Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right. Good morning, everyone. We haven't started just yet. We are waiting for Mr. Lackey to join us, and once he does, we'll begin operating as a subcommitee. Thanks for your patience, everybody.

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the Assembly Public Safety Committee to order. Thank you, Mr. Lackey, for being here.

I will note that absent a quorum, we will proceed as a subcommitee this morning. I would like to begin with our standard housekeeping items. As a reminder, there are general rules of conduct before we start our hearings today.

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

I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's proceedings. Please be aware that violation of these rules may and likely will subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. We do not have enough members to establish quorum, so we'll wait to dispense with our consent calendar.

I'd like to just note that we are hearing today's items in sign in order with standing committee members presenting their bills towards the end of the hearing, which I should probably strike through, because that doesn't make sense anymore. Thank you. We appreciate everyone's patience. Authors will have five minutes to present, as will your main witnesses.

Opponent witnesses will also have five minutes to present, and we'll take the me toos after every witness has an opportunity to present. With that, we'll go to our first item up today. We have Senator Wahab here to discuss Senate Bill 701.

Thank you. Here today in support of SB 701 is Garrett Hamilton, Deputy District Attorney for Yolo County.

Good morning. Thank you. It's an excellent bill. We are currently in state court, basically powerless to punish and deter this type of very serious criminal activity. Powerless. There's no statute that answers this for us in state court. So it's really important that we get this one through. Thank you.

We do have another witness. However, he is testifying in another Committee.

Well, thank you very much for the presentation, Senator. Sorry for the mic mess up there. It's difficult Tuesday morning here in Assembly Public Safety. Thank you, sir, for your testimony as well. Next we'll go to the me toos. Anyone who'd like to be heard on the matter, please come forward.

Please state only your name, your organization, and your position, please.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Max Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association. We were the other primary witness and apologies, we had a conflict, but proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jolena Voorhis, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Usha Mutchler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? All right, at this time, we'll go to opposition witnesses. Please come forward. Once you begin speaking, you will have five minutes to present to the Committee.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. I want to start by thanking the author for working hard to address some of our concerns in the last House and for continuing to do so in the Assembly. However, the ACLU remains in respectful opposition.

While we appreciate the author taking amendments on how, on amends to now only oppose a misdemeanor on a second or subsequent vice violation, we do not believe this policy is necessary. We want to remind this Committee that federal and state law already cover the underlying offense this bill attempts to further criminalize.

It is well documented that California's penal code has been criticized for its complexity and its unnecessary duplication of existing crimes. Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior.

Now is not the time for California to be creating new wobblers particular when doing so will not have a greater impact on public safety. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on SB 701 and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir, for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from others who would like to be heard in opposition to the bill. Please come forward with your name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. With the understanding that the amendments are accepted by the author, and we thank the author, we'd like a little more time to look at it, but we expect to withdraw our opposition.

David Bollog, in opposition. Good morning.

Danic Rudom, on behalf of La Defensa and Initiate Justice. Look forward to reviewing the amendments and potentially moving to neutral. Thank you.

All right, well, thank you all. Seeing no one else hoping to comment on the matter. Colleagues, we don't yet have a quorum, so we won't be able to entertain a motion or move the bill at this time. However, we can engage in questions for the author, any of our witnesses and/or any debate amongst the Committee. Mr. Lackey, you look eager to jump in.

Yeah, just quickly. I think that it should be understood that state enforcers can't enforce federal law. So to the opposition's point, it's very important that we have statute that allows our local enforcement to take action and to enforce against this criminal behavior.

So I'm thankful for this notice that you've taken and like to be considered a coauthor, if that's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lackey. Would either of my colleagues to my right, any questions or comments at this time? Okay, then. With that, Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye on this bipartisan bill.

Well done.

You're not used to saying that. I know that, so thank you.

That was. That was smooth. I'll just quickly note, colleagues, while we'll take a motion at a later time. I want to thank the Senator for her work on this. I think the amendments substantially improved the bill. Chair is recommending an aye, and we'll keep this matter open until we have a quorum. Thank you, Senator.

All right, next we have item number 14. This is by Senator Durazo. Colleagues, this is Senate Bill 834. Senator, when you're ready, you'll have five minutes, as will your witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. SB 834 is a technical fix to improve implementation of what we already have in California on our automatic record clearance laws that were two in particular, AB 1076 and SB731.

This Bill does not expand eligibility, however, it ensures that people who are already eligible can access the relief current law provides. Under the previous two bills that I mentioned, individuals are eligible for for automatic record clearance if they meet certain criteria, including not having pending charges.

Many old arrests are still labeled as quote, unquote, pending in DOJ records due to missing or incomplete information, such as cases where charges were never even filed, were dismissed in court, or were resolved, but never properly reported. These outdated pending charges are wrongly blocking eligible individuals from receiving relief.

And even when no prosecution ever occurred, when relief is granted, the DOJ updates the prison state record, but there's no requirement for local courts to do the same. As a result, background checks that rely on local court data can show old convictions that were already cleared, leading to confusion and harm.

People may also need to provide documentation that their record has been cleared, but there's no standardized court certificate available for them to request. These gaps are preventing otherwise eligible individuals from fully benefiting from California's record clearance laws. This Bill offers practical, targeted changes to ensure the laws we've already passed actually function.

With me today, I have Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Ed Little, Government affairs manager with Californians for Safety and justice in proud sponsor of this Bill. California made historic progress with AB 1076 Chapter 578 status of 2019 and SB731 Chapter 814 status 2022 expanding automated relief record clearance for millions of Californians with eligible arrest convictions.

Implementation has revealed three critical barriers preventing some individuals from receiving or fully benefiting from this relief. SB834 addresses three issues by preventing outdated pending charges from blocking record clearance, requiring local court records to be updated to match state Department of Justice records, and establishing a clear process for individuals to obtain written proof of relief.

This Bill would address a set of issues that have been identified through implementation, pain points for AB 1076 and SB731 that require some small adjustments. Courts are by and large doing their parts to shield records from public view when they are identified by Cal DOJ as subject to this relief.

However, certain entities retain access to cleared records through court and local data systems, primary law enforcement agencies, a designation that indicates public defenders offices providing record clearance and legal services.

