Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning and welcome. Committee will come to order. Committee will proceed as a sub in the absence of a quorum. We'll take the following items in the following order. File item 26, AB 1405, Bauer-Kahan presented by Senator Blakespear. Then we will follow that with file item number eight, AB 716, Assembly Member Carrillo. Senator, please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan asked me to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on this bill.

The author accepts the Committee amendments which require one, that AI auditors provide documentation in support of any claims made about the efficacy of their protocols, and two, clarifies that this bill does not interfere with existing auditing requirements.

Today, I'm proud to present AB 1405, which requires auditors to enroll with the government operations agency before assessing an AI system or model pursuant to state law, and which requires enrolled auditors to abide by basic transparency and ethical standards. AB 1405 does not require auditing of AI systems and models.

It simply creates accountability and transparency requirements for AI auditors that operate in California. Last month, the Governor released his Frontier AI Policy report. The report states that third party risk assessment is essential for building a more complete evidence base on the risks of foundation models and creating incentives for developers to increase the safety of those models.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan believes that California deserves to know that the AI systems they engage with are created responsibly and assessed honestly. AB 1405 guarantees they're able to do so. With me today is Rob Eleveld, CEO and co founder of Transparency California and legislative staffer Slater Sharpe is available to answer any questions the Committee may have.

All right, well, state your name again for the record. We will give you three minutes to present and we'll leave a minute for Q and A. Welcome.

My name is Rob Eleveld. I am the cofounder and CEO of the Transparency Coalition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, for my time here today.

Transparency Coalition is a nonprofit that brings to bear many decades of my work and a number of my colleagues work in the for profit tech world to support lawmakers around the country in putting together common sense AI laws and enforcing them in 2025.

At this 2025 session, we've supported at least one AI bill and one AI bill author in 10 states across the country, and we focus on being nonpartisan. We believe that bringing transparency to artificial intelligence can build trust from the public and from businesses that use artificial intelligence, but also brings accountability to artificial intelligence.

I've been a CEO four times ranging from a raw start up to 250 person company with global operations and offices in Singapore and Amsterdam in Budapest, Hungary and ultimately acquired by MasterCard. In all cases, it would be impossible to run those companies without investors and a board for corporate governance.

And those first and foremost are enabled by financial statements that are audited by registered certified third party financial auditors. Business in this state or any other state would not work without those. Again, all of those audits are by registered financial auditors.

I've also worked with, as customers, many financial services organizations, including some of the largest in the world, household names.

And in order to work with any financial services organization, if you are a service provider or technology provider, you're required one of the sort of baseline requirements is that you have met what's called the SOC 2 Cybersecurity Standards that are audited each year at your company and there's quite a big effort to be compliant with auditors.

And those auditors are registered and certified SOC 2 auditors. It's the only way a bank or financial services company will trust that your service is is safe and secure from cyber attacks. These are two examples of where third party registered auditors give confidence and transparency and trust that's badly needed.

Artificial intelligence will need the same transparency through audits by registered certified third party AI auditors. AB 1405 is a good first step in that direction. I urge you to vote in favor of AB 1405.

Thank you for your testimony and then you'll be available for questions. All right, are there any individuals like to register support for this bill? Please come forward. State your name and affiliation if so. Any primary witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Is it okay to use the mic?

If you're a primary witness in opposition, come to the table, please. Have a seat. State your name for the record. You have up to three minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Laura Bennett, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in strong opposition to AB 1405. We do not oppose AI auditing in principle and in fact strongly support accountability and responsible AI adoption. But we are concerned that AB 1405 could damage rather than advance trust in these technologies.

Our overarching concern is that the bill is premature, lacks any objective and meaningful standards to guide reliable AI audits, without a framework that ensures proper oversight and accountability of auditors, and there are risks requiring government pre approval to permit AI innovation rather than supporting growth.

It's critical that auditors be truly independent, standard based professionals with proper credentials and certifications, clear ethical and confidentiality obligations, and consistent transparent standards for public and legal trust such there can be proper oversight and accountability. Yet such standards are contained in this measure.

AB 1405's current standards are far too thin, largely being limited to a brief self description and vague standard operating procedure that is simply inadequate for a new, complex, and rapidly changing technology to establish a registry for AI auditors when we do not have standards to assess them against is premature and we believe will promote inconsistent or questionable audit quality and will breed distrust in both audits and the technology, potentially resulting in posing significant unjustified costs that bring little benefit and prematurely hinders innovation.

We are reviewing the amendments in the Committee analysis but are concerned that they may not address these concerns, particularly given that today's AI auditing ecosystem virtually is non existent, lacking not only comprehensive standards in terms of standard audit procedures, but also lacking robust frameworks for governing the professional conduct of AI auditors themselves.

We encourage this body to make a more nuanced approach, allowing the field to mature, develop its own safety standards, and to first encourage voluntary third party assessments.

Such an approach would be in line with the Governor's AI Working Group's recent report which acknowledges the science is still rapidly evolving and emphasizes the importance of balancing the technology's benefits, material risks against with the challenges of scoping regulation and setting appropriate thresholds. But at this time we must strongly oppose AP 1405 as drafted. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Any individuals, organizations like to register opposition to this bill, please come forward to the mic. Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. I see none. We will place this item on call pending a quorum. Thank you all. You want to close, Senator, on behalf of the Assembly Member?

Yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move to file item number eight, AB 716, Assembly Member Carrillo. Saw that you were here. Thank you. And for the record, with respect to today's docket, I neglected to announce this earlier.

Two items, file item 2, AB 342, Haney, file item 23, AB 1334, Wallace have been pulled from the docket. All right, Assembly Member, proceed when ready. Welcome.

Welcome.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Senators, I would like to start by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Thank you. As California continues to push towards a clean energy economy, hydrogen will play a key role, especially in hard to decarbonize sectors.

One of the challenges hydrogen stakeholders have faced as the industry has grown is fire safety. Hydrogen's unique properties require additional engineering and safety considerations. This reality, combined with a relatively new and growing industry, has led to uncertainty and confusion for some local governments that lack experience and expertise with hydrogen fire safety.

This bill was brought to us by the City of Lancaster, which is in my district, who unfortunately could not be here today. Lancaster has been an early adopter of hydrogen and is seen as a worldwide leader in hydrogen investment and industry development.

With all the challenges and uncertainty facing the hydrogen industry, especially with the turmoil of the current federal administration, it is critical that we get this right. We need to provide a predictable and consistent framework that allows hydrogen industry to flourish, and it gives the local government's resources and confidence that proper safety standards are in place.

I do not have any primary witnesses. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Assemblymember. Any individuals like to come forward, register your support for this bill. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Oh, please state your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, with the amendments today, we're happy to remove our opposition and thank everybody for the hard work that went into this.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the International Code Council. Just want to talk about the process here and where the bill is. We appreciate the committee amendments work with committee staff and our position coming into the committee was opposed unless amended.

We began offering amendments to this bill to try to clarify the bill in the first House. We understood that the bill was going to be amended. It never was and therefore we had to oppose the bill. The International Code Council develops the residential building codes and a whole bunch of other codes.

Ed, I think you know that I just need your position on the bill and that's all I need.

Oh, well, we're - I thought it was testimony in opposition.

I. I didn't know you were primary witness in opposition. If you are come to the table, sit down, state your name for the record, and I'll give you three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Apologies for that. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as I was saying, we have an opposed to the last amended position. We appreciate the work of the committee to make amendments to the bill, but we just want to clarify that before the bill moves out of the Senate. There are significant public health and safety issues which need to be addressed.

The International Code Council develops codes for California. There are a litany of existing health and safety protections in California law. In the existing codes relating to hydrogen. We shared an Excel spreadsheet with the staff that demonstrates all that.

In addition, there's a new code coming next year specifically related to hydrogen, which has been several years in the making with health and safety officials, building officials from across the country, and the hydrogen industry. This code is supported by the industry and will be, I think, a benefit to the burgeoning industry in all of California.

So, our hope is we can work to get this resolved before it comes to the floor and moves out of the Senate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sir. Any individuals want to register, organizations, register opposition to this bill, please come forward. Seeing none, we will bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator. And I know you're pro hydrogen. There's no doubt, as the Chair of the Hydrogen Energy Committee, we want to go forward with hydrogen. It's part of the future of California. As I've said time and time again, California has a treasure chest of energy. We want to use everything.

And I think I want to hear the commitment from you that these amendments will be part of the future of your bill and that you're solid with the amendments. And with that I can approve it and vote for it. But if the Chair's not happy with it because the amendments aren't solid, then I can't support it.

So, I'm going to ask my Chair. Have you received all the amendments that you required?

Yes, and they've accepted.

Very good. Then I will support the bill.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Any other members have any questions or comments? If not - Senator Ochoa Bogh. Would you like to close Assemblymember.

I like to reinstate again, that I do accept at the committee amendments and you do have my commitment that I will continue working with stakeholders and experts to ensure that we str the right balance. And respectfully, as for my vote.

Thank you, sir. We'll place this item on call pending a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move back to file item four, AB 598. Assemblymember Gibson, I think I see your sponsors are here. Welcome, sir. Proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 598. California must ensure public safety. And this commitment starts with our schools and where safety for our students and faculty is paramount. We have seen enhanced technology that can be used for resources to better respond to our students during an emergency.

Assembly Bill 598 seeks to establish a school Emergency Response Mapping Data Program, program to ensure our students are safe with the technology that exists today. This program will enhance the emergency response team, have the precise locations for data for every school allowing a quicker response for more coordinated response during an emergency.

