty changing that, that it was proposed in the Senate side and there was some strong reservation. But we'll see. I, you know, I believe in trust, but verify is really important. So if it's in the Bill and it's amended, there would be some temptation to support this thing.

But the, the opposition has also indicated too, that the term may is, is a bit problematic because it's too subjective and it's easily misunderstood. So I think there's some problems there as well. So in its current form, I'm not able to support it.

Thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions. She had indicated a couple of things about some of these heinous crimes. And I'm wondering, since you've worked on. This for such a long time, if. You can speak to some of that and answer some and you may do that in your closing. I just wasn't sure if you were going to address some of the issues that they brought up.

I'll just. Thank you very much. Assemblymer Nguyen. I have just a brief response and I'm gonna turn it over to our technical expert from my years in practice, obviously it's a big deal when someone attempts to withdraw a plea. There are very serious public safety concerns and I share what was echoed by the opposition witnesses.

What I would say though is it's not necessarily easy to withdraw a plea. You do have to demonstrate that there was prejudice to your case. So if the court didn't say something exactly the way that you should, that you thought it should have been said, that doesn't mean by default you get to withdraw your plea.

The court has to make that assessment of was there prejudice? And essentially, did you not understand with full extent and scope the weight of the circumstances of what the plea you were about to enter, all the potential attending consequences?

I've seen many times where, even though that concern has been raised, the court has found that there was no prejudice and not allowed the plea to be withdrawn. I've also seen it go the other way. With that said, I'd like to turn it over to our technical expert to more specifically answer your question.

I will just mention though, Mr. Lackey, I have spoken directly with the author. I too shared the concern of rectoactivity. I have gotten that concession and that commitment from Senator Perez to bake this in the Bill.

And based on all of my years of working with her, I know she's a person of her word, so I have no reservations there. But I did want to make it extraordinarily clear she has agreed to clarify the Bill, that it will not be retroactive.

Thank you. Just one addendum to the retroactivity. I've actually drafted language, gone back and forth with the Committee and shared it with a couple of offices. So the commitment is there. We just have to finalize the language, some. So thank you for bringing that up.

As far as how the advisement applies, when it was adopted in 1977, the statute says very specifically, this advisement is given to every case that is not an infraction. So misdemeanors and felonies, so the most serious felonies to the lowest level misdemeanors, all receive this advisement.

Your question as to, I think, the motion to vacate a plea, as the Assembly Member mentioned, there is a pretty rigorous process to file a motion and to get it granted, there has to be prejudice. The standard is actually the totality of the circumstances. So everything is looked at very carefully.

I would say that in cases involving murder, for example, as was brought up, I've seen case law that says when it's murder, people pretty much understand that there's going to be adverse immigration consequences because it is the most severe. So I've seen those motions denied on that basis.

So the more serious the offense, what I have seen, again this is don't take it for expert opinion, but just from my experience, I've seen that the more serious the offense, the More difficult it is to withdraw that plea.

I also want to point out, as the opposition pointed, that these cases are not overturned, the conviction's not overturned, the plea agreements are withdrawn, and then they either have to go to trial or they have to enter into a different plea of guilty or no contest to negotiate with the DA's. So the cases are not dismissed.

I just want to make that clear. And again, if there's discussion on the motion, vacate is not, you know, needs to be addressed or changed. We're happy to engage. We were part of the. A group of individuals that drafted that, including DA's, and we'd have that conversation.

But this Bill is just trying to stay consistent with what was drafted in 1977. I actually pulled the Committee analysis from 1977 to make sure. Sure. When I say that was the original intent of the Bill. It was. In fact, I been working on legislation here for a long time.

I wasn't here in 1977, but I did want to confirm. And that's why we drafted the Bill very narrowly and we did not want to put our finger on the scale for those motions to vacate one way or the other. We were very careful in drafting the Bill that way. So thank you for the question.

Thank you. And it sounds like there's still conversations with the chair and some, some work through that needs to get done. Possibly.

Yes. Assemblymember. And I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. A lot of times we get opposition and we don't have a lot of fruitful ideas to sort of meet folks in the middle.

I really appreciate that this office came up with some language that they felt tries to strike the balance. I looked at it and, you know, I practiced in two states now, using my own experience. I didn't find the language to be that right balance. That was just my personal take.

But this is really a decision that the Author and the LA County DA's office will continue to engage in. I think that there is definitely room that they can meet in the middle and fine tune this language.

I think we can all agree that it can be bolstered, it can be strengthened, and I want to just acknowledge that they took the time to at least come up with some alternative.