Without a process to resolve old, incomplete and pending charges, individuals remain ineligible for relief under AB 1076 and SB731 even when the legal system itself has abandoned the charge years ago.

At the same time, individuals who have, who do receive relief under AB 1076 and SB731 may have no reliable way to prove it because the local records are outdated and there is no simple court issued proof of relief available to them upon request.

Potential fixes at the court level include to require the court to produce upon request written confirmation that they have received notification of relief from the DOJ for a particular record and are limiting access to the record pursuant to DOJ notification per 1203.425.

Allowing people to easily obtain record specific confirmation of relief is important for efforts to be correct. This Bill will simply make modest technical fixes to already established law. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB834. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much, Senator, for the presentation. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Next we'll hear from others who'd like to be heard on the matter.

You know the drill.

Danica Rodarma on behalf of Debt Free Justice, California and Law Defense in strong support.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston California Public Defenders Association in support.

Good morning. Amelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in proud support.

Keon Bliss with Anti Police Terror project in support.

All right, thank you all very much. Next we'll go to any opposition witnesses. Is there anyone here hoping to be heard in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Anyone else who wants to be register an opinion or view on the Bill at all? Okay, that's a good start, Senator. Next we'll turn it back to the dais.

Any questions or comments? Okay, not all at once now. Senator, we'll let you close.

Very simple. I urge and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Senator. Colleagues, the chair will be recommending an aye at the appropriate time. And Senator, I would just add, I think this is a really common sense cleanup Bill. If you're looking for any co authors, I'd be honored to jump on board and help that on our side of the house.

So thank you for your time and we'll let you know how it all turns out.

Okay, thank you, Senator. Thank you everyone.

Okay, next. I see we have Senator Rubio who's joined us. And Senator Rubio is next in sign in order. Oh, okay. Senator, will you be taking item three first? This would be Senate Bill 19 or do you want to go with?

If you don't mind, one of my witnesses needs to leave. Can we start with SB 248, is that okay?

Absolutely. So colleagues will be going to item number four. This is by Senator Rubio. This is Senate Bill 248. Senator, you'll have five minutes to address the Committee, as will your witnesses. And your time doesn't start until you begin.

Thank you. Thank you Chair and Members of this Committee it's an honor to present SB248. This is an important Bill that will promote responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence. First and foremost, SB248 makes no changes to firearm purchases or ownership in California. Want to make that very clear.

Owning a firearm comes with serious responsibilities and the right information at the right time can save lives. And that's the goal. Whether it's preventing a child from accessing a loaded gun or making sure a domestic violence survivor knows their legal options. Education is key.

Regardless, SB248 takes a very simple proactive approach to reducing gun violence by ensuring that new gun owners receive educational materials on responsible ownership, secure storage and preventing gun related tragedies. This Bill will require the California Department of Justice to send a letter to gun purchasers during the already existing 10 day waiting period.

This letter will include important information, best practices, how to keep your safe firearm stored, information on reducing the risk of suicide and domestic violence cases, and resources for gun violence restraining orders.

Today I'm honored to have two individuals with me that will be presenting and I'm also proud to say that this Bill is supported by broad coalition of organizations dedicating to reducing gun violence, including the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action in Every Town for Gun Safety.

Please help me welcome Penelope Oliver, Executive Director and founder of All Access Arts. Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady Campaign and Prevent Gun Violence. So if you can start.

Thank you guys and thank you. I want to thank the Senator for her leadership on this Bill. My name is Penelope. I'm 18 years old and a youth activist, going into my second year at UC Berkeley. Through my nonprofit All Access Arts,

I also work in trauma informed youth programming for Arts and STEM for youth in crisis here in Sacramento. Growing up before I would have a play date, my parents would always ask before I went over to friends houses if they had firearms in the house and if they were secured safely.

Many of them were upfront about having firearms and having them be secured safely because they came from law enforcement backgrounds. However, if you lack this background or knowledge throughout for instance, law enforcement head backgrounds through leadership and training in their job.

It's hard to find information to know how to secure your firearm safely and it only takes a few seconds to save a life and save those around you who could be impacted from a lifetime of agony working in the community now,

Almost every child I work with and even my friends at college and have been impacted or lost someone to gun violence.

I'll never forget playing Simon says and having a five year old little girl raise her hands and say Simon says raise your hands like you're about to be shot and lay on the floor like you've been hit by a bullet.

Nor will I ever forget drawings that they have of black dots to resemble bullets of a playground in Sacramento. When the number one cause of death for children and youth is gun violence, these unprecedented times call for unprecedented and landmark legislative action that other states can follow.

Being a young person who's grown up learning how to hide from a shooter before we could even learn how to read or write or tie our shoes. We deserve better. We deserve to grow up and so do all Californians.

We don't have to live or die this way and it's Californians right to bear arms for self protection and it's a state and legislators duty to ensure their knowledge of safe storage to protect all.

This Bill would also aim to protect Californians from all types of gun violence, including hate crimes, sexual violence, suicides, accidental shootings, domestic violence, and, especially in this day and age, political violence. At its core, this is about freedom to bear arms responsibly.

With your yes vote and Committee, you can be part of the change and show your community and my generation that you care about our lives. You hold the power to honor all victims of gun violence with action. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Rebecca Marcus. I'm here representing the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in support of AB248. As you all know, gun violence is a public health epidemic that requires a multifaceted approach to prevention.

More than any state in the past two decades, California has taken strong action to prevent gun violence and to save lives. SB248 builds on that legacy, providing education, information, and tools for those bringing firearms into their home. So often, people bring a gun into their home because they believe it will keep them safe and their families safe.

And to that end, it is so important for them to understand the risks and how to reduce them, to understand our complex systems of state and federal laws and how to comply with them and have information for resources to prevent gun suicide should the need arise.

Similarly, new residents in the state need this information to understand our laws and what resources are available. This Bill is not aimed at disincentivizing gun ownership. Everyone understands that firearms are lethal weapons.

Rather, it provides information that will provide unintentional shootings where children die, gun trafficking, gun suicide, and it will empower gun owners with relevant education and tools. This is just common sense. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, for the presentation, and thank you both for your testimony today in our state Capitol. We're going to take a very brief pause in the proceedings to establish quorum now that Assemblymember Harvidians joined us. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

[roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

All right, so I heard one present, four hears, but that is enough for a quorum. So with a quorum established, we'll continue right on. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the measure. Please come forward. I think I know what organization you're with, but name, organization and position would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kim Manfredi. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Yara Jidal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Christine Morland. Mom. Concerned Mom. In support.