By providing a unified and coordinated accurate location for data, this bill aims to dramatically reduce response times to improve effective for our first responders. AB 598 is about saving lives, preventing harm during critical incidents in a time where every second counts.

With the right technology in place, emergency response for our children is critical to make sure that one our response, our rapid response personnel have an environment that they can respond to our young people in case of emergency.

Assembly Bill 598 would ensure California schools are prepared with the best resources available to keep our students and our faculty safe from harm. I have introduced the amendments here to the Committee to ensure that the data to protect our students and coordinating with our 911 operators. And that amendment was presented to your staff.

With me to provides supporting testimony is Joe Devine with Platinum Advisories on behalf of the Critical Response Group who will testify. Our expert witness was unable to make it, but Joe is here and well capable of answering any technical questions.

Thank you. Welcome. Your name again for the record, you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors here on behalf of the Critical Response Group. I'd also like to thank your staff for their hard work on this effort so far. Again, Joe Devine here with Platinum Advisors on behalf of the Critical Response Group, the sponsors of AB 598.

When first responders arrive at school campuses following a 911 call, they face a high stakes, time sensitive situation, often coordinating with multiple agencies they don't often work with. Despite this, we expect them to know instantly where to go. Whether it's an art room, whether it's a hallway, a cafeteria or specific classroom.

In truth, most of the time, they just don't know where to go. The blueprints in schools rely on today are often inaccurate, outdated, and inaccessible. In Uvalde, officers were delayed because maps depicted shared walls that didn't exist. In Sandy Hook no floor plans were available at all. These aren't isolated issues.

They're systemic gaps that put lives at risk. AB 598 addresses this head on by allowing school district to contract with qualified vendors to create accurate, standardized and accessible digital maps that integrate to platforms already used by first responders. These maps are designed to help first responders not expose sensitive information.

And they provide consistent, accessible, and accurate data across agencies and disciplines. There's a reason Critical Response Group has mapped over 20,000 schools including entire cities like Dallas, Houston, and Austin after Uvalde. The data shows this works. The FCC found that room level mapping can improve response times by 4 to 17 minutes.

Minutes that can often mean the difference between life and death. Some concerns have been raised about cybersecurity. But these maps don't contain sensitive or classified information. They're protected using the same systems trusted by the National Security Agency. And they're housed in platforms that meet Criminal Justice Information Services compliance standards.

AB 598 is about giving first responders the tools they need when everybody second counts. On behalf of the Critical Response Group, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Any individuals or organizations want to register support for the bill, come forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Thank you, anyone else? Seeing no one, any primary witnesses in opposition? Or individuals in opposition? Seeing no one. Thank you. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Archuleta.

Assembly Member, I'm a proud coauthor on this bill and I'm very proud of what you've brought to us. Public safety is very, very important, no doubt, but our children in the schools, when the parents drop off their kids, public safety is number one. And people don't realize when the room is dark, the halls are dark.

What's on the other side of that wall? These law enforcement officials that are there instantly, in some cases, they can be there a lot faster. We just heard 17 minutes can make a difference between life and death. So what I like is the confidentiality.

I like the accessibility, and I like that it leads the way here in California, and I really appreciate it. And so at appropriate time, I'll move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Rubio.

Hello. I had technical difficulties. Good. Thank you so much for being here. First of all, I appreciate the Assembly Member. As we know, we've partnered so much on so many bills that protect children and trying to ensure that our families are safe. So this one in particular, I think it hits home a little bit more personally.

You know, as an educator, I remember many times just being on lockdowns and you never know what's coming your way. And so I've been keeping track of all the shootings across our nation.

And you mentioned Uvalde, and I know that that was a very tragic incident in that not only was there fear on the side of police officers to enter, but they don't know what they're walking into. And just having a mapping of the school and being very clear on where the classrooms are and everything else is really important.

So this grant program is going to be critically important for the survival of our students. And I think I heard 17 minutes, quite frankly, five minutes can make the difference and we know it has when there's been quick response and they know exactly where to go. So I'm also proud to be a coauthor.

So thank you for bringing this forward and I really think this is necessary. I appreciate the safety that you bring to our community. So once again, thank you for partnering all these public safety bills with me.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you Member Gibson, and welcome. Good morning. Glad to see you here. I am excited about this bill. I think it's a great way to modernize using the technology that we have in order to better address the needs of our students and our schools and public safety is in General.

But I think public safety in General, I think will be very will benefit from this bill. So I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you to the witness for being here and look forward to supporting the bill.

Thank you very much.

All right, you want to close, Assembly Member?

I would. I want to thank all the Senators for your kind comments and certainly we offer a coauthorship as this bill seeks to move through the legislative process. This bill is very, very important.

Seconds matters as a former police officer and as my colleague Senator Rubio indicated, we want to make sure that our babies are safe and sound. With Uvalde, second matters and we want to make sure that one our first responders are responding to incidents that happens on our schools' campuses. We want to make sure that every second counts.

We want to make sure that our first responders know exactly where the threat lies and get to and absolutely address the response and the critical response and the threat immediately to making sure that one, our lives are saved and the threat is extinguished.

And so we believe knowing precisely exactly the campus, the layout of the campus is important because again, when the first responder goes to a school, they don't know the layout.

But it's important that one, with this mapping program and the new technology that exists that they have a sense of where the threat is and extinguish the threat immediately to save the lives and that is in fact our babies in our school. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. And thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Before we proceed, we'll establish a quorum. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. File item number 4, AB 598. Senator Archuleta moves the Bill. Please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. That item placed on call. Let's catch up. We'll move to the consent calendar. I'll entertain a motion. Motion move by Senator Archuleta. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Thank you. Place the consent calendar on call. File item number 8, AB 716 Carrillo. I'll entertain a motion. Senator Blakespear moves the bill. Please call the roll.

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

Thank you. That item be placed on call. File item 26, AB 1405 Bauer-Kahan. I'll entertain a motion.

Thank you. No. I need another member. Senator Archuleta moves the bill. Please call the roll.

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

Thank you. That item be placed on call. All right. File item number nine, AB 720. Assemblymember Rogers, I see that you are here. Welcome, sir. Come on in.

Absolutely. Thank you, Chair and members. We're here today to talk about AB 720. AB 720 actually does two different distinct things to help our wine industry. As all of you know, it's been hit particularly hard.

All right, Assemblymember, please proceed when ready.

That's before we even enter into the discussion about additional tariffs, particularly given what we've seen with Canada, not just selling our wine, but also. So, moving the existing product to the back of the case really has hit our industry and our district very hard. So, 720 does two things.

One, it clarifies an existing policy where we've had one ABC in the state start to interpret state law to say that the storage of wine constitutes production of wine, necessitating a separate permit. As many of you may know who are wine enthusiasts, as you store the barrels, you have what's called the angel share that evaporates.

It is custom for folks to put wine back into the barrels to make sure that it continues to age properly and not just deplete the stock. We have seen at least one instance where that's now being considered wine production, where it never has been before.

So, we're just clarifying in the law that the storage of that wine separate doesn't constitute new production of wine. The second is really giving an opportunity for an immersive experience for folks who come to wine country to be able to sip their wine or do pop up events in the vineyards without running afoul of ABC as well.

With me today, we have two witnesses. We have Tim Schmelzer with the Wine Institute and Rachel Newman, who's the Senior VP of Marketing for Bonterra Organic Estates.

Welcome witnesses; state your name for the record, three minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning. Tim Schmelzer with Wine Institute. Here in support of the bill. We're the sponsors of this legislation. I'll speak principally to the new part of the bill which is this new tasting event as the Assemblymember referred to, we have been experiencing challenging times in our industry.

The genesis of this concept was our friends last year and they craft brewer side created a beer caterers permit.

We took a look at that within our membership and arrived at the idea that this would be a great fit for us within property already owned and under our control to be able to give our customers a more immersive experience.

Wine is a unique product in that it's essentially grown most of what happening when you taste the wine as a result of the agricultural practices and to be able to hold tasting events in the vineyards we think will reinforce that connection and create a great experience for our customers.

But I'm going to not take up too much oxygen here and hand it over to one of our members, Rachel Newman with Bonterra Organic Estates.

Thank you. Rachel Newman from Bonterra Organic Estates. Good morning, Chair Padilla and committee members. It is with gratitude and enthusiasm that I welcome the opportunity to speak with you today in support of AB 720. My name is Rachel Newman. I'm the Senior Vice President of Marketing at Bonterra Organic Estates, a subsidiary of Viña Concha y Toro in Chile.

Bonterra's winery and estate vineyards are in Mendocino County, recently named American Wine Region of the Year by Wine Enthusiast Magazine. At Bonterra, our commitment to climate smart agriculture began in 1968, back when we were known as Fetzer Vineyards, well before terms like sustainable and regenerative entered the mainstream.

Today we're proud to be the largest regenerative organic certified winery in the United States, producing over 500,000 cases of wine made with organic grapes sold internationally. Our legacy of pioneering viticulture, our national distribution, and Mendocino County's rising star status position Bonterra as a highly coveted destination.

We often share images of our bucolic mountaintop vineyards, our iconic barn, and 3,000 head of sheep, a consistent fan favorite on social media, these posts regularly spark reactions like "Bucket list trip", or "We have to visit." Despite this clear demand, we are not legally allowed to host consumers at these sites.

The reason is simple yet limiting; our bonded winery where our alcohol license resides 11 miles from our McNab Ranch vineyard. The real story, the one that inspires consumers and creates lasting connections to California wine, is not on the bottling line. It's on the land.