And I really hope that Senator Perez and I believe that she will seriously look at that proposal and perhaps the two can meet in the middle by the end of this thing.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Just very briefly. Yeah, we, we looked at that language as well, and you know, there's two things. One is, when we introduced the Bill, we did not want to change any language in the advisement because we didn't want to disrupt and kind of, as someone has said, open the Pandora's box on that.

So that's why we kept it verbatim, which we actually think the statute already means verbatim. So that's why we did it very narrowly. In reviewing the language of the lada, there are portions of it that frankly makes sense.

I don't know if we would agree to put in the Bill because we have to look at what the legal consequences are. But part of it does make sense. The portion of it that we have problems with is when it says that you must assume that you will be deported.

That then imputes legal knowledge, which is a requirement in the motion of ak. We do not want to put our finger on the scale of the motion of vacate, let alone a hand on that.

That is the portion of the suggestion with LADA that completely changes it and what I was saying changes it from a tricycle to an Escalade. That is very different Bill and very different than what, 1977. So that portion of it is the one that we have the most problems with.

But otherwise they're open to that discussion and have good faith discussions going forward.

Any additional questions or comments? Okay, seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes, very briefly, Madam Chair, just want to thank not only the supporters of this Bill, but want to thank the opposition for engaging. I know that Senator Perez is a thoughtful and collaborative leader, and I have full expectation that she'll continue to work with you to make this a more perfect Bill.

I will be humbly asking for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Perez. And I just wanted to close with saying that what she is attempting to do in requiring a verbatim advisement under the law is not necessarily novel or unique. I would just give you two quick examples.

Under vehicle code Section 25593, judges are already required to provide a verbatim advisement regarding regarding the potential consequences of future DUI offenses. And even the passage of Proposition 36 includes what I would categorize as a verbatim advisement. In the newly created statute, we have verbatim language for a very particular reason.

And I will just say that as a prosecutor, when I was in court and giving advisements to a defendant, whether it was regarding immigration consequences, repeated DUI offense, I always knew that if I was reading what was in the statute, that my conduct was covered and that the Defendant had a full understanding of the potential.

Potential consequences of what they were about to do. And quite frankly, that strengthens our ability to defend these convictions at Department of Justice when they come on appeal. So with that, I humbly ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Oh, and the chair is recommending an aye.

I just about to say that. That our chair is recommending an aye vote at this time. We'll go ahead and call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. I need a motion. See, we've been out so long. Can we have a motion to move. Second. Thank you. So move by Senator Gonzalez. Seconded by Assemblymember Nguyen .

Okay, at this time, can we call the roll.

SB281 by Senator Perez. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call] That measures on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I hope you all enjoyed as much as I did watching Dr. Sharp-Collins run that meeting. That's. Now that's how a cheer really works. Well done, my friend. Before we move on to our next item of business, I would just like to note and call upon Assemblymember Lackey.

I see that the Vice Chair has finally decided to join us, Mr. Birthday Boy. Mr. Lackey, could I trouble you to lead us in a Happy Birthday rendition for our esteemed Vice Chair?

Sure. Happy to. Ready, Begin. Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you Happy birthday, dear. One. Happy birthday to you.

And Mr. Vice Chair, I know there is nowhere else you would rather be than a Committee hearing on your birthday. Any kind words for the audience?

Thank you, everybody, for singing to me. It's been a while for that. I'm just happy to come do the. Work for the people that I was voted in to come do. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. All right, now back to the more serious matters. All right, back to the order of business. I see we have Senator Menjivar here. So next we'll take up item number five. This is Senate Bill 337 by State Senator Caroline menu of our entitled prisons.

Senator, you will have five minutes to present, as will your witnesses and support, and we'll go from there.

You run a tight shift, Mr. Chair. All right, first I have to say a Member. You're. You're nicer than me. I haven't worked on my birthday for the past 10 years. I refuse. Good for you.

Good for you.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, I'm presenting to you SB 337 that as you saw in the analysis, there were like about 26 provisions of what this bill is looking to do. It's really robust and looking to change the nature of our prisons, predominantly our women prisons.

I'm not going to go through every single provision of what this bill does, but just cover in the umbrella of it. You've seen in the past couple of years article after article about people who've been put in place to protect, especially our women who, who are incarcerated, betray that trust.

From individuals who were charged for upwards of 50 counts of sexual misconduct, sexual assaults of women, to most recently the sole gynecologist of the women's prison also now being charged. It's an ongoing issue and the system needs to change. So this bill is looking to address that right now. Currently there's no documentation that takes place place.