Tony Oliver. In support, concerned parent.

Thank you all so much for being here. Anyone else hoping to speak in support of the Bill? Okay, next we'll go to any opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses today? Okay, I see one person coming forward. So you'll know the drill once you begin speaking.

You'll have five minutes to address the Committee.

Sir, of course I didn't plan on doing this, but I did listen to the prior testimony, the testimony from the other Committee hearings on this, what was stated so that you understand that this information that is being provided is already provided at every gun store in big letters where you go to purchase it at the cash register.

Also, every firearm manual has all this information. Has all this information in the manual. My name is David Bollog. I apologize for not mentioning that beforehand and I am representing. California's tired of this low grade continuous financial attack on gun owners. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, sir. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the matter? Okay, seeing no affirmative response, we'll turn it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments? Assembly Member Harabedian, you look eager to ask a question.

Just want to thank the author for bringing the Bill. I'll move it.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? We have a second. We'll continue with discussion. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Rubio, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Just once again, just want to say education is key. And when it comes to saving lives, people may choose not to read the information. But I think it's important that we put it at their fingertips to read. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator, colleagues, I will be recommending an eye. I just want to note I appreciate the opposition testimony. I did read the CRPA letter. I understand the concern about allocation of resources, but I agree with our witnesses today. I think education is key. This seems like a common sense, straightforward measure.

And Senator, should it pass out of Committee and you're looking for a co author in our House, I'd be happy to jump on board. Now.

Thank you.

With that, we have the motion in second.

Let's call the roll

for item number four. SB248 by Senator Rubio. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [roll call]

So that measure will remain on call. You'll need one more vote. We'll let you know the outcome, although maybe someone will walk through the door and we'll know soon. Thank you very much, Senator. We'll give you a moment to get ready for the next one.

Colleagues, the next item we'll be taking up is item number three, also by Senator Rubio. This is Senate Bill 19.

Hello. Good morning. Good to have you here. Let me know when you're ready. Okay. Well, once again, thank you. Chair and Members of this Committee, I'm proud to present SB19, the Safe Schools and Places of Worship Act.

As a teacher for nearly 20 years in classroom, I know how threats against schools can disrupt the learning of our students. That alone is very traumatizing to our students and teachers and really have an entire community in a State of panic. Every time we hear about threats, we have to lock down.

It is not only disruptive to the learning, but it does have a lasting effect on our students, especially with what's happening across our nation. No parent should ever have to wonder if their child is safe at school. No family should second guess visiting a place of worship. You know what will happen.

So today, this is an important Bill that will help close a loophole right now in the State of California. The California law falls short in protecting our schools and our places of worship from criminal threats. SB19 is critical as very critical to protect schools.

It simply says existing law right now doesn't really come after people when they make credible threats if they didn't mention a person in their threat. But the dangerous loophole is the law right now, and we want to make sure that we clarify that making threats is something that we take very seriously.

Without that direct and specific threat, law enforcement officials have limited options, even when it comes to issues when they're very clearly dangerous to our community. This Bill simply speaks to those making threats when they,

For example, in San Diego recently, there was a threat where a school was mentioned, the address was given, this person said that they were going to go kill a lot of people. And because once again, it didn't specifically name a person, and it fell short in terms of prosecuting this individual.

And later on, this person was apprehended once again. And this person did have guns, they did have a school map. So that could have potentially turned out very deadly. But just letting that person go and not tackling that issue right away left our schools exposed. So, again, we want to make sure that we close that loophole.

There's a lot of hypotheticals, but there's also a lot of real, credible threats. The average cost for every incident is $100,000. I can tell you that our communities are struggling with resources, our schools, our school community, they're struggling with resources, and that 100,000 can go to better serve our students in education, our seniors, in our communities.

So we want to make sure that we take care of our community by letting them know that we will not tolerate threats to schools or places of worship. Schools and places of worship have both seen a massive rise in threats made against them in recent years. Swatting calls are common occurrences. Lockdowns are becoming as common occurrences.

And I think we already placed so much on our students to try to defend themselves if an intruder comes in with a gun. And so, again, we want to make sure that our public safety agencies have the authority to question these individuals and making sure that if they're credible threats, that they do have consequences.

I think that's the most important thing we can do is make sure that we tell everyone that we will not tolerate the waste of our resources, having our communities in a state of panic and continuing to cause fear. So with me today, I have two individuals that will speak on this issue.

I have Garrett Hamilton, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Yolo County District Attorney's office. I have Cliff Berg representing the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, JPAC, and I will turn it over to my speakers.

Good morning. Senator Rubio has done a perfect job of explaining the problem, the very serious problem that this Bill is designed to fix. Currently, in California, to charge criminal threats, you essentially have to have an identified victim who is in sustained fear, and that threat has to get to that person.

Now, that's obviously a very serious crime, and it happens frequently, but you could make a compelling argument that threatening an entire school or house of worship or sporting venue is actually a lot worse in terms of the public safety and the fear, I think, about schools evacuating, going through trainings to evacuate.

Why do third graders have to know that there's people that are willing to threaten to blow up or shoot schools? It's really, really serious. So it's a great Bill. We. We really hope that it passes and becomes law.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cliff Berg here. On behalf of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, which is the largest single state coalition of Jewish organizations in the nation, we are in strong support of Senate Bill 19 by Senator Rubio, the Safe Schools and Places of Worship Act.

This Bill would strengthen California's response to threats of violence by creating a new crime for credible threats made against schools and places of worship, regardless of whether a specific individual is named. JPAC is a coalition of nearly 40 leading Jewish community organizations across the state. Is the voice of California's Jewish community to the State Capitol.

We advocate in Sacramento on behalf of the Jewish community's concerns and broadly shared values. Our Member organizations, including Jewish Federations, Jewish Community Relations Councils, Jewish Family Services agencies and others, collectively serving hundreds of thousands of Californians of all backgrounds and represent the interests of California's 1.2 million members of the Jewish community.

California schools and houses of worship have increasingly been the targets of violent threats, bomb scares, shooting threats and online posts intended to sow panic and fear. These threats disrupt learning force closures, drain public safety resources and traumatize entire communities.