AB 720 offers a solution that is simple yet powerful, permitting a limited number of events at estate vineyard properties, enabling consumers to connect with California wine and agriculture in a more meaningful way. I say this as a marketing leader.

There is no advertisement or influencer campaign that can replicate the power of standing in a vineyard, touching the soil, tasting the wine and experiencing the story for yourself. This bill stands to benefit wineries of all sizes, from wineries like Bonterra to family-owned vineyards who produce wine in urban areas but steward their own land.

For Bonterra, it would allow for incremental employment opportunities, building and landscape work for local contractors, and increased traffic for our neighboring restaurants and hotels. Most importantly, it would allow consumers to experience firsthand the extraordinary beauty and agricultural excellence of California on sites previously not accessible to them.

This is a critical moment in the wine industry in a time when we need to engage new consumers who are actively seeking authentic, memorable experiences. This legislation would give wineries the opportunity to meet that demand while reinforcing California's position as a world leader in wine and sustainability. Thank you for considering this important step forward.

I urge your support to bolster the vitality of California's wine industry as a whole.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any individual organizations that like to register support for the bill? Come forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Madison Dwelly with Political Solutions on behalf of the Family Winemakers of California, in support.

Good morning. Ezra Chaaban, on behalf of Jackson Family Wines, in support. Thank you.

Anybody else? All right. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill or individuals? Organizations who want to register opposition to the bill? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to the committee members. Senator Blakespear.

I support this bill, and this seems like a really great idea. And I appreciate that you're bringing it forward. I was just curious how you landed on the event permit being no more than 36 events a year.

Well, I can let Tim speak to that, but we also - we didn't want to blow up the whole system and have people worried that there were going to be too many of these events for local jurisdictions. But if you want to talk about the 36.

Easy answer is following the precedent of the beer caterer's permit. But, you know, it's not like we would hate doing more.

So, their permit has 30, no more than 36 events a year. Okay. And is there a size limitation on the event?

I don't believe so, no.

Okay. Okay, thanks. When appropriate, I'll move the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Any other members of the committee have a comment or question? Assemblymember, would you like to close?

No. Just respectfully ask for the aye vote. And thank you for the testimony.

Thank you all. Senator Blakespear moves the bill. Please call the roll.

AB 720, motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you. That will be placed on call. Thank you both. Thank you. Assemblymember. I see that Assemblymember Sharpe-Collins is here with respect to file item 10, AB 766. Welcome, Assemblymember. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you. All right. Good morning, Chair and members. I am here today to present Assembly Bill 766, which is a Black Caucus priority bill. Let me begin by accepting the committee amendments. And I'd like to thank the Chair and the committee for working with us on this particular bill.

This bill builds on the Governor's 2023 Executive Order to require state departments to review the overall plan to ensure racial equity and to respond to disparities in organizations missions, if applicable. It also requires that this work be done in conjunction with input from the community, especially traditional disenfranchised members.

This work builds on the similar executive order from the Governor in 2022, which requires an equity review from all departments. Therefore, this bill enshrines the DEIA role in the state government, pushing back against the trend of the nationally of running from what makes us great as a nation. DEIA programs are much more than just race.

They include discussions of gender, sexual identity, language, age, and disability. In fact, the DEIA Executive Order from the Biden Administration, though not rescinded, references much more under diversity. They also reference those living within rural spaces, also veterans, parents, caregivers, and those experiencing poverty and first-generation professionals.

So, removing DEIA programs turns a blind eye to all of these particular groups. And DEIA programs do not violate civil rights because they do not require the specific hiring of the individuals over another.

DEIA programs are in fact potentially cost savings and that they can protect companies and also governments from costs associated with workplace culture or liabilities stemming from discrimination. The current mission from the federal government is currently, as we know, the process of uniformity, but the fact is that we are not better off if we are all the same.

So instead, we should focus on enshrining, well, actually ensuring that everyone has the same rights and opportunities even though the road we all take to achievement does not look the same. Everyone truly deserves a seat at the table, and DEIA programs help to guarantee that.

I always tell people, so many people so often that DEIA programs, it's about handicap parking and DEIA programs is about translation services. DEIA programs is the responsibility for accommodations for different learning styles. And DEIA is the electoral college.

And that electoral college is ensuring that all states have an adequate voice within, you know, the movements for how we currently operate as a state. So, with me to provide testimony is Erin Evans from the Office of the County Council of County of Santa Clara. And with that I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Welcome. Your name again for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Mr. Chair and members, thank you. I'm Erin Evans on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, proud to support this important legislation. Many of the racial inequities faced by our communities today are rooted in historical laws and government practices.

As one of the most diverse communities in the state, the County of Santa Clara is actively working to implement changes to reverse such practices. 40% of people in our county are foreign born - excuse me, are foreign born, and community members speak more than 100 languages and dialects in the County of Santa Clara.

For nearly 10 years, our county's Division of Equity and Social Justice has worked to support communities that have been historically impacted by exclusionary practices. The county is also advancing our first racial equity strategic roadmap and recently reaffirmed our commitment with a public campaign that supports the safety and well-being of all.

We stand ready to support state agencies as they update their strategic plans to advance racial equity and engage California communities that have been historically disadvantaged and underrepresented. We hope to work with state agencies as they implement this bill, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Any individuals, organizations want to register support for this bill, please come forward. Any - state your name and affiliation.

Good morning. Bindu Mukkamala, on behalf of the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill or individuals wishing to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Archuleta. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Hi, good morning. We have not had the opportunity to meet, but welcome to the State Senate. I have a question. So, I have here that you had mentioned the federal administration aim and what you're trying to do with this particular bill in California. Kind of curious.

Going back, has there been any conversations or concerns about how this would work with the Federal Executive Order 14151, which calls for an end to all DEI programs, essentially reiterating the wording of California's Prop 209 from 1996?

And could this bill be interpreted as a violation of Article 1, Section 31 of the State Constitution as added by Prop. 209 and of the current federal executive order? Has there been any conversations or concerns about how that would all work?

Yes, there has been. And based on those conversations, it will not impact the executive order. Reason being is because we're talking about everyone. So, this is not just talking about race, it's talking about all the various groups.

So, we're looking at the veterans, we're looking at all of our aspects as it pertains to those that are being serviced through diversity, equity and inclusion and access programs. And so, when you think about the executive order within itself, we are already not actually violating the current federal mandate right now, we're not violating that.

Our universities are not violating that. Our k-12 systems are not violating that. Our medical departments are not violating that as well.

And all we're saying is that as these positions are there, if you do not have someone who can actually identify different types of programs and services, basically when you're doing your overall analysis, what is it called, for your strategic plan as you're moving forward.

Just making sure that you have, you already have identified the impacts that it will have on all groups instead of one actual individual group. So, it's covering all of us. Everyone here who has crossed the dais, everyone here who's working different organizations is making sure that everyone is going to be highlighted to make sure that we don't have a major impact.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Senator Weber Pierson.

Good morning. I think we have met many, many times. Want to thank you so much for carrying this very important bill which you highlighted is also a priority of the California Legislative Black Caucus.

It is extremely important that we start to shield California from some of the harms that are coming down from the federal administration.

And even though the initial conversations of diversity, equity, inclusion really started based off of the fights and the bodies and the lives of primarily blacks during civil rights, the reality is that as you stated so eloquently, those programs, DEI, DEIA actually encompass everyone. It's not just about color; it's not just about gender.

We're talking about people who are from rural communities to ensure that they get the same access and abilities, equitable distribution as those in the larger cities.

We're talking about small farmers that don't have the ability to compete as much as some of the larger corporations and so ensure that there is equity in what they are able to receive as far as funding and grants and things like that.

Which is why when a lot of these programs were rolled back, it was those individuals that started hollering first about the fact that they were no longer receiving some of the funds and grants that they had gotten under DEI programs because it applied to them.

The beneficiaries of DEI are oftentimes women, white women, not necessarily those of color, and so really need to continue to ensure that.

Here in California, we're looking at everyone, regardless of your gender, your social, economic status, whether you are a small business owner, a large business owner, someone who may have different abilities, that we are creating a state that works for everyone.

So, I really want to thank you for carrying this bill, thank my fellow Senator for moving it and look forward to supporting it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Anybody else? All right, Senator Archuleta moves the bill. Please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I already didn't give you an opportunity to close.

You're okay. Thank you, Chair. And also, members, I do appreciate you taking the time to indulge me in both reminding each other what DEIA truly is about and also uplifting the need to intentionally elevate those programs.

This process right here is letting everyone know how the State of California is choosing to embrace our own journey and the journey of others. And so, by us doing that, we are making room for each other without judgment, without, and also without punishment.

And so, with that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote, as this bill is going to be a game changer for us as a state.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you for the bill. All right, now we'll call the roll.

AB 766, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you. That item be placed on call. I see that Assemblymember Zbur is here with respect to file item number 3, AB 478. This time I need to step away and we'll thank and hand the gavel over to Assemblymember Ochoa.

We will now move on to file item number 3, AB 478 Zbur. Assemblymember, feel free to begin and welcome.

Madam Chair and members, thank you very much. When disaster strikes, no one should have to choose between their own safety and their pet's survival. That's why I'm proud to present AB 478, a bill that's rooted in compassion, common sense, and real experience.

It will ensure that pets are accounted for during emergencies and that cities and counties develop developed clear procedures in advance to support pet owners during evacuations. The bill was inspired by Oreo, a Pomeranian who went missing during the Palisades fire and survived for five days in the debris before being reunited with his owner.

During disasters, pets may be separated from their owners due to a variety of reasons, including owners not being home at the time an evacuation order takes place, lack of equipment or difficulty in capturing the animal. When animals are legally categorized as property, most people view them as family -

While animals are legally categorized as property, most people view them as family and as such are determined to save them.