If an officer looks to search an incarcerated individual, it's a he said, she said kind of story. And we want to change that. We want documentation to happen. We want to have a track. We want to track every kind of interaction. And this kind of work is just building off of the work that I've done previously.

And I thank you, thank the analysis for annotating a previous bill that I was passing. And we're looking to build onto, onto that. We want to make sure. Give me one second here.

We want to make sure that we extend the grievance filing window for incarcerated individuals from 60 to 120 days because we know it takes a while to get over a trauma and we don't want to push them until they're ready to come forward.

We want to make sure that they're providing these grievances anonymously because we know retaliation is real. We want to prohibit hiring CDCR staff or out applicants found guilty of violent of sex or sexual crimes. And we want to mandate the termination and permanent eligibility for rehire of individuals who commit such crimes.

If you're working in an all women's prison and you just were charged with beating your wife, you shouldn't be working in a prison that is only women. You have a bias or some kind of hate towards that sex and that gender.

And we want to make sure that when an investigation happens, the CDC, our lead investigator, discloses any, any personal connection to the person that's being accused of such crime. If they're their roommate, their brother, their sister, what have you, they should recuse themselves from that.

And we want to make sure that CDCR adopts and updates regularly the prison rape elimination policy and make clear that CDCR maintains a zero tolerance policy for any type of violence, regardless of who is the perpetrator. So basically we're just closing some loopholes.

This is a work that the Women's Caucus has been leading with and I feel proud to be part of that work group to bring forward something that's going to drastically change the lives of women in prison or anyone in prison. Mr.

Chair, now I'd like to turn over to my witness here, April, who would like to speak on this bill.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members. I am April Grayson, the political Director of Sister Word Freedom Coalition. On behalf of the co sponsors in the Sexual Abuse Response and Prevention Working Group, I speak in strong support of SB 337 by Senator Menjivar.

SB 337 makes important changes to the reporting, investigations and disciplinary process that takes place after staff abuse occurs. Addressing well founded fears and retaliation and preventing abusers, including medical staff, for perpetrating further harm. But SB 337 also includes critical measures to prevent sexual abuse from occurring in the first place by increasing oversight.

We consistently hear from incarcerated individuals about the improper and frequent deactivation of body cameras by custody staff, often during incidents of sexual assault or other misconduct. By closing loopholes in CDCR's policy that allows staff to evade detection of their abuse, this bill offers a step towards greater transparency and accountability within these facilities.

SB 337 also seeks to address the incredibly problematic practice of body searches which can be ordered by officers at any time and are required for incarcerated people to be able to visit their family. Excessive and traumatizing strip searches are a common experience.

We frequently hear horrifying stories about never ending strip searches and invasive pat downs that lead individuals to stop accepting any visits from their loved ones because they fear a repeat experience.

SB 337 will require documentation of every search and scan, creating a paper trail of abusive searches and the opportunity for an advocate to be requested, adding real time oversight to a very vulnerable and traumatizing situation.

We appreciate Senator Menjivar's continued leadership and her willingness to incorporate key recommendations from our working group's report, which was based on outreach to over 700 incarcerated people in CDCR's women's designated prisons.

SB 337 directly addresses their concerns and we firmly believe that these measures will significantly, significantly enhance the safety of both officers and the people living in these facilities. For these reasons, Sister warriors and the Sexual Abuse Response and Preventive Working Group urge your Strong support for 337. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation, Senator. And thank you, Ma' am so much for your testimony today. Next we'll hear from others in support of the bill.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 and LA Defensa in support.

Good morning. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California and strong support.

Glenn Backes for Prosecutors Alliance Action and Drug Policy Alliance. In support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. And strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. And support.

Craig Pulsar on behalf of Equality California. And support.

Aubrey Rodriguez on behalf of ACLU California Action and proud support.

Thank you all very much for your testimony today. Now we'll hear from any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to the bill. Once you come forward and are seated and begin to speak, you will have a combined total time of 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning, I'm Beth Bourne, with CAUSE. We oppose SB337 unless it is amended to immediately remove all male inmates from women's prisons, regardless of how they identify. This bill has a commendable goal of, quote, zero tolerance for sexual violence.

Yet incarcerated women in California currently spend 24 hours a day with Trans identified male inmates who have been convicted of sexual violent crimes. Since SB 132 has been in effect, 45 men masquerading as women have been transferred to female prisons.

And According to the CDCR's report from this past April, there are another 208 Trans identifying males currently in the process of being transferred and another 898 who have requested to be transferred. So one in three male inmates seeking transfer is a registered sex offender. That a total of 1151 males could be placed into the female prison system.