And yet, under current law, unless a threat identifies a specific individual, prosecutors often lack legal tools needed to act. SB19 closes this dangerous loophole by allowing threats against a broader group, such as all students in a school or worshipers in a congregation, to be prosecuted so long as the threat creates reasonable and sustainable fear.

This Bill offers a narrowly tailored legal solution that protects free speech while recognizing the real and growing impact of generalized threats. It provides prosecutors and law enforcement with a clear, constitutionally sound avenue to intervene before violence occurs while also ensuring protections for minors and avoiding dual prosecutions for the Jewish community,

Where schools, synagogues and community centers have faced bomb threats, lockdowns and violence. This Bill is deeply personal. We know the terror such threats create even when they do not name a specific person. These threats disrupt daily life so fear and force institutions to divert resources toward emergency preparedness and security.

Every child, educator and community Member deserves to feel safe in their school or house of worship. While here representing the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, I certainly want to note that the broader problem that we have seen, the increasing rise in anti Semitic hate also has risen for API, African American, Latino, LGBTQ communities.

This is a broad problem that affects all of our vulnerable minority religious ethnic communities in California. And the recent report by the State Department of Justice released just last week showing a soaring increase in California of hate crimes documents the need for this Bill at this time. Urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator and both of you gentlemen for your testimony today. Now we'll hear from others in support of the Bill. Please come forward and you know the drill.

Chair Members Max Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, proud to be a co sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Dylan Lisowski with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in strong support

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy in support.

Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in Support.

Lt. Julio Deleon on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's office in support

Jolena Voorhis on Behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, California K12 School Police Chiefs Association, California Riverside Reserve Peace Officers and the other police officer groups listed in the analysis. All in support. Thank you.

All right, wonderful. Now we'll go to any opposition witnesses. Do we have? We do. All right. Opposition witnesses can come forward. Once you're seated and start speaking, you'll have a combined total time of 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Angela McNair and I'm an attorney and the Director of Statewide Solidarity at the Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, also known as CALL. We support grassroots organizations across the State of California in leveraging legal tools to ensure that young people in our schools are treated with fairness and respect.

We respectfully oppose SB819. SB19 does not close loopholes. Current law already covers the behavior the author seeks to address.

Analysts and several committees have noted that despite assertions that criminal threats statute is insufficient, General threats to people at a school or place of worship are regularly prosecuted under current law and courts have upheld both convictions and juvenile adjudications. We need to combat this Trumpian narrative of an America where we're all afraid of each other.

We are living in extremely difficult political times and there is a temptation that is very strong to other each other and to respond with reactionary fear. California must refuse to cave to these false narratives that promote fear, disdain diversity and want to take us backwards.

The law already covers serious threats to school safety and they are well covered. Looting up our penal code in this way just gives fodder for overreactions based in fear that will catch up kids and young people in our criminal legal system. Penal code sections are not a quick fix for school safety, and I know this.

As both an attorney and as a parent, I have represented both horrified parents and confused kids after principals have called law enforcement to interrogate children as young as 8 years old on the playground who made a statement that an adult interpreted as threatening.

As a parent, I was also horrified to learn that my child's principal had called law enforcement to question My son's 4th grade classmate regarding a statement that he made on the playground during recess. We know what makes school safer. It is community, it is mental health resources and it is support for those who are struggling.

We appreciate the amendments on the Bill. We also recognize that a little bit of probation for young people often leads to lot of jail. Still, this Bill is reactionary. We believe it will take our state backwards and we are respectfully opposed.

Good morning Chair Members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I'm with ACLU California Action. Our organization is in strong opposition to SB19 as this will only add to California school to prison pipeline.

While existing law already punishes criminal threats in any setting, currently a person making a threat can be prosecuted and in prison if they did not have the intent or ability to carry out the threat threat nor take a take any action to carry it out.

Penal code 4422 is notorious for being overbroad and misused where children have already been prosecuted for schoolyard disagreements, social media speech and artistic expressions such as a student writing a poem with content about school shootings.

SB19 will further worsen the criminalization of California students and even if they are found not not guilty, they suffer significant harm from from their system involvement such as a lower likelihood of graduating and a higher likelihood of future incarceration. These harms disproportionately impact black and Brown students and those with disabilities.

Schools should be safe, welcoming and affirming learning environments for all students and we should take measures to ensure California Constitution's promise of equal educational opportunity for every student. Creating new tools to further criminalize our students does not actualize this vision and this constitutional safeguarder promise.

Instead, we should invest in resources and programs that improve educational outcomes for all students. According to a 2019 report by the ACLU titled Cops and no Counselors, we found that millions of students attend schools with police officers, but no counselors, nurses, psychologists or social workers.

Rather than feeding our youth to this mass incarceration machine through an overly punitive penal code, we we should prioritize investing in their future and believing in them first. For these reasons, we are in respectful opposition to SB19 and respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Please feel free to stay seated. The Committee may or may not have questions for you, but next we'll hear from others in opposition to the Bill.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. In respectful opposition.

Sally Ching with the alliance for Boys and Men of Color.

Also speaking on behalf of the Black Organizing Project in opposition.

Danna Grodama on behalf of Law Defense in opposition.

Amelia Rogers

On behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Keon Bliss on behalf of Anti Police Terror Project.

In strong opposition.

Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. In opposition.

Marco Ramos, a concerned cousin. In opposition.

All right, thank you all very much for your appearance today before the Committee. Now we'll turn it back to the Committee Members. Are there any questions or concerns or thoughts. Mr. Ramos. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second by Mr. Harabedian. Mr. Hart, you also have the floor Mr. Harabedian.

I do have just a quick question and it's mostly towards the opposition. I appreciate the author for bringing the Bill, appreciate the opposition for their testimony. I mean, I really view this Bill and we had another Bill similar to this move through the Assembly that's now over in the Senate.

I mean, I do think that it is trying to address a real problem and a real safety concern. If someone has real criminal intention at a school and there isn't a specific person but they, they have plans and weapons to commit real harm for folks who may be at the school or will be at the school.

And I guess the...

What I'm struggling with is how this is going to lead to mass incarceration or some sort of discrimination towards certain groups with disabilities when the problem that I see is just the situation where someone does make a credible threat and they have plans, they don't name a specific person but they name a school, they have the address.