While we've seen incredible examples of fire and safety officials working alongside the public to rescue pet, as well as extraordinary efforts of local animal shelters and rescuers, we owe it to pet owners across California to ensure that a plan is in place before disaster strikes.

Upon the next update of a city or county's emergency plan, this bill would require that the jurisdiction include procedures for rescuing pets in mandatory evacuation zones. Within that requirement, local jurisdictions have significant flexibility to determine what procedures would be most relevant, safe and efficient for their unique circumstances and that are flexible under various types of emergency situations.

The bill also directs cities and counties to provide clear online resources on pet evacuation and reunification, as well as a list of pets that have been rescued and provides time and dignity to both animals and their owners.

By extending the time owners have to reclaim their rescued animals before they are adopted out, transferred or euthanized. AB 478 will help to ensure that clear pet rescue procedures are in place prior to disaster so that rescues are conducted efficiently and will disincentivize pen owners from endangering themselves by attempting unauthorized rescues.

I'm grateful for the guidance we received from the committee which led to the most recent amendment specifying that all reentry shall be subject to approval by the incident commander or emergency management authority and subject to incident conditions.

This is also a one of the issues that was raised by the sole opponent to the bill, and we've actually added that to address at least some of the concerns that were raised. This will ensure that rescues are conducted safely and in coordination with response efforts. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today to testify in support of the bill is Nick Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation, the sponsor of the bill.

Hello, good morning and welcome Nick.

Good morning. Thank you. First, I'd like to thank the author for his leadership on this issue, as well as the committee staff for their engagement and thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

As cited in the analysis, a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the risk of evacuation failure increases with the number of dogs or cats in a household. A 2021 survey showed that 80% of individuals who return prematurely to evacuation zones do so to rescue pets.

During the LA fires, we saw residents and rescue groups gain access to the evacuated area, sometimes without proper authorization because there was no plan nor entity designated to help with animal rescue. Not only could this put those individuals and first responders in danger, but it also took additional time away from local officials who had to field emotional and desperate pleas for help from their constituents. We must do better. Families love their animals and are naturally going to be panicked to save them during an evacuation.

This bill mitigates that by strengthening evacuation protocols and designating an entity that residents can go to for help. As Mayor Lana Negrete of Santa Monica testified in the Assembly Emergency Meeting Management Hearing, what that plan looks like, who implements it, those are choices that each jurisdiction will have to make on its own.

This bill can't dictate that kind of granular detail. AB 478 is explicit in that whatever the local plan and procedures are, they are carried out under the chain of command of the incident commander. The bill also is explicit that it does not authorize access to the evacuation zones outside of the local plan and procedures.

19 years ago, Congress passed the PETS Act in response to Hurricane Katrina, which directed FEMA to account for the needs of persons with household pets, as well as make federal funding available for carrying out animal emergency preparedness plans such as those that would be implemented under this bill.

I'd like to close with a quote we received from Malibu City Council Member Haylynn Conrad. "AB 478 is not just about pets. It's about people. In Malibu, we've seen time and again that residents will risk their lives to save their animals. This bill gives cities the impetus to plan for that reality.

Instead of reacting to chaos, it protects residents, first responders, and animals we love. I strongly support this commonsense legislation that treats pets like the family members they are." And with that, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Sackett. We'll now move on to any witnesses in opposition. Oh, support? Oh, support. Sorry

I sat myself down because I'm support if amended, but we wanted to make sure that we had a moment to observe the requested amendments. My name is Karen Lange. I'm here on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, which is the statewide association representing California's public and private animal shelters.

The amendment we are seeking is to strike the language regarding the 30-day mandatory hold of the animals that may arrive at the shelter during an emergency evacuation. Every shelter is different. A shelter could be in the way of the fire, then everyone's leaving.

And I know that the bill is double referred, and it tends to be that the Business and Professions Committee deals with the sheltering piece of legislation on animal shelters, but we really can't have our hands tied in an emergency. They are dynamic by nature. Disasters don't always behave perfectly. So, we need that flexibility.

The 30 days is challenging. Of course, we don't have perfect data to tell you what the right number is. And so, with that requested amendment, we would be fine. I did want to emphasize that training is part of it. You could put it on paper and file it away.

But local governments need to train, at least do tribal exercises regarding what to do in these circumstances so that when it really happens, the folks in the room know what to do, who to call, who to trust.

Because part of it is, who are these folks that want to go into the disaster zones and start pulling people's animals? We need to make sure that they are partners with the local agencies on the ground and not just running in and making folks less safe. So those are our concerns. But we definitely support what you're doing.

Fielded a lot of frantic phone calls in January Assemblyman, so we're definitely in support of what they're trying to do. The 30 days is a big challenge for the shelter. So supportive amended. Thank you for the time.

Thank you very much for being here. I will now continue with any witnesses - any lead witnesses in opposition.

Good morning. Chair and committee. My name is Julio De Leon. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside Sheriff's Office. We are not in opposition of the evacuation plan or emergency checklists or preparation recommendations for pet owners. However, we have a significant concern over the manageability of this program.

We did in our county implement an agricultural pass program after the implementation or passing of AB 1103 back in 2021. It took our department over a year to implement that program. We involve stakeholders such as CAL FIRE, our agency, CHP, the agricultural commissioner of our county, as well as the Farm Bureau in order to implement this program.

This program offers a safe and manageable entry into evacuation zones where passholders are vetted for agricultural commodities. They are trained by the state's fire marshal. They undergo a four-hour training of fire safety and entry. They also have a pass issued by our agency that any emergency personnel could easily recognize as a pass holder.

There is also a procedure for them to get notifications when they are able to enter and exit. And all of our staff at the ingress or egress points have access to that person program and know who is coming in and who is coming out. They are also not supervised while they go in because they receive that training.

They know what to do if something happens. And most importantly, they sign a limited or a liability waiver prior to that.

And I know that the bill offers that for people, but as an attorney, you know that when people are emotional, when they're entering the zone, they want to get their pet, they're going to sign that liability that is under duress, that is under emergency, and that could void the entire liability waiver.

Our waiver is not done under duress. It is not done under an emergency. I wrote the waiver and so it is supported, and it would be - it's a better waiver in court rather than waiver that's signed under duress. So, for those reasons, we don't support the bill.

Thank you very much. Do we have - so now we'll continue with witnesses.

Any other witnesses in opposition here in room 1200? Seeing none. Will now bring it back to - will bring back the discussion to our members. Do any of our members have questions, concerns, comments? Yes. Senator Richardson?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to commend the author for bringing this forward. I'm one of those where my pets are a part of the family and I had a situation where my dog, Pauline, was mauled right in front of me.

I'm trying to, you know, get her, you know, pulling her away. Meanwhile, it's ripping open her neck and finally the dog drops her. She takes off running. So of course, I take off running after her people. I must have been a horrid sight because people kept giving me a ride along the way.

I'm hopping in cars, you know, trying to catch her. She then runs into the White Point Reserve, which has coyotes. It's getting dusk. I'm screaming her name. It was a horrible situation and thank God, you know, we did find her.

But my point is, is that there are situations where our animals do get lost and people will do like me, you know, I'll run two miles and run through the reserve with coyotes at night. You know, we will do those crazy things to get our pets.

And so, I definitely applaud the author for understanding that, in fact, this is happening and that a process needs to take place with Mr. Zbur. He is a lawyer, and so he'll consider thoughtfully, you know, anything you present. But I would actually hope for more than 30 days, frankly, not 30 days.

I was just listening on the news yesterday, and they were saying that the shelters were going to begin to do what, I don't know, to some of the animals that they have found during this period and saying, you know, please come, please look at the pictures.

You know, please see if your pet, if this is one of your pets. So, you know, when a person is dealing with losing their home or losing a family member, 30 days really isn't a lot of time.

I mean, at that point, you're just trying to find a place to live, let alone, you know, also searching for your dog or your cat or your cow or your big pig or whatever it is that your pet is. So, I commend the author. I'd like to make a motion to move the bill and look forward to supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Richardson. Any other questions, comments? Okay, so members, I would love to have give you an opportunity to address the concerns about signing a form under duress that was brought up by one of the lead opposition witnesses.

So, the bill doesn't specifically mandate anything in particular at the local level. Obviously, we'll look at that issue as it moves into B&P further, But, you know, essentially, it's not uncommon, obviously, when you've got sort of an emergency management for folks to be required to sign waivers in order to move into an area that's supervised.

But we'll look at that issue. I think the other thing I would sort of say is these are plans that are going to be developed, you know, I read the sheriff's letter about the program that was implemented in his area, which took years of planning to get it right.

All our bill is basically doing is saying, look at, we saw after the Palisades and the Altadena fires that there was a need, that we had people. It was not coordinated. People didn't know where to go. A lot of what was happening was happening sort of just sort of on its own in an informal way.

And, you know, we need to...we need to have - we need to sort of nudge jurisdictions to sort of do what was done in this one area in Riverside County and what's only been done sporadically across the state, which is think about when you understand that we're going to have emergencies moving forward, that most emergency plans don't deal with animal rescue, and that that's something that should be thought about at their next annual update.

And so, there's a lot of flexibility in this. It doesn't require people to sort of immediately start doing something tomorrow as they're updating their emergency plans. This is a new component. They've got flexibility in how to do it in areas.

So, some folks may use their animal control, others may use nonprofits to do this, but they're all going to be subject to what is subject to the incident command, so that people can't just sort of go in on their own. And they've got to follow the rules that the jurisdictions will actually implement at the time.