And there are currently about 4,000 female prisoners. So that means up to 25% of the inmates held in female prisons could soon be male. Let that sink in. How many murders, rapes, sexual assaults, beatings and pregnancies do you think will occur as more males pour into our female prisons?

If you think this bill is good enough because most sexual assaults are committed by guards, ask a rape victim, is it less of a rape because the rapist was a male inmate instead of a guard? If Trans identified males are being harmed in male prisons, the problem should be addressed there. Women are not human shields for male.

On male violence, I urge a no vote unless amended to fix the problem created by SB 132.

Hi, good morning. Aaron Friday, attorney and President of our duty. Close your eyes for a minute. Senator Menjivar and Members. And imagine that you're a female locked in a cell with Jason Hahn. He murdered two of his babies. Punching the helpless 10 week old to death. He almost killed. I'm sorry, ma' am.

I'm going to stop you right there. I want to pause your time because there was not prior clearance. We do not allow props and presentation to the Committee. Thank you. We'll resume your time once you begin speaking, Ma' am.

Thank you. Imagine Tremaine Carroll, a three strikes criminal and two time accused rapist of a female prisoner. He watches you shower every day. Think of Richard Mashbrush who raped, sodomized and tortured a black woman while tying up her mother. While in prison, this sadomasochist severed off his own penis. Now he allegedly rapes incarcerated women with objects.

Imagine sharing your cell with him for the rest of your life. How about Dana Rivers? He hated that he could not be a lesbian so much that he murdered two of them and their adopted black son. He torched their bodies to hide his crime. He sleeps above you.

And then there's Sean Gustafson, who molested two boys, ages 6 and 8. He watches you undress every day. Rodney James, a convicted murderer and kidnapper. He sleeps six feet from you. Jeffrey Nosworthy, a male murderer. He lives within eight feet of you.

Kao Saturn, a male who raped a child under the age of 14 with an object is your forever roommate. How afraid would you be? That is what the female prisoners in California live with every day. And it's only going to get worse. This bill is not enough. Close all of the loopholes. Amend it.

Get the males out of the female prisons. Stand up to Scott Wiener and all the men willing to use females as human shields. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll hear from others in opposition to the bill.

David Bullock, on behalf of California's all. The chapters of Moms for Liberty and Serving Family Values in Senator Menjivar's own district. We oppose for the reasons brought up by cause and our duty. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, questions or comments? Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. To the author. I just want to direct some of the opposition testimony back to the author and just give the author a chance to respond. My understanding is everything that we just heard has nothing to do with this bill. It's not germane to this bill. I'm not sure what.

What the purpose of the opposition testimony was. But my understanding is the bill has nothing to do with anything we just heard. Is that correct?

That's correct, Assemblymember. And you know, as background information as far back as 2011-2012 DOJ did their own research and found that close to 60%, 58.9% of the rape cases in our prisons were done by staff onto the incarcerated individual.

Most recent report came out of 2023 by CDCR's own report that now has jumped to 68% of the cases of sexual misconduct or sexual assault is coming from staff. So my bill, as you've heard, is dealing with that majority of the cases there and wants to bring some reprieve to the individuals in these prisons. The.

The issues that the opposition have brought up, I'm never going to take away. Rape is a rape. I will never rank a rape in a hierarchy. I think they all have value to it and I recognize the issues that they're bringing up. But my bill is focusing on the bigger picture of our prisons.

And you're right, as family Member has nothing to do with SB 132.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I'll move the bill.

Thank you. All right, before we go on, I have a motion from Harabedian. Is there a second? Okay, we have a second by Dr. Sharp-Collins and a third by Mr. Gonzalez. We'll continue with questions and comments. Would anyone else like to go? Yeah, Mr. Gonzalez.

To the witnesses that are here. I'm just a little bit confused. So the bill that the Senator brought forward establishes four things, which is guardrails for the operations of body cameras and prisons require incarcerated persons to be granted an opportunity to have an advocate when being cavity search, strip search and body scan contracts.

Hiring promotions cannot be made with people convicted of sexual assault. And establishes a grieving process for incarcerated folks to access reported misconduct. I don't understand what you meant by masquerading as a men had. Men had anything to do with this. I find that incredibly offensive.

And you're hijacking this moment to put forward your own agenda against the LGBTQ + community. So I'm not sure what any of what you said was about is accurate. And it's completely offensive. It's not a question, it's a statement. We can move on.