As the Senator said, how does that lead to mass incarceration of kids? And I'm sympathetic to the concern. It seems like a hypothetical. That actually isn't what we're trying to address in this Bill. And if there's a way to limit that concern, I'm all ears. You know I do...

I don't want this to lead to any mass incarceration of anyone, especially those with certain disabilities or, you know, certain backgrounds, racially, ethnically, et cetera. So if you can just address that and if you have any, I don't, and maybe I missed it. If there are ways in which we can address that, I'm all ears.

So thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate the question. Assembly Member. So what we're citing is that basically if you have any exposure to the system, it increases the likelihood of future incarceration. And we also have a lot of data, a plethora of it, that our justice system is incredibly racist. Right.

And you have black students who commit the same amount of crime or get as much trouble as white students who are three times more likely referred to law enforcement. And there is a lot of biases from administrators or educators and whom have you that will just refer to those students to the system.

And again, that's what is feeding our youth to the mass incarceration machine. So we want to avoid that and try to avoid as much involvement as possible, whereas we don't see the spells resolving that issue and just only exacerbating it. And Section 422, again, already covers true threats.

So if someone has a credible threat at a school, they're already going to be prosecuted or they can be prosecuted. So we don't think this Bill is really necessary and will have only a negative impact. And I don't know. Angela, you want to.

Yeah.

If I could just briefly add, what our colleagues across the state who work with parents and youth who are organizing in schools have noticed is that when the site of a penal code section is a school, the people who are the most likely to get caught up and prosecuted under that section are the people who are in schools.

And those are our children, those are our young people. And we already have, as my colleague noted, a great level of disproportionality in our criminal system. Another thing I'd like to just add is that this Legislature has repeatedly recognized that young people are not little adults.

There are things like impetuousness and immaturity and a lack of understanding of consequences that are not quirks, are not features of use, but actual. Are not quirks of youth, but actual features. They're not both. It's part of the process. So just wanted to highlight that our concern is about those young people being caught up in the system.

Thank you. Assembly Member Harabedian. Are there other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay. With that, Senator Rubio, would you like to provide a brief closing statement?

Yes. Thank you. Well, first of all, I just want to reiterate that I am a school teacher in the classroom for 20 years. I was vice principal for three years. And we were have had many instances where we have to lock down. And so the fear is there.

I know the statement was made that we just want to create fear. I just need to share with all of you that the fear is there. Our teachers are in fear every single day.

And the problem is, I want to take us back to an incident that I can't get out of my head, the Uvalde shooting, where a fourth grader, which is a grade that I teach, had to lay down next to his little friend who was shot and murdered in a shooting.

And in order to survive, he went over to his friend and took blood out of his friend's body to put it all over himself, to pretend to be dead to save himself. And we know that that's something that happened. The problem with these threats is we don't know if it's real or if it's not real.

So do we wait until that happens where kids are having to save themselves where our community is in a state of panic. That is something that I know is already there. The fear is already there.

And as a teacher, I can tell you every time we're on a lockdown, your heart is pounding because you don't know what's coming at you. So this is not intended to mass incarcerate. And I also am very sympathetic. And it's coming across a little strong because it's something that I take very seriously.

Our teachers are saying over and over again, what are you guys doing? And this is not about students per se. These are outsiders who are constantly making threats to our schools. This Bill is actually more sensitive to our youth because right now they could already be prosecuted for a wobbler if it's a serious threat.

This one makes sure that our youth have the opportunity to be counseled, not necessarily get a felony straight to jail. That's not what this Bill is intended to do.

And when you talk about, and I think Assembly Member had to be stated disabilities, students with disabilities, students that don't know consequences, it is very clearly stated it has to be a credible, serious threat.

I do appreciate that sometimes when students are spoken to, you're right, sometimes once they're in the system, it's harder to get out of that cycle. But this is just meant to give another layer of protection to our schools, our students and places of worship. My intention is not to over incarcerate.

And I can tell you as a teacher, that's never been my intention. But I do think that we don't know when that threat is credible or not. And we have to stop everything. We have to shut down. We have to disrupt learning. We have to spend those resources that, I agree with you, should be spent in counseling.

Because I was in a school where we had three counselors and then they disappeared. But we can't keep spending these resources in something that's a joke or a hoax when we do need to put them in counseling to make sure that we take care of this very serious issue. But, sorry, long winded.

But I do believe that we are trying to solve a problem that does exist. And we need to create an environment where kids are not going to school in fear and our teachers are not always in a state of panic as well. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. I just want to thank all of our witnesses and of course you as our author, for what I thought was a very spirited and yet really professional engagement of the issue. The chair is recommending an aye. It is not lost upon me.

I agree with most of everything that the opposition witnesses have to say. We have a justice system that is flawed and broken. We see the discriminatory application of laws by law enforcement. We see selected prosecution from prosecutor's office offices that are fulfilling a political agenda. We have different application of sentencing laws in the court. So I completely.

Your point lands with me and hits me in a way that we have to do better. I completely agree with that. I also agree with the Senator's point that her approach in this Bill does look at youth offenders and does try to take a different approach than many of the existing laws we have on the books.

It's even important to note that Assembly Bill 237, which passed out of our Committee, didn't take the approach that the Senator is contemplating. And I think that it's a good approach to take.

Last thing I would note is that, and I won't go through the many cases that are listed, but I would direct everyone's attention to page five of the Committee analysis. Both of you are correct.

Penal code section 422 can and is utilized to prosecute more generalized threats, but we also see that it is not equally applied across the State of California. We have wide discrepancies in whether that is successfully used to prosecute. And largely it depends on,

Depends on who's sitting in the prosecutor's office and who's wearing the black robe and how they interpret that statute. I view Senator Rubio's Bill as attempting to clarify the intent of the Legislature and to clarify what conduct is and should be captured in the course of that penal code section.

So I know the Bill will continue to evolve. I hope I look forward and I hope that you will continue to have conversations to see if you can improve the Bill. It's always a work in progress, as they say. But with that, I am recommending an aye today day with a motion and a second.

Let's call the roll.

For item three. SB19 by Senator Rubio. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [roll call]

All right, Senator, that measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you, everybody. If we're not. We're not taking a break. But if you all give me just one moment to do a little housekeeping. Alright, everyone. I am needed in Senate energy, so I'm going to be handing the gavel with our Vice Chair absent.