So, it's not something that would supersede, for instance, what Riverside County has done already in their plan. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether or not your plan could be used as a model in consideration as moving forward since it's already in place.

We'd love to look at it, frankly, and see as we take the next step on the bill and obviously with the other...yeah.

So what's that? Certainly, sir.

There are about five counties that have this pass implemented already. We weren't the first one, obviously, but we are the most recent one. Yes. We could integrate it. However, we've already had the system set up and it would just bombard our person responsible for this already with additional calls for service. It's already - we already have a specific number of passholders, and a person dedicated to answering those phone calls. And if we were just have anyone without prior vetting, without any prior training calling in during a disaster zone, it would just bombard our existing system.

Yes. I don't know what to say about that. If you're basically someone with a pet and you're trying to find them. You're going to make a call.

And so, what this bill would do is it would basically have the jurisdiction actually set up a process so that they can handle it where, you know, there would be a line where someone can call. So that is hopefully not taking away from emergency management duties that are in other areas.

So, I'll be happy to support the bill, and I will consider reevaluating the bill when it comes to the Senate Floor. I know it's going to continue to be worked on. Sorry. Oh, there's a - okay. Certainly. So, are you a witness in opposition or in support?

On behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Thank you for your time.

Perfect. All right, so we're going to do one last call. Any witnesses in support or in opposition? Okay. Seeing no others, no other comments here. Okay. Then we are...Assemblymember Zbur, would you like to close?

So, the only other issue that was sort of raised was the issue that was sort of raised by the animal shelters. We're going to continue working with them as we move forward through B&P. Obviously, there's a getting to the right place. We started out with a 90-day period that people had to hold the hold animals.

Obviously, what we want to - we want to give people the time that they need during a disaster to basically sort of recover from that and figure out how to retrieve their pets. So, we will continue looking at that issue and working with the animal shelters as we move through B&P.

Okay, thank you.

With that, I would that respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Perfect. Do we have a motion for AB 478? We have a motion by Senator Richardson. The bill has been moved and so the motion is do pass to B&P Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

We will place that bill on call for our absent members.

Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone.

So, we'll now move to file item number 6, 668 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. Good morning and welcome.

Morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, I'm very pleased. Pleased to present AB 668, a bill that seeks to address the ongoing issue of drink spiking. This is commonly known as roofing. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their thoughtful work.

Roofing refers to the unsolicited drugging of someone's drink. While this on its own is a horrible act, we know that it is rarely an independent crime. Rather, it is done to enable the perpetrator to more easily commit further horrific acts such as rape sexual assault.

As many of you know, I've worked extensively in this space over the past few years and I've introduced a number of bills to both raise awareness of and address this underreported epidemic, all of which have received unanimous support and have been signed by our Governor.

What this bill does is it takes the preventative measures that have previously been applied to Type 48 licensed establishments. Type 48s are night clubs bars by passed legislation and now extends them to California's large music festivals.

Specifically, AB 668 ensures that these music festivals have and display the availability of drink spiking test strips or coasters and drinklets for patrons.

And it also establishes reporting requirements for the unfortunate event that a person has had their drink spiked in order to ensure that they get the help that they need and do not fall victim to further crimes that too often follow. So why Music festivals?

Music festivals and other large outdoor events create an extraordinary chaotic environment for alcohol sales and drug use. As it is, the massive crowds, constant loud music and endless distractions makes it nearly impossible to remain vigilant of everything that is happening around you at all times.

It is when people are distracted that they are the most vulnerable to being roofied. These simple measures will provide a level of security to further establish the safety of the participants of the many festivals that take place here in California.

Further, it will allow peace of mind for our festival goers to better enjoy themselves knowing that there are steps being taken to prevent them from being unwillingly drugged and taken advantage of. I'm to pleased pleased today to be joined by Raul Verdugo of Alcohol justice and Sacramento State student Cassandra Riel who are here to testify and support.

Welcome and please proceed when you're ready.

Great. Thank you very much. Good morning Senate Committee Members. As Director of Advocacy for Alcohol Justice, I'm speaking on behalf of the California alcohol policy alliance CAPA in support of AB 668. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of AB 668. Drink spiking is a significant and under addressed public safety concern.

Studies show that between 6% and 25% of individuals report having had their drink tampered with, meaning that even at Conservative estimates 1 in 20 people may be affected. In large scale settings such as music festivals, this can translate to hundreds or even thousands of potential victims. These events often present unique challenges.

The environment is crowded, fast moving and difficult to monitor. That makes it easier for drink spiking to occur and harder for staff or security to intervene effectively.

The potential consequences are severe, ranging from unexpected intoxication to sexual assault, robbery, physical harm and even fatal overdose, particularly with substances like GHB or fentanyl, which can be lethal when combined with alcohol. AB 668 takes a prevention first approach by establishing basic safety requirements for event promoters.

These measures are designed to reduce risk, enhance accountability and support a safer environment for attendees. This legislation is a practical, public health oriented step to prevent avoidable harm. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your support for AB 668. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You may proceed.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Cassandra Riel. I'm a junior at Sacramento State University and also the President of my campus's Planned Parenthood Generation Action. Studies show that anywhere between 5 and 25% of adults have been the victim of drink spiking.

So when you look around a room like this, you can only assume that multiple people have been the victim of this heinous crime. I myself have unfortunately been on the receiving end of drink spiking and for me it happened right here in Sacramento. I am sadly not alone in this experience.

Multiple of my friends and classmates have also been the victim of drink spiking. Individuals who fall victim to this are in danger of being sexually assaulted and taken advantage of.

This is a constant fear any time when going out for so many individuals like myself, and yet this is a crime that no one seems to be talking about. But take it from me, this is a very real issue.

So to go somewhere and to see that steps are not being only taken but acknowledged to keep us safe means a great deal. People deserve to be able to go out and attend bars, festivals, nightclubs with the peace of mind to fully enjoy themselves. We should not have to be worried about something falling into our drink.

Right now, that is just not the case when going out. Measures like this take one step closer. In my role at Sac State, I educate and raise awareness of the dangers of roostering and the best practices to hopefully prevent it from happening. It feels great knowing I am not alone in this mission.

I support this bill and I hope you can too.

Thank you very much for coming in testifying today. We'll continue with any witnesses in support of AB 668 here in room 1200. Please come up to the microphone. State your name, your position, and the organization that you're representing. Thanks, sir.

Thank you. Senator and Senators. Fred Jones, on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which is also a founding Member of the Alcohol Policy Alliance, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Please come up to the microphone.

Samantha Corbin, with Neva, California. We're actually kind of a tweener here. We've been in a neutral position based. On conversations with the author, particularly around trying to make this bill something that's logistically workable.

As the analysis rightly notes, there are some severe challenges in order to implement the measure right now, particularly given the requirement that test kits be at every single location where alcohol is sold, rather than, for example, in a central location like a medical tent. So we'd like to continue working with. The author on some of these items.

So that we're able to actually functionally. Implement the requirements of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 668. Seeing none. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition here in room 1200. See, now we'll bring it back to the Members. Do we have any comments or questions? Okay. We will start with Senator Rubio. We have a motion by Senator Richardson.

And then we'll continue with Senator Blakespear.

Yeah, thank you. I just want to say thank you to the author. I know I was a co author to the original bill, and it's something. That I don't think we put a. Lot of attention on. So I want to just take a. Minute to thank Cassandra for your advocacy.

I think it takes experience sometimes to be an advocate, but I appreciate the fact that you are actively engaging your. Peers and making sure that they understand the dangers. It's already been said, but there is. So many dangers associated to this issue. I mean, it goes from being sexually assaulted, but also fentanyl.

We know how little it takes to kill someone, and so it's really important. And I do recognize some of the challenges that were addressed here. But whatever it takes, it needs to be done. This is about the lives of our. Not just young individuals. We know it happens to adults as well, over and over again.

And so I did move forward with the lids in private areas, but these. Festivals tend to be a little bit. More chaotic, I think a little bit more. I don't want to say loose, but in a way, people are having so. Much fun that I think they stop. Paying attention to their drinks and what they're doing.

So I just think that any education we could bring is important, even as. This bill is moving forward and you. Bringing it to, you know, to young individuals to understand the dangers. I mean, not only that, we hear stories of people disappearing, being murdered. There's a slew of issues with this. And I want to make sure that.

We continue to educate, advocate and continue to fight to ensure that we protect people. Like, again, I want to stress it happens to adults. I've heard stories and story after story. So just thank you for bringing this forward. You know, I'll add myself as co author as well. And whatever we can do to help.

In your endeavor to try and make. Sure that we educate, help with materials, whatever we can do to help you in your efforts to continue educating those that may not be aware. So thank you. And with that, I also ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. We'll continue now with Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I really appreciate that you brought this bill forward and identified this as a place where we needed to have some more attention. These large music festivals and other large events, it seems. Yeah, it just seems obvious that we should have this.

So I wanted to ask a question, though, about the issue of if there are, for example, 10,000 people and the music festival would not be required to have 10,000 drink tests. Right. Because not everybody is being roofied.

So there would be some lower amount of testing that would be required, but it doesn't say there's not any guidance on that. So I just wanted to understand what is happening with that specific part of the bill.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear. I should also let you know that I was at the Caboo Festival in your district five years ago when somebody was roofied that was not with my group of friends, but with a different group of friends. And obviously all attention got placed on that.

And so my lone experience with roofing was in Del Mar, California, as a matter of fact. I think you should, you know, thought you might want to know that. And I want to answer your question.