All right, other Dr. Sharp-Collins, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to thank Senator Menjivar so much for bringing forth this. This bill. I would like to come on as a co author and yes, the. The reports show that assault has been done by our Staff and our women deserve to be heard, believed, protected, regardless of them being held, you know, being incarcerated.

What I do want to say is that documentation is extremely important. As we push forth legislation, we keep talking about documenting to make sure that we have data, to support research and so forth. And what this bill to me is going to do is ensure clarity, assure that we have accountability, efficiency, and also prevention.

Another thing is that I see that this bill supports victims overall well being, but also empowering them. This is something that is important to me. This bill promotes justice and to me, a healing process for survivors as a, you know, as they continue to go through this process.

So I have utmost respect for you for bringing forth this bill and I appreciate you continuing to make sure that we have documentation for these cases and that justice is done. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Dr. Sharp-Collins, other questions or comments? All right. Without there being further question or comments, first of all, Senator Menjivar, I'll give you a chance to close and then I'll give my recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Listen, if it was up to me, I would eradicate rape across not just our prisons, but the entire world. I think that is one of the most, if not the most traumatizing thing a person can go through. And we recognize that women are predominantly at the receiving end of that act.

Now, women who are incarcerated have already been traumatized, and reports show that a lot of times they come in for a charge and they have history of sexual assault. We know that they're being re traumatized in our prisons. I do again, want to elevate the issues and not devalue some of the things that the opposition didn't mention.

Because again, rape is rape. At the end of the day, we need to move the needle closer to ensuring the safety of the individuals that have been put under our care in the State of California. This bill moves in the right direction and gets us closer to bringing some justice to individuals.

I think it's important to have a third party advocate. Whenever you're getting searched, you want to make sure you have somebody that's going to be on your side. With your support, we can make sure we can get to that safer environment for individuals under that care. Respectfully asking for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar. Colleagues, the Chair is recommending an aye. I would like to thank the author for bringing the bill forward. I especially appreciated your comments and your closing, ma' am.

I think we can all agree that sexual abuse, sexual assault in our state prisons, it is something that we need to eradicate I wish I could say that one bill is going to solve the entire problem. This is a substantial and good start to move the needle, as you said.

Senator Menjivar, what I would just note is that in 2024, over 130 people, women. Yes. Who were incarcerated at California Institution, Institution for Women and the Central California Women's Facility, filed a lawsuit against CDCR alleging sexual abuse by 30 current and former correctional officers. This isn't some abstract or theoretical exercise.

This is a problem that exists in our state prison right now. I also sit on budget sub six and we had a chance to dive deep on this issue.

And I have to say I am not convinced whatsoever the CDCR has a handle on the situation or is really working, at least to my satisfaction, to remedy the problem. Senator Menjivar's bill, however, does.

It is a substantial effort to put in place more protections and to do what we can to limit what is happening in our state prisons. I have no doubt that there's going to be more legislation to follow, but I think this is absolutely something that we need to move forward today.

And Senator Menjivar, like my colleague, if you're looking for co authors, I would be honored to jump on.

There's always room. Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ma' am. With that, we have a motion and a second. Chair is recommending an Aye.

Let's conduct the roll on SB 337 by Senator Menjivar. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that measures out 90. Congratulations, Senator. Thank you, everyone. Next we will head to. Let's see. I actually don't see anyone here, so. Doing a public call out for staff Members, if you're listening, we need Senator Jones, Senator Cortese and or Senator Caballero here at their earliest possible convenience.

We will be waiting for them in room 126. We will take a short recession.

All right, everyone, welcome back. I see that we have Senator Jones with us. Senator, thank you so much for being here. Please come forward. Colleagues, this is going to be Item Number 6 on your agenda. Senate Bill 379, entitled, "Sexually Violent Predators."

Senator, you will have five minutes to present, as will any of your witnesses in support, and then, we'll go from there. And the floor is yours whenever you'd like to begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope it's highly unlikely that I'll need the full five minutes, but we'll see how we do. Thank you, Members, I appreciate you having me in today to discuss Senate Bill 379, which will bring additional oversight and accountability to the process of releasing Sexually Violent Predators back into our community.

A Sexually Violent Predator, or SVP, is an individual convicted of a sexually violent offense and diagnosed with a mental disorder that causes them to be a danger to others, with a high likelihood of reoffending. When an SVP is determined ready for release from civil commitment under the Department of State Hospitals, a process known as Conditional Release, that—the Conditional Release Program begins.

Currently, the Department uses a third-party contractor to execute the entire process, taking little to no personal responsibility or oversight. This Bill will make two important updates to the Conditional Release Process. First, SB 379 will require the Department of State Hospitals to ensure that Department vendors consider public safety and all placements of SVPs.