Mr. Alanis. Just calling you out. He's a dear friend. With Vice Chair absent, I will be passing the gavel to Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez to chair the next portion of the meeting.

Okay. Is this. We already did all this. All this. Now I can do this. Which item number is this one? Which item number is this one? Okay. Senator Archuleta, item number 12. Correct. That would be AB 759.

May I begin, Mr. Chair?

All right, everyone ready? Yes. You have five minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, today I present Senate Bill 759, is a reintroduction of AB 1408 Calderon from 7, from 2017 and my Bill, Senate Bill 1262 from last year.

Both were introduced to in direct response to the shooting death of Officer Keith Boyer of the Whittier Police Department by an individual on post release community supervision.

The community of Whittier continues to mourn the February 20, 2017 fatal shooting of Whittier Police Officer Keith Boyer and his partner, Whittier Police Officer Patrick Hazel, who was also shot and wounded. It was the first killing of a police officer in nearly 40 years in the City of Whittier.

Officer Boyle's death not only impacted the City of Whittier, but resonated with cities and towns across California, highlighting the need for effective management of individuals on post release community supervision.

Senate Bill 759 would require the county agency supervising the release and community supervision of an individual to seek a mandatory post release community supervision court hearing if the person violates the terms of their release for a third time or commits a new offense.

The enhanced regulation around the revocation of the community custody would ensure that only those who are actively working to successfully re enter the community and are not a danger to the community are eligible and to remain within the community.

This is a reasonable approach intended to mitigate the opportunity for additional tragedies from occurring by closing some of the loopholes that allow repeat offenders who deliberately abuse the system. Our goal is to provide an extra layer of oversight to prevent another tragedy from occurring in the City of Whittier or any other city. Throughout our State of California.

Voters overwhelmingly support accountability and oversight for repeat offenders. And this still and this Bill will focus on the individuals who continue to disregard and abuse the system.

Here with me today in support of the Bill is from the City of Whittier, is the Whittier Mayor Pro Tem Octavio Martinez and Elisa Achijuno, who can answer any technical questions and I respectfully ask your aye vote and excuse me for the mispronunciation of your name.

Thank you, Senator.

Good morning Mr. Chair, Members. My name is Octavio Cesar Martinez and I am the Mayor Pro Tem of the great City of Whittier. As we mentioned in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the city is saddened that we have to be the sponsor of this Bill.

You have five minutes total with both of you.

The loss of Officer Keith Boyer by our individual on post release community supervision devastated not only his family, our Police Department, but the entire Whittier community. We have been before this Committee in years past on the same topic and we are continuing our fight to balance accountability with humanity.

This Bill aims to protect communities while maintaining the integrity of our reentry and rehabilitation goals. I want to be very specific about this and I hope all of you are listening. SB759 will not increase incarceration for those with minor offenses. SB759 will not increase incarceration with those, for those with minor infractions.

It is narrowly tailored to only apply to serious third time offenders with new criminal conduct involving the courts, ensures due process rather than the automatic incarceration as requiration hearings and allow judges to modify terms of release based on risk and context. I urge your

aye vote on this common sense life saving measure and I wish to thank you for your time and and consideration.

Thank you.

I'm just here to answer technical questions.

Okay, understood. Is there anyone from the public in support of this Bill? Please come up. State your name, organization and position into the mic please.

Ryan Sherman with Oversight Sheriff Association in support.

Jolina Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities is in support.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon representing Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in support.

Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition for this Bill? When you're ready, you'll have five minutes.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Forrest Jones. I'm a Member of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and an MSW student at Cal State University East Bay. I am also a former three striker who was released in 2019 and discharged from parole two years later.

I am here in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 759 by Senator Archuleta. While my experience on parole was successful and I had a fair parole officer, that experience is not the norm. Senate Bill 759 would require probation departments to petition for revocation after person on supervision has three technical violations and a new felony or misdemeanor.

I witnessed people who received technical violations for minor infractions that were not warranted returned to prison, such as missing a curfew because their shift ran late, a GPS monitor dying due to a lack of charging options, or someone missing a meeting because the bus was running late.

After someone is released from prison, there's a period of acclimation, especially for people who have served long sentences. Often these technical violations are a sign that someone needs greater access to resources and services, not incarceration.

This Bill, like the California Three Strike law, focuses on punishing a person for three offenses without focusing on the cause of the recidivist behavior and addressing that behavior.

When it comes to these technical violations and the Commission of a new crime which could be simply driving without a license or low level drug offense, we should seek alternative solutions that do not require incarceration, such as restorative justice, and offer greater support and resources within their community.

Ultimately, we must avoid sending more people back to prison and ensure they are successful in their parole and PCRS journey. Each time we send someone back to prison we destabilize them further due to the loss of a job, housing and the connection to the family. For this reason, I must respectfully oppose Senate Bill 759.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to SB759 as amended by the Senator. Thank you for the amendments. We must oppose this Bill which takes away discretion from county agencies tasked with supervising individuals on post release community supervision.

I cannot match the eloquence of my colleague, but I do have 40 years of experience with this system representing indigent defendants. Some changes for the good I've seen and many for the worse. This Bill does not solve or even address any real pressing issue.

Currently supervising county agencies are tasked with supervising those on post release community supervision violations. SB759 would remove this discretion and require supervising county personnel to bypass potential intermediate sanctions and instead require them to petition the court to revoke, modify or terminate post release community supervision.

This required formal process would cause court calendars to grow across the state, siphoning off resources that could be better used in other areas. Sadly, the witnesses are mistaken.

The jail populations will grow. Currently, jail populations are growing, court calendars are over-agendized deputy district attorneys caseloads have expanded in public defender offices and county indigent defense committees are overrun with cases.

Several public defender offices have gone unavailable due to overload and the committees in any given county that find private counsel for indigent defendants cannot meet their mandate to do so. This is the situation right now, due to Proposition 36 changes in the system.

It makes no sense to require supervising county agencies to to proceed with harsher penalties when application of their assessment processes have been determined that lesser sanctions are more appropriate. I personally watch the local authorities develop the programs that are in place now. We should not fill the courts, calendars and the lawyers caseloads and the jails.