I also want to say to Senator Rubio that in presenting these bills here, I was unsurprisingly learning that there are Members of Legislature that have been roofied, there are Members of the Capitol community that have been roofied and sexually assaulted. Of course, most sexual assault goes under reported or not reported at all.

And this Bill and all the bills on roofing has to do with prevention. A lot like drunk driving, once somebody is buzzed and gets behind the wheel, it's too late. Once somebody has been roofied, it's too late. This is all about creating a village approach so that there is collective vigilance in the situation.

And that requires that making sure that any venue, whether it's a small bar, hole in the wall bar, or a large music festival, has the requisite amount of test coasters or strips when anybody asks for them.

And the reason why it's so critical is not just to see if your drink has been roofied, it's to show a perpetrator that you are being vigilant about this, that they should move on. And that is the point is to stop it before it happens.

So the bill actually says that they just need to have the requisite amount. You know, they're going to have to. And by the way, I'm a bar owner.

Everyone who's in this space is in the business of making sure they have the requisite amount of cups, the requisite amount of wristbands, the requisite amount of toilet paper in the bathroom. They will know what the precise amount that they need to have over time. And this is not something that, you know, goes bad immediately.

This is something that, you know, can have a shelf life for a year or so. And so they will figure it out. I have confidence that they will get the right amount.

And are they required to have signage that says that you can test your drink here and ask for a strip to test the drink?

Yes, signage is an important part of this. Education is an important part of this. And you know, what I believe is going to happen, Senator, is that the alcohol companies themselves will get involved.

It will become a branding opportunity the way same way they are in anti drunk driving initiatives, because it's good for business ultimately to have a safe environment for young people or old people to be able to go out and enjoy themselves is better for business. And so I fully expect the alcohol companies to get involved in this.

Yeah.

I'll just note though that in some ways the alcohol companies, they actually are prohibited from advertising their alcohol unless it is in the public health oriented. So preventing drunk driving, it's actually, I mean they're doing it in part because they're limited in what they can advertise.

They are limited, but they do provide a lot to bars and restaurants. You see umbrellas felt on the pool table, you know, bar napkins, so forth, coasters, you will see all of those things branded. And I fully expect them to get involved in this as well. Great, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other Questions or comments? Seeing none. Member Lowenthal, would you like to close?

Respectfully asked for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Well, now we have a motion by Senator Richardson and the motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

And we'll place that bill on call for the Epstein Members. Thank you very much. Member Lowenthal. We'll now move to File item number 11 AB 831, by Assemblymember Valencia. Good morning and welcome.

Feel free to proceed when you're ready.

Appreciate that we want to. Yes, Madam Chair and Senators, AB 831 aims to close an existing loophole in law by prohibiting the use of online sweepstakes casinos that utilize dual currency models. Over 25 years ago, voters affirmed California Indian tribes their exclusive right to conduct specified gaming activities.

Tribal gaming activities are highly regulated. They are subject to state tax laws and contribute to the state's General Fund while supporting gambling addiction programs and more. In recent years, though, online sweepstakes casinos have increased in popularity by exploiting no purchase necessary and using dual currency models to take advantage of a gray area in the law.

However, to be clear, players are able to convert winnings to actual cash by operating as an online casino with real cash payouts. These platforms are circumventing the will of voters and sidestepping the state's gaming framework. With me to provide testimony today is Chairman Isaiah Vivanco, a good friend of mine from the Siboba Band of Luceno Indians.

And he is also the treasurer of Seniga and also the Vice Chairman, Johnny Hernandez of the Yohavietam Salmon Law Nation. And for any technical questions, Mike Honing of the Yohavitam Salmon Royal Nation is also available to answer those.

Thank you very much and welcome to all the witnesses here in support. Please proceed when you're ready.

Good morning and thank you, Senator Ocho bogh and Committee Members. My name is Johnny Hernandez. I'm the Vice Chairman of the Yahavi San Miguel Nation. We're proud to co sponsor Assembly Bill 831 alongside C. Niaga and Tassin. AB 831 addresses the critical issue of online sweepstakes gaming.

Operating illegally in California, entirely outside of the state's gaming regulations, these platforms lack essential Safeguards, including money laundering protocols and responsible gaming safeguards. And their age verification is weak, making it possible for underage users to participate. Further compounding the problem is that many are run by offshore companies, making enforcement and accountability nearly impossible. AB831 is very specific.

It is designed to target only those online sweepstakes platforms that mimic gambling through a dual currency system and offer cash prizes. And to be clear, this Bill does not make a game that does not award cash prizes or cash equivalents unlawful.

In contrast, California Indian tribes operate well regulated gaming operations with robust three tiered oversight involving tribal gaming commissions, the California Gambling Control Commission and the National Indian Gaming Commission. Tribal gaming is perhaps the most strictly regulated sector of the gaming industry in the country.

This robust regulatory structure ensures Indian gaming is safe, delivers real economic value to the tribe, to the state and local communities and keeps out bad actors. The unchecked spread of unregulated and predatory sweepstakes operators bypasses vital state regulations, offers no protection to children or problem gamblers and creates pathways for money laundering and other crimes.

As you know, tribal nations enter into gaming compacts with the state. Allowing online sweepstakes companies to operate casino style games violates the intent of these agreements which are founded on mutual benefit and exclusivity.

AB 831 is crucial for preserving a system which reflects the will of the people of California and delivers direct benefits to communities across the state. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this Bill before you and Government Organization Committee ask you to support AB831 which upholds the will of California voters and protects California voters and our youth.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Hernandez. We'll now continue with our next witness.

Good morning Chair Bogh and Committee Members. My name is Isaiah Vivanco and I currently serve as Chairman of the Sabo Band of Luiseno Indians as well as treasurer for California Nation's Indian Gaming Association. Tribal government Gaming contributes nearly $25 billion to California's economy. It sustains over 112,000 jobs and funds critical community programs.

Unregulated online sweepstakes threaten this voter approved system by imitating casino gaming without oversight, accountability or community investment. These illegal platforms erase all benefits of regulated gaming while exposing consumers to serious risk.

For over 25 years, California's gaming tribe have exercised their gaming rights to the benefit of their communities and all California's by reinvesting in their communities, boosting local economies and supporting essential public services on reservations and in partnerships across the state.

Illegal online gaming, like dual currency sweepstakes, contributes nothing to the state it does not create jobs or other economic opportunities that benefit citizens and local communities or the federally recognized tribes whose sovereignty it now threatens. As previously mentioned, these games compromise voter approved laws and put Californians at risk.

Sweepstakes operates in the gray area with links to offshore entities, organized crime and consumer harm. In contrast, tribal casinos are accountable to the California government and the public and have built reputations of integrity. Over decades. California voters have repeatedly rejected the expansion of online gaming to protect tribal exclusivity and public interest.

Allowing Sweepstakes casinos to continue operating in the state will destabilize the entire legal gaming ecosystem, leading to economic harm across the state. I would like to thank Assemblymember Valencia for his leadership on this issue.

I hope you all understand that tribes are trusted stewards of gaming and ask that you stand with us to protect tribal gaming in the state. Thank you.

Thank you Chairman Bianco. Now we're going to continue with any other witnesses in support of AB 831 here in room 1200. Please proceed to the microphone. State your name, your position and the organization that you're representing.

Thank you. Senators Fred Jones on behalf of the California Coalition against Gambling Expansion. We're a faith based organization against the expansion of all gambling. In support of this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Amy Brown, on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Indians in support.

Good morning. Elise Worth, on behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in strong support.

Madam Chair, Committee Members. Chris Gallardo, on behalf of Enterprise Rancheria and support.

Charles Wright, on behalf of Yahavya, Tom of Sam and Whale Nation co sponsors and in strong support

Frank Molina, on behalf of the Santa Ana's Band of Chumash Indians and strong support.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members. Greg Campbell, on behalf of the Sports Betting Alliance representing five of the largest online gaming operators BetMGM, Bet365, Fanatics, FanDuel and DraftKings and support.

Chair, Members of the Committee. Andrew Govenor, on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in support.

Mr. Chair or Madam Chair and Members. Ezra Chabon, on behalf of the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians in support. Thank you.

Perfect. Seeing no other witnesses, support will not continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 831.

We have had conversations with the Assembly Member. We need to have card rooms exempted and I was under the understanding that he was going to make a commitment to that this morning so that at this point we're confused.

Wait. Assembly Member Valencia, would you like to comment or respond to the concern.

Sure. Was going to address that in my close, but happy to do so. Now committed to continued stakeholder conversations, including with the Carters, to ensure that those issues are mitigated. Thank you.

Okay, so now we have our lead witnesses in opposition. Please proceed to the dais. So we'll do a swap over. You folks can stay. I think we have room. And you're more than welcome to stay right here. So welcome. You folks are the two lead witnesses in opposition. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, appreciate the time. My name is Adam Pliska. I am a native Californian. I was born in Orange County. I went to USC. My law degree is from Berkeley. I worked at my externship was in the 9th Circuit in Peel's Court in Pasadena.

The son of a deputy sheriff, grandfather was a police captain, great grandmother was the first policewoman in Orange County. So I am definitely here, I'm definitely California. And I represent the WPT Enterprises, which you probably know as the World Poker Tour. If you're staying up late or you're watching Cbs.

And we're very proud that the World Poker Tour for a quarter of a century now has been a contributor from California, a California based company. Our offices are based on in Irvine. Our headquarters, our production office is across the street from Screen Actors Guild in Los Angeles. Our editors are all IATSI Members.

But we are definitely proud to be a California company. Our foundation supports Tiger woods foundation, which I serve as a mentor there. And. And what we do at the World Poker Tour is we build community around poker. And just to be clear, we don't do, we only do peer to peer.