Second, SB 379 requires the Department to take a bigger role in the process by mandating they approve any lease before a Department employee or vendor can sign any leases or for placement locations. While the Department is in with it—within its right—to contract out for services, it was never the intent of the Legislature to fully privatize the process and relinquish all control and oversight of the release program to third parties.

These commonsense updates will afford more oversight to the process and help ensure more appropriate placements of SVPs. With that, I would ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minority Leader. Do we have any witnesses hoping to testify in support? Do we have anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the Bill? All right, I see we have a few folks. Please come forward. State your name, organization, and position, please. Oh, I'm sorry.

We do have a witness in support. Great. Did you want to—so, if you're here for the "Me Toos," you can line up over there. If you want to offer more substantial testimony, you're welcome to take a seat. Very good. All right, everyone, thanks for your patience. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Mr. Chair, Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and the other associations listed in our letter, all in support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Max Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in support.

Good morning. Nina Salerno, Model County District Attorney, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much for having your voices heard in our State Capitol. Next, we'll hear from any witnesses in opposition. Do we have any such witnesses? Okay. Seeing no response. Anyone else want to be heard on the matter at all? Come on forward.

Yeah. Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition to the Bill.

Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, for Initiate Justice, in opposition of the Bill.

Arianna Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony today. Now, we'll turn it to the dais. Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Lackey.

I have a comment, because this is very problematic for my district. The SVP placement system, we've had a lot of controversy, and I've testified in opposition to, to the system on a number of occasions in court. And for example, we've had a person—I won't mention his name—but he was known as the Pillowcase Racist—Rapist.

And he is a very toxic man, and he's been placed twice in our district. And it's a broken system, and it needs help. And we put people in jeopardy for no reason at all. And there's no justification other than I live in the desert, and that's wrong.

So, thank you for your concern on this issue, and it needs help. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion? Okay, we have a motion by Nguyen and a second by Lackey. Any further discussion? All right, Senator Jones, we'll turn it to you for a brief close, if you'd like.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And Assembler Lackey and, and others who have opined on this are, you know, right on the mark. Uh, the system does need some fixing. Uh, we did an audit last year that—we'll have some more presentations regarding that later. But this is, you know, purposely a small, incremental step in the right direction.

And I think it provides the proper oversight for this part, for this part of the system. And ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much, Senator Jones. With that, colleagues, the Chair is recommending an "Aye." With a motion and a second in place, let's conduct the roll.

[Roll call]

All right, that measure passes. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members. I appreciate your time. All right, thank you. All right, next up, I see we have Senator Caballero here on Senate Bill 7:34. So, colleagues, this is item number 11.

Senator, you'll have five minutes to address the Committee, as will your witnesses and support. And then I see Senator Cortese is here signing in as well. So we'll get to you right next, sir. All right, Senator, floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Today I'm presenting SB734, which would provide due process protections for law enforcement officers whose employment can be impacted by the findings from a California Racial justice act hearing. The California Racial justice Act, or CRJA, was enacted in 2020 to address systematic racism in the criminal justice system.

Defendants in criminal proceedings can raise a CRJA claim at any time during their hearing, appeal, or post conviction setting. These claims typically allege that racism played a factor at some point in their case, whether it was during the arrest, the type of charges filed, the or the length of a sentence they received, or jury.

If the person accused of violating the CRJA is someone who is not involved in the daily activities of the trial like a law enforcement officer, they have no way to know that they've been accused of violating the CRJA and they are not part of the review, and there is no legal obligation to inform the officer of the hearing.

Law enforcement officers accused of racial bias or animus while on duty, as can be the case during a CRJA hearing, can be subject to decertification proceedings conducted by POST as well as other administrative disciplinary actions, such as failure to follow Department protocol.

While post decertification proceedings include due process protections for the law enforcement officer, the CRJA hearing does not.

Because a law enforcement officer is unable to present evidence to refute the CRJA allegations at the hearing, and and the protections of due process are not provided, such as notice, the right to to call witnesses or the right to confront the accuser, and the right to counsel, the judicial findings that result from that hearing should not be used in the POST decertification process or any other administrative employment process.

The underlying conduct which may have prompted the CRJ hearing To be instigated in the first place, however, is still fair game and can be used in the administrative, employment and post decertification context. In other words, put in a different context.

Nothing in this bill changes how or when defendants can raise claims or the types of remedies a defendant can receive under the CRJA. We were very careful not to change that process. SB734 simply provides due process protections for law enforcement officers.