It makes no sense to, to pass this Bill and we'd ask that you vote no. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Is there anyone from the public in opposition to this Bill? Please come. State your name, organization, your position, please.

Danica Rodarmo, on behalf of Initiate justice in opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition

Amelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Keon Bliss, on behalf of Anti Police Terror Project and strong opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other. Are there any questions or comments? Turning it over to the Committee. Mr. Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author and obviously thank you for your service. You know, Senator Archuleta, a lot of folks don't know, served as a police officer for many years in the City of Montebello and has seen many of these issues firsthand.

So just want to thank you sir, for your service and appreciate the Bill, appreciate the opposition testimony. You know, I was most sympathetic, I guess, to the critique of taking jurisdiction away from probation departments. And I do think that the testimony that we heard was powerful.

However, I will note that the probation departments and the probation officers actually don't oppose this Bill. And I don't know if anyone from the probation departments, any of them are here. But I think the reality and the practicality of this issue that the Senator is trying to address is that our probation departments are overworked.

Their caseloads are very large and they get larger by the day. And I think there has to be a solution that allows for something to change when it comes to this.

I don't think that the solution is just to pile upon the probation departments more and more work and more and more cases, because we've seen the results of that, especially in LA County.

And so I just think that the opposition would be more powerful and I think more sympathy would be given from me and maybe other members if we actually had a solution to this problem. Because I do think that I want to thank the vice mayor from Whittier for being here.

I do think that there are real consequences to the current system and I do think that we need to have better solutions. And I think this Bill is a step in the right direction. So, you know, I am going to be moving the Bill and supporting it.

But again, I think that to the extent that we're making the argument that we're taking some sort of jurisdiction away or responsibility away from a certain department when we don't hear from that department, when they don't oppose the actual Bill, I just think that's problematic.

So appreciate the author, and again, I'll move it and I'll support it. Thank you, Mr.

Harvey. It's been moved. Is there a second? Seconded by Alanis. Any other Committee Members have any comments? Okay. Seeing or hearing none, the author would like to close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And I think that all of us are listening to our communities. And I know that I was hoping that Tom Lackey would be here, because I understand he just lost an officer in his district for the same identical reason and circumstances.

And my condolences out to him and his friends and his community and to all of us who have friends in law enforcement. And this is why every law enforcement agency in the state and those of us who want to make sure that we don't forget that these individuals need the rehab process.

Rehabilitation is so important, and it does that. And again, it allows the individual to go back to the court and see where the courts can help. And I think that we don't want to lose anyone, but we certainly don't want to lose lives. And with that, I urgently ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Again, this Bill has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, please take the roll.

For item 12 SB759 by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass through the Appropriations Committee.

[roll call]

Thank you so much. Senator, that Bill is on call. Oh, it passed? Oh, it did? Very good. My apologies. Passes. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have to publish it? Our Vice Chair, Mr. Alanis, is in the building, so I'm going to hand him back the gavel.

Senator Ashby, you'll be next. And would you like to start with SB 6?

Sure.

All right, item number one, SB 6. Floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Vice Chairman and colleagues. Know you guys have a big schedule. I will try to help move this along quickly.

Hi. Thanks for being here. All right, let's start with SB 6 you said, right? Here to present this Bill, which would schedule Xylazine as a controlled substance in California, preventing its illicit use while creating guardrails for the drug's continued use in veterinary medicine. Xylazine is referred to sometimes as tranq, or the zombie drug.

It's called the zombie drug because it renders its user unable to stand upright and causes gaping wounds that look a lot like a zombie. Xylazine has tripled the effect of deaths in our region.

Interestingly, this Bill a year ago wasn't quite—it was preventative for California, and now, it is no longer preventative for California because Xylazine is pretty predominant here as well. Xylazine mixed with fentanyl is one of the current drug cocktails of choice across our country right now.

Problematically, Xylazine is impervious to Narcan, unlike other opioids, which makes it really difficult in an emergency situation for folks to save an individual who has consumed Xylazine. This Bill makes xylazine a Schedule 3 Drug. It's the lowest level we can do, but we think it's important because right now, it's very easy to get—$6, $20.

You can get it online. And that's because Xylazine does have an important purpose, but the important purpose is to serve large animals. Very, very large animals. It's a sedative for those creatures. And you'll hear a little bit more about that from one of my witnesses tizay—today.

This, this Bill was part of the Safer California Senate Package last year and is one that the Governor has called for a number of times. I'm proud to be back in front of you today and have the opportunity to talk about the Bill and see if we can move it forward.

I think it's critically important that we use every tool we can. You guys know this, your legislators, no one Bill will solve all of our problems. But hopefully, as we weave together all of our ideas and all of our work, we can really start to get at the root of things.

There is no part of me that believes that SB 6 will solve the opioid crisis or the deaths of young people in our communities, which you'll hear tragically about as well.

But it is my hope that this Bill, coupled with things that you are all doing, and we are doing in the Senate too, on behavioral health, on outreach, on addiction, and homeless services, and outreach to young people, that all of those things combined will make a difference for the betterment of the lives of people in the State of California.

With me today and all of us urging an aye vote on SB 6, are Dr. Grant Miller, who is speaking on behalf of the California Veterinary Medical Association, to talk to you about the real use of Xylazine.

And with me also, I'm very honored to have is Marica Cole, who is a mom and an advocate for addressing drug related death. I appreciate you both for being here.

Thank you. Both your witnesses will share five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Ashby, and good morning, Members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. As Senator Ashby mentioned, my name is Dr. Grant Miller. I am the Regulatory Director at the California Veterinary Medical Association.

But I also happen to be a practicing equine veterinarian of 20 years here in California. And we're very grateful to Senator Ashby for her thoughtful consideration of this Bill and her work on this important topic.

We believe that SB 6 is a very aggressive measure to move California in the right direction to protect our community from Xylazine diversion but balancing the important access to the drug that we need as veterinarians. So, as Senator Ashby mentioned, this drug really has a sole purpose of sedating animals that weigh thousands of pounds.

I can take one small cc of the drug, which is like 1 milliliter, it would be essentially like if you just dumped your cup into your hand, one little drop, and I can take a horse down to its head to the ground within about two minutes of giving this drug. I commonly use it, actually.

It's probably one of the top five or six drugs I use on a routine basis to provide really predictable and reliable sedation to my animals, to my patients.