We only do skill based games, which is poker for this using a sweepstakes model. But primarily what we do is we work and have a very symbiotic relationship with casinos. So we bring the World Poker Tour to casinos from all over.

We're at Seminole Hard Rock, we're at Choctaw, we're at every major casino and we're in five continents. The World Poker Tour is one of the most watched shows in the world. It has 350 million annual viewers. And so we use the World Poker Tour to cultivate poker and then bring this to casinos.

So if you go back 25 years ago, poker rooms were dying all over. They were dying all over. Because often poker is used as a loss leader, brings them in. Then at the casino you can do other things and play other games.

The World Poker Tour based here in California was able to change that a lot with what we've done, the television shows and our events and, and so we work with casinos in bringing people there.

One of the things in addition to the tools that we have with the television show is that we do for a very long time we've used sweepstakes.

So you have a maximum of two minutes. So we're going to just want to make sure that you narrow down and you emphasize why you're opposing the bill.

Okay. Okay. So basically we see we're a little bit of difference here. We feel that we can work, we can work with the tribes and we can work with the state. We believe that we'd like to just be a part.

We think we could offer a lot of dialogue in terms of regulation or how we can actually be helpful to tribes. We have an event at Thunder Valley. You know, we continue to want to, being a California based company, we want to show we've never had a lawsuit, we've never had an arbitration. We've had.

Apollo Interactive was our back end provider for most of the time and we would like to continue to. We would like to continue to be a part of the dialogue going forward. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Chair, my name is Bill Gantz. I am a trial lawyer and I specialize in gaming and I've been asked to come here on behalf of the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance, which is the SGLA, which is supported by many of the leading social casino websites and platforms that also use these lawful sweepstakes.

AB831 is a gut and amend proposed bill just two weeks ago. There's been no time to study the financial impact of banning online games which use the sweepstakes which have been operating in California since 2012. And they have been enjoyed by tens of millions of residents of the State of California.

As of just starting on July 4th, California residents have sent 1700 emails and 2000 phone calls to their legislators. Your constituents want to play these games and have access to these games. And there are tens of millions of people who have played social casino games.

There hasn't been any time to study opportunities to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax by having sales tax on digital entertainment services in this category of social casino. Nor have there been any law enforcement actions or cease and desist or anything coming from government, although this model has been placed since 2012.

Nor has there been any consumer outcry or backlash that supports the reasons for completely banning this industry on a summary and rush basis in terms of what social casino is, and I'm A legal expert on that subject. So that's why I oppose this. I'm here to speak in opposition of the bill.

Social casino is the selling of virtual coins to be used in playing of simulated gambling games. Oftentimes casino, pachinko, roulette, whatever it is. Now, the proponents of 831, interestingly enough, operate and sell gold coins to use in a simulated gambling environment.

The sponsor, the San Manual Tribe, operates the Play Online by Yamava site which is available to anyone in the country on their laptop or on a mobile app. People can buy gold coins and use those in games of chance or any type of table game. Another proponent of the bill, Light and Wonder, has its own app.

It's called Jackpot party. They reported $850 million worth of revenue in just 2024. So the size of the social gaming industry is very large. This Bill actually seeks to authorize. The last line of Section 12 seeks to authorize the use of games to sell gold coins so long as there's no prize.

So the reason why the sweepstakes are lawful, and if they were not, I suppose we wouldn't be here, there wouldn't be need for a bill. Is that the same exact product, the same social games are used. The only thing that people use and buy on these sites are the gold coins.

So what have the sweepstakes operators been doing for the last 10 years? They've been offering in connection with a purchase. People get bonus sweepstakes coins to use on separate games. There's an alternative method of entry. All of the things that you would expect to comply with a normal sweepstakes exist on these platforms.

If there were more time and this industry was studied, you'd also see that the industry on its own has adopted responsible gaming measures, play limits, has user verification, has age verification, and they all often have a U.S. presence because all of the banking and everything is done in the United States.

So to categorize this as an offshore type of enterprise is really wrong. Notably, the Yamava site is hosted by a foreign company outside of the United States. So in one fell swoop, the people.

Who are competitors are wrapping it up.

Okay, thank you. So this is a bill by competitors to get rid of their competition. Basically, the sweepstakes operators are selling the same exact thing and only the same thing as the social casino platforms.

And in conclusion, I would just want to point out that the social casino that is not being operated or offered under a compact, it is a non gambling product.

So, and there has been no study or evidence of any kind to show that these particular products, whether it's social casino or social casino with sweepstakes infringes or impacts land based social land based casinos on sovereign lands at all.

We would urge that the Legislature take time to learn about this industry and find out what their A authorizing and B banning by adopting Something like ABA 31. Thank you.

Thank you very much sir for your testimony. We're not Continue with any witnesses in opposition to AB 831 here in room 1200. Please proceed to the microphone. State your name, your position and the organization that you are representing, please.

Good morning Madam Chair, Member. Shane Levine, on behalf of the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kevin Corder, on behalf of the Social and Promotional Games Association in opposition.

Good morning. I'm Paul Matthews. I'm the co founder of Play Studios which is a publicly traded company that was started in Burlingame, California. We oppose. It'll negatively impact our high paying tech jobs in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Jonathan Arambal on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers in opposition.

Sam LaHood, on behalf of VGW in opposition.

Madam Chair, Members. Ed Manning, with KP Public affairs on behalf of Hawaiian Gardens Casino. The card clubs have been working closely with the author and the bill sponsors to make sure the card club industry is not affected by the bill. We're working on amendments to be taken in Appropriations Committee and anticipate we'll get that resolved.

So we are not opposed, we're neutral. And look forward to working it out. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Jarrett Blahnion, on behalf of Lucky Chances. Capitol Casino, 7 Mile Casino in Chula Vista, thank you to the author for his commitment to the card rooms. Definitely support the intent of this bill and looking forward to the amendments and appropriations. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members, author. Brian Lundgren with the Communities for California Card Rooms, representing about 45 card rooms, third party players and civic organizations. I want to echo the comments of my previous colleagues.

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus of Lighthouse Public affairs on behalf of Park West Casino is also echoing the comments of. My colleagues and looking forward to the amendments and appropriations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition here in room 1200, we'll now bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions, Senator Richardson?

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It's for this very reason that I wanted to serve on this Committee that this item comes before us. It was mentioned 25 years ago. Compacts were done 25 years ago. I'm probably one of the few Members here on the dais. I work for Lt.

Governor Cruz Bustamante and he was very instrumental in working with, and I think we should properly state, state sovereign nations, tribal communities coming forward to do the compacts. How this relates to today, I think we need to speak a little more accurately in regards to the opposition that was made for the sovereign nations, for tribal communities.

They were not given the right to go anywhere and open a casino anywhere. They were given, frankly, the worst land that we had to figure out something to do. The worst land. And there's a rule called reservation shopping.

And what reservation shopping says is that a tribal community can't exist, for example, off the, you know, maybe 10 miles off the 10 freeway and suddenly say, oh, I want to open a casino 11 mile off the 10 freeway. They have rules that limit communities and areas and boundaries in which they can do business.

That's not the case for a private entity. A private entity can get a license and open up anywhere that you want and be a competitive to a tribal community. So one I want to point out, in terms of reservation shopping, the tribal communities are limited in where they can work.

And let's talk about what happened 25 years ago. 25 years ago, the tribal communities took something that was nothing and built an industry. Here in California before people, we would go to, people went to the neighboring card clubs or if they wanted to do slots or something, they went to Vegas.

It was the tribal community that built this. So to me, what this sounds a lot like is if you look in my community, I don't see hardware stores anymore. I don't see flower shops anymore. I don't see boutiques anymore. Why? Because there were bigger companies that were able to come in and say, you know what?

I can put it on the Internet. I was invited to a crazy Bridgerton party and we had to wear an outfit. I'm like, where am I going to get an outfit for the Bridgerton? I was able to go online and get it at my door in 24 hours.

That's the difference from being invested, being in a community building, putting up shop, paying taxes, paying for employees, versus someone coming in high, flying through the Internet and offering a service. So finally, my comments would be as I respectfully move this bill is that 25 years ago, we made a compact, we made a promise.

And how dare us go back on a promise. I think in the State of California, not only the State of California, but beyond, we've broken too many promises. So shame on us if any of us would think it's okay to break a promise again.

So I'm very thankful to be on this Committee for this very day, because we need people on this Committee who remember, who respect sovereign nations, the work that you've done and the ability that you should continue to have to do your business freely and not someone else to come and try and eat the lunch for free.

Thank you very much. With that, I move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Richardson. We're going to actually go to Senator Rubio first and then Senator Ashby. Thank you, everyone.

This is an issue that's also important to me as I've always been a strong advocate of, of our tribes, of our nation. As an educator, I have the history in my thoughts.

20 years of educating our youth about what it means to be respectful and to ensure that we continue to advocate for the tribes and make sure that, as this great Senator from Carson just put it, everything that you've been able to build, and we want to make sure that we continue that.

But I do have a question for the author only because these are conversations that I love having, I love engaging, and this time I'm a little Disappointed that I just learned about it two weeks ago.

And just out of curiosity, is there like a pending deadline or something where we had to gut an amendment a few weeks ago?

On that particular note, my understanding is that this bill will go through the process entirely. If it moves through the Senate gets to the floor, it will have to go to the Assembly, go through the Committee process on that side as well. So the only difference in this is the time frame that this is moving through.

But I do believe it gives us ample time to vet the issue, considering it is something that is impacting California as a whole.