And as you know that the process now requires you to have to be in good standing and to be licensed, if you will, by post.

And so that's the reason that this process has to be separated, because if you're going to take away the livelihood of an individual, they should have the due process rights that are afforded to everyone in terms of employment setting.

So with me to testify in support of the bill are Tim Talbot and Randy Perry, representing the Peace Officers Research Association of California. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Ready for you whenever you are.

Thank you.

By the way, Senator, Mr. Chair, Members, Randy Perry, on behalf of Porak. The statement basically said it all, so there's not much left. I would just add that we were in negotiations with the opposition, worked with them, took many amendments to the bill, and I believe removed nearly all of it.

We just want to move forward with the bill and, and keep working on any of the issues. Again, the, the main issue is that we do not touch the CRGA in any way. We just simply. And by the way, this has precedence when it comes to what's called a Brady situation.

There's legislation that was passed by this body that said that the Brady issue itself, in and of itself is not an issue that will be used as discipline or an SB2 violation in itself, but the underlying act can be. We do not touch that.

They can still be investigated, still be disciplined, still be even sent and decertified under the belt.

These two leave me with very little to add. So I'll. I'll try to be brief. I think the Senator identified exactly what the issue is, is separate the forums and ensure that the peace officer is afforded all the due process protections with respect to one, their employment and two, probably most importantly, their certification as a peace officer.

Those forums provide robust, robust investigative processes. As the Senator said, the bill expressly retains the ability of both the employing agency and POST to take whatever action is appropriate based on the findings there.

And the challenge is that in these RJA hearings, the officer who is accused of some sort of bias may not even be present, may not know, and certainly is not a party to the proceeding where they can actively defend themselves or refute or rebut those accusations.

And so a finding by the judge, for purposes of the rja, serves the purpose as to that criminal defendant, but leaves the officer and others. Actually, it applies to any judicial officer in those proceedings, leaves them without any recourse to defend themselves in that process.

And what we're just trying to say is, look, if you're guilty of bias, those other two investigatory processes will root that out, and we'll take the appropriate action. But you have to be afforded the opportunity to defend yourselves and prove that up in those two forms according to those standards and procedures.

Thank you very much, Senator, for the presentation. Gentlemen, thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the bill. Name, organization and position, please.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. In support, thank you.

Nina Salerno, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. In support.

Max Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association. Also in support.

Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers and Riverside Sheriff Association and the others listed in our letter, in support. Thank you.

Thank you all very much. Are there any witnesses here who are here to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay, I see no response. Would anyone else like to be heard on the bill and render a position? Okay, no response. We'll turn it over to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee?

We have a motion by Wynn, second by Lackey. Any other discussion? All right, then, Senator, if you'd like to offer a brief closing, you certainly.

Can just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Appreciate the opportunity to present the bill.

Thank you, ma' am. And colleagues, the chair is recommending an eye on this one. We have a motion and a second.

[Roll call]

Okay, and it's off to the next stop. Thank you so much, Senator.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

All right, colleagues, that brings us to our last item for the, for the day. We have Item Number 9. This is Senate Bill 551 by Senator Cortese, entitled, "Corrections and Rehabilitation State Policy." Senator, thanks for your patience. You have five minutes whenever you begin, as will your supporting witness.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm very pleased to be here presenting SB 551. National research has shown that incarceration negatively impacts the physical and mental health of correctional officers, Department of Corrections staff, and the incarcerated individuals themselves.

The average life expectancy of correctional officers today is 59 years old, 16 years shorter than those not working in corrections. Suicide rates for correctional officers are 39% higher than national working age population. Among incarcerated individuals, every year of imprisonment decreases their life expectancy by two years.

As of 2022, the suicide rate of incarcerated people increased 4.6% to 19.6 deaths per 100,000 residents, and let me correct that, 4.6 points on the scale—it's 19.6 deaths per 100,000 residents. So, SB 551 formally codifies the principles of normalization and dynamic security to foster a safer rehabilitative culture within a CDCR.

These principles are key components of the safest prisons in the world and encourage an overall healthier environment through the use of ongoing respectful communication between staff and residents, reducing the risk of stress, violence, and recidivism, for increased public safety.

Although life in prison can never be the same as life in free society, active steps should be taken to make conditions in prison as close to normal life as possible for successful personal growth and safe reentry into society, aside from the lack of liberty itself, of course.

By codifying principles already known to and practiced by some of our prison institutions, SB 551 will bring California closer to a prison culture that promotes accountability, rehabilitation, and successful reentry. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. Before we take the "Me Toos," are there any witnesses in support hoping to testify? Okay, then, anyone else who'd like to be heard in support on the Bill, please come forward at this time.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Transformative Programming Works and the Grip Training Institute, in support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in support.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the Bill? I see no response. Anyone else hoping to register an opinion on the Bill at all? Okay, then, that'll be quick. Turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions, comments, or motions? All right. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I'm clearly not—this is more just a statement. It's not a question. I'm for humane treatment in prisons, for sure, but prisons are supposed to serve a purpose of punishment. That is part of the punitive system and as close to normal life as possible, I think exceeds humanity.

And the intention of prison and incarceration is not reward. And some of the people, unfortunately, that are engaged in criminal conduct have very deplorable circumstances that have put them in encouraging situations that have led to tragedy. And normal life to one is much different than normal life to another.

So, it's an impossible standard, first of all, in my opinion. And secondly, it does need to accomplish a punitive atmosphere.

Now, overly punitive, we can debate that all day long, and I think we should debate that to make sure that we're not overly punitive, because I do believe that humane treatment is expected, but to create a homelike atmosphere, a lot of the people that are in prison have never had that, and it's unfortunate, but it's a reality.

And so, we don't want to improve their condition. I mean, that's certainly—I would hope that that's not the intention of this Bill. But nonetheless, I feel like it's a noble undertaking to try to not be inhumane, but I think this exceeds that. So, I'm not able to support it.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember. Are there any other questions or comments from the dais? All right, then—all right, colleagues, I can call for it afterwards, but we will need a motion. But before I call for it, Senator Cortese, would you like to provide a brief closing statement?

Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate Assemblymember Lackey's comments. He and I were at Lancaster Prison not so long ago, where Mr. Lackey presided over the graduation of, of students who were, in some cases, LWOP students.

Arguably, if their sentence stayed the same, they wouldn't really need to be prepared for outside society or returning to a neighborhood. But because of that program there, which I know Mr. Lackey supports, some of those LWOP graduates of that program, one has been resentenced, and others are being considered for resentencing because judges believe that they are now prepared to enter back into society after years and years of imprisonment.

That's really kind of an extreme case here. This Bill doesn't mandate anything like that.

All this Bill does is make a declaration, if you will, of, of the Legislature's desire to see these two particular principles, which have to do with how correction officers and the prisoners themselves interact, and again, it doesn't even mandate that behavior, but it simply says this is what we would like to see, with about 85% of our prisoners returning back to our neighborhoods.

We would like them to be prepared as possible for that reentry, and sometimes that needs to start well into the prison process, not two weeks after they get out. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you very much, Senator, Colleagues, the Chair is recommending an "Aye" on this one. I want to thank the Senator for bringing forward what I find to be a very good intentioned and common-sense measure.

To my colleague from Palmdale, I would simply say that when I look at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, there are two goals that we're trying to serve. Certainly, the punitive aspect of corrections and deterrence is certainly one worthy goal of our justice system.

But I don't think we've made the investment we need to do in rehabilitation and really setting people up to reintegrate and re-enter our society. And when we fail to do that, we see the result playing out on our streets every day.

People that have no connection to housing, no connection to job placement, they fall into homelessness, they reoffend. It is inhumane, it is contrary to the goals of our justice system, and I would also argue that it leads to less safe communities. So, Senator, I think this is a great measure.

I'm proud to recommend an "Aye" and should it get out of Committee today, I'd be happy to jump on as a co-author with you.

Yes, I would love to have you as a co-author. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator. With that, colleagues, it does require a motion. Is there a motion?

All right, we have a motion by Gonzalez. A second by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that that it bills out. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you all. Okay, colleagues, we'll now do our wrap up. We'll go through all of our items one more time before some of you start to leave the room. Just a quick reminder, we do not have Committee hearing next week.

Our next hearing will be on Tuesday, July 1. Our exact start time will be either 8:30 or 9am to be determined based on the number of bills that we have. And it will be here in room 126. So July 1st is our next meeting.

With that Madam Secretary, let's go through the items of the day and do any add ons lifting of calls and.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

All right, colleagues, we're just waiting on Mr. Harbidian to come back and make a vote, so we'll go into a short recess. For the rest of you, thank you for being here. We'll see you again on July 1st. We'll be in recess shortly. All right, now that Mr. Harbidian's back, we'll go back into session.

All right, Madam Secretary, please allow Mr. Harbidian to cast his votes on the consent calendar.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

All right, thank you, everyone. We stand adjourned until our next meeting. Tuesday, July 1st. Thanks for being here.