Well, no, I understand that you're saying it's going to go over to the Assembly. But again, as someone that really enjoys those conversations and getting deep into the heart of issues, I would have enjoyed a little bit more conversation with yourself, with the tribes and with everyone else because I'm still a little bit confused.

I heard some something about you committing to amendments. You want to share that? So before I like I said, that's why I'm a little confused because I think I've heard three or four people say we're talking about amendments are going to be taken in appropriations. I like the courtesy of knowing what those amendments are. Sure.

The intent of the Bill is to ensure that we don't unintentionally capture folks who are providing legal games and that is to address the specific concern of the card rooms. And happy to have continued conversations with the WPT as well in terms of what their perspective is on this Bill.

Okay. Well, like I said, I, you know, everyone has to look at my record to see where I land every single time. Again, a strong supporter of sovereign nations or tribes. And I pride myself in touring, going into the communities, learning everything.

But the teacher, me, the educator in me, I've been a teacher for 20 years, also enjoys having the conversations, learning, community, getting to talk to stakeholders. And right now it's almost, I feel a little bit last minute and that you didn't give us that opportunity. But again, strong supporter and I'll support this.

But next time I'd like to at least have a conversation with the author and some folks before it gets bought. And I'm put in a position that I have to vote for it. But with that, thank you for what you do.

I do recognize again, touring a lot of our tribal areas, you know, what you do in terms of job, job creation, unionized opportunities for the workers. So I really thank you for what you do. And with that I also urge an Aye vote.

Senator Ashby.

thank you I have a few questions. I think one thing that is, and this is no fault of you author, but just sometimes we get luck of the draw on timing. So I want to ask a couple of just clarifying questions.

This happened to come out at the exact same time that the AG is having his conversation around fantasy sports. I just want to make clear that this bill doesn't apply to fantasy sports games. Is that right? It's my understanding. Correct. Your understanding or. We're sure on that.

Happy to have our attorney. Okay. Who is representing Yuhaaviatam answered that question. It is a separate issue through the Chair.

The answer is no, this does not apply to fantasy sports. This is separate, a separate category that the Attorney General issued his opinion on.

Great. That is the way I read it as well. But I just want to make sure because our offices are being inundated both on this Bill and on the fantasy sports issue. And I, I know for a fact that there are some folks that are conflating the two.

So I wanted to take the opportunity today to just make sure we're all on the same page on that one, that this Bill doesn't intend to touch on the fantasy sports online stuff sort of happening in a different realm outside of the Legislature in our Attorney General's Office. So we're all on the same page on that. Good.

Then I just have a couple of questions really to better, better understand, get at the root of this bill so you can Assemblymember, tell me whoever you want to have answer these, but do the tribes currently offer online games or social casino games? Do the tribes currently. Are there tribes in California that currently do that? Right now?

Through the Chair, you're recogonized.

If I may through the Chair. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So the. Yes, the Yuhaaviatam and other tribes do offer online social play for fun games. I would disagree with my fellow witness on those being the same as these online sweepstakes that are being addressed by this bill. Yuhaaviatam, for example, you can get free coins. You can play with those coins.

They have no value. They can't be cashed out free or any prizes. When you buy those coins, you do not get another currency, another form of coin that can then be gambled on, slot machine or table game, which can then also be cashed out. So yes, there is social gaming, but it is different.

And I think that this bill specifies that games that don't offer cash prizes would not be impacted.

So, Madam Chair, is it okay if I ask a follow up question to that witnesses?

Go right ahead. I Have handed the Chairmanship back over to Senator Padilla.

Thank you. So can you just tell me. So there are some online games that the tribes do that are similar but not the same. Can you tell me how this bill. So this bill wouldn't.

Can you tell me how the bill addresses specifically the games, the difference in those games, the ones that you are saying are happening illegally, and how that differs from what the tribes are doing right now so that we can have a clear line differentiating what it is that makes it legal and not legal, besides sovereignty.

Sure. So when you go onto one of these online sweepstakes games, you can play for free with gold coins. Those gold coins don't have any value. They're just play for fun. But you can purchase gold coins. When you make that purchase, you can get a. Another form of currency called a sweeps coin.

That sweeps coin usually equates roughly to the dollar value, although sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. But when you cash them out, typically a sweeps coin equals a dollar. Those sweeps coins can then be gambled on a virtual slot machine or other form of virtual gaming, and then the winnings from that can be cashed out.

So essentially, you have all the elements of gaming. You have consideration, though indirectly, you're purchasing something to get these coins from. The purchase of the sweeps constitutes consideration.

Okay, I'm sorry, and how is that different from the tribes?

We can. So with yamavoplay online, you can get the coins. When you buy the coins, you get them for free or you can purchase more.

So you're saying there's no consideration?

Well, you can purchase them, so there would be consideration. However, when you play, you can't cash them out for anything. You don't get a second form of consideration that you can then gamble for money with. I see.

Okay. Okay. And then am I right that this bill creates some new criminal penalties? Fines and jail time as well?

Yes, it does.

Can you just run me through that really quick? Who. Who. Who receives the criminal penalties? The players. The entities who provide the game? Both.

The entity does.

So is there indemnity for people who play the game or what is the.

It's a concept that we're actually working through right now. And in the language, Mr. Nahone, do you want to address that through the Chair?

So this. The penal code would make unlawful offering or certain forms of support for. For online sweepstakes, but not for playing.

Okay, I read it. I was a little confused by it because I felt like it was broad enough it could include the players, which would be deeply troubling to me. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. And as the author says, we're working through it.

You know, don't speak for the whole Legislature, but if we were to criminalize people playing the game, I think you'd get a very different response response from folks in the Legislature than holding entities accountable for what they're putting out on a platform. And I found that language to be somewhat confusing. Where does this bill go next?

It does go to public safety, but it's only double referred, not triple, so it doesn't go to judiciary. Okay. Okay. For me, the issue of sovereignty is. Is an easy one. I have multiple tribes in my district, too. We're all pretty familiar with that. I'm more interested in the details of this bill.

Kind of confused by some of them, a little broad. I am interested in what the specifics will be that you'll take in appropriations, but I also think it's perfectly reasonable for you to take them in appropriations.

This is like one of those bills where I'm never quite sure, do I vote on it I today to give you more time to work on it, but give you a warning that I might change my mind later, or do I vote no now and wait for you to make the changes?

I think because of the tribe's involvement in the sovereignty, I'm going to say to you, I will vote Aye today.

I'm going to be watching for some clarifying because I think the issue of whether or not a person is engaging in an online game with the consideration component and the sweeps and the transfer of your dollar, basically putting in a credit card number and then how you manufacture that into a game versus what's happening to the tribes is still a little fuzzy for me, even after your clarifying comments.

I also think that you need to tighten up the language around who the criminal penalties, fines and fees will apply to to make sure we protect Californians who don't incidentally stumble upon some online gameplay and then find out they violated the law unintentionally and then just I guess lastly for me, I'll be interested in how you navigate the relationship with the card rooms or any other existing entity.

And I appreciate very much your clarification on the fantasy sports component because I do think that is being conflated. Lots of work left to do on this Bill, but I'm sure you are capable.

Thank you, Senator. All points are in consideration and happy to speak. Communication.

Thank you, Senator Ashby, Vice Chair Valladares.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. And I do know that sometimes during our legislative session, we're made aware of an issue that needs to be addressed. And sometimes it goes through the gut and amend process.

And that can be frustrating sometimes because the process exists in the timeline, exists for a reason. Right. So that we can put forward the very best Bill possible as it goes through each House and each through Committee.

And I think that that's where some of the concern was and why it can sometimes make it hard for us to vote on language that hasn't quite been baked.

But I do understand as to the sentiments of Senator Richardson, the importance of the commitment that we made with compacts with tribes, and that as technology evolves, we might find ourselves back here again having to address an issue 10 years down the road. And it is, I believe, our job and our responsibility to be vigilant in that.

And I will be supporting this. But I do know that the author and the sponsors have been working with all stakeholders. It's great to see everyone having those conversations. And I know certain issues need to be continued to be ironed out.

And I would really appreciate you to continue to work with all stakeholders and to address some of the issues of the Committee today. And again, I will be supporting this and appreciate your work on it.

Absolutely. Thank you. You have my commitment to that as of late last night. Yesterday evening, I made myself available to have a conversation with some of the opponents of the bill as well. So I will continue to do so throughout the process.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Senator Ocho Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I share the concerns that were expressed by Senator Ashby with regards to the clarity of language and who is liable or not. And I do express a concern about. And I've done a gut in a Ben. I know how difficult that is on the issue.

And the question rises as to the urgency as to why are we doing this so quickly, because this is a pretty. This could be very, very impactful in a very, very large area, which for folks through. There's a lot of nuances that need to be clarified.

And there's a lot of opposition and a lot of support for the bill. And for the record, my constituents in my district are all in support of this particular bill. I agree with the fact that we've made a commitment in the State of California. The voters voted and we have a compact with our tribes, and.

And their sovereignty is incredibly important. I think Senator Richardson made an incredible point with regards to what happens when online, you know, technology and online comes in into spaces. Because now you're not just relating and talking about brick and mortar. Now you're talking about space and how that is impacted. I am.

I was going to abstain on the bill but I do same debate with Senator Ashby. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to continue to working on this bill.

I know we haven't had much opportunity to work with you but I'm giving this opportunity to you as a means to continue to work with the stakeholders because they have concerns.

And this is what happens when we don't go through the whole process of starting it from the get go at the beginning of the year where we have time to talk to the opponents, to talk to the supporters.