And I use it oftentimes if I'm suturing a wound that I need to numb and clean, or if I'm doing dental work on them. They don't voluntarily open their mouths for us. And so, this drug really renders them basically incapacitated. It provides incredible pain control and really predictable sedation.

But again, it's an extremely powerful drug and really meant to be used in livestock, in horses, and in some instances, for animal control officers to subdue a wild animal through tranquilization in the field. So, I am very appreciative of your consideration of this Bill.

We, the veterinarians, feel that we can put this drug under lock and key with great ease. We already have controlled drug protocols that we use for other drugs. And this would be one that we, as the profession, would be happy to join the lift in keeping it under better control and trying to help avoid any diversion.

So, I really thank you for your consideration and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Marica Cole, and I believe that Xylazine should be restricted to the access to the general public. By buying this online, it makes it very, very dangerous for people like my son who was autistic and conserved that was killed by carfentanil, which is another large animal tranquilizer that is not restricted to the public.

One of the things that we're finding is that by cutting this into fentanyl, Xylazine is cheap. It's a way for people to put profit over human beings. And that's what's happening on the streets. A lot of people are being affected by it and dying by it. And the chaos on the streets have to stop.

The restriction must happen because without that, there are going to be more deaths. So, we know that it's extremely dangerous. You can go down in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, wherever, and you will see people in a zombie-like state. And that's how dangerous. They don't know what it is they're getting.

Some of them just want—it's highly addictive, so, so they're looking for something, but nobody deserves to die. Nobody deserves to be introduced to something that's highly illegal, illegal, but is for medicinal use for veterinarians. It needs to be restricted. It really does.

And a lot of people think that by scheduling these types of chemicals in these drugs, the goal isn't to incarcerate the people that are using it. This is incarcerating—possible incarceration—for people who already have to go through the court system to justify why they had it and why they're peddling it and why they're using it.

What they're using it for, why they ordered it.

You have 10 seconds.

So, it gives law enforcement the tools to stop the drug trafficking. It really does. By scheduling this—by scheduling Xylazine.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public in support, please step up to the mic. Your organization and your position, please.

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

Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and the other police officer associations listed in the analysis. Thank you.

Good morning. Claire Sullivan, on behalf of the City of Bakersfield, in support. Thank you.

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

Garrett Hamilton, with the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Julia Voris, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Good morning. Daniel Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, in support.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Usha Mutchler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

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

Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition? Please step up. Ma' am, if I can have you scoot over one seat, and we'll have them both sit here. Welcome in and you guys have five minutes to share.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Gray Gardner. I'm the California State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA respectfully opposes this Bill.

We all want our loved ones and communities to be safe and certainly appreciate the intent of this legislation in attempting to reduce overdose death and reduce suffering but adding new substances to the Controlled Substances Act and thus criminalizing more substances does not help with that.

What it does is add more ways to charge people who have already been struggling with substance use disorder. It will lead to arbitrary heightened criminalization and sentencing of people who use drugs without reducing the presence of xylazine in the illicit drug supply.

We know that this will fall on people who are already suffering the most from addiction and poverty, most of whom do not intend, as was stated previously, to possess xylazine and often do not have information about the specific chemical composition of substances that they possess or consume.

Similar efforts to schedule more analogs of fentanyl have only led to the presence of more and increasingly more substances, more potent substances, and have shown no benefit in reducing the presence of fentanyl and similar compounds in the drug supply. We've already seen similar outcomes in states that have moved forward on scheduling xylazine.

Florida, which added xylazine to Schedule 1 in 2018, experienced an increase in the prevalence of xylazine in the drug supply and a doubling of overdose fatalities over the next five years.

We've also heard from academic and addiction medicine experts nationwide who have cautioned against scheduling xylazine and indicated that it will complicate the research process at a time that we need more extensive research on the drug and its impacts.

In December 2023, over 150 experts sent a letter to congressional leaders warning that criminalizing xylazine would disrupt needed research and potentially impact medical practices, and I would note that Congress still has not moved forward on scheduling xylazine. There's just no evidence that placing this substance on the CSA will lead to any scientifically observable benefits.

There's no scientific process underpinning this conclusion that Xylazine should be included in this manner and scheduling should be based on a scientific process. We have solutions to these problems that increase access to care and maintain public safety.

Increasing access to community-based drug checking services, expanding naloxone distribution, building a network of peer outreach and street medicine services, improving access to medication treatment and broadening Good Samaritan laws can all prevent deaths and increase access to services and connection evidence-based substance use disorder treatment.

We need to invest in those health-centered solutions and instead of adding the substance in this manner, even before the Federal Government has moved to add it. So, for all these reasons, we respectfully urge your opposition to this Bill.

All right. Chair and Members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I'm a Legislative Advocate with ACLU California Action. We are in strong opposition to SB 6, which would breathe new life into California spelled War on Drugs by addressing a public health crisis through criminalization.

Just a couple of weeks ago, June 17th, 2025, marked the 54th anniversary of the infamous War on Drugs, endeavored by Richard Nixon. It's one of our most racist and expensive policies of the 20th century.

The ACLU has consistently maintained that attempts to address the public health problem of drug abuse through criminal law are inappropriate and effective, costly, and leads to widespread violations of privacy and other civil liberties. One of the ironies with this proposal is that our existing drug prohibition is largely to thank for Xylazine's increasing part of our drug supply.

Restricting prescription opioids did not end demand for those these opioids. Instead, it just sent people to the underground heroin supply. Crackdowns on heroin led suppliers to produce cheaper, potent, and easily smuggled fentanyl. Harsh fentanyl penalties incentivize fentanyl analogs to flood our markets. When we try to eradicate one drug, a new substance will emerge, and often, it is a drug that has unpredictable effects since many users are not aware of what they are or how strong it is.

And now, history is once again repeating itself. The ACLU implores every policymaker in this room to learn from our past mistakes and to instead move away from an overly punitive system.

We must learn from these failed policies and change our approach, as we have over half a century of data that clearly shows policing people's behavior when concerning these substances only exacerbates the issue purports to resolve. For these reasons, we urge your no vote and are in strong opposition to SB 6. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else on the public opposition—name, organization, position, please.

Danica Adarma on behalf of Law Defense and Initiate Justice, in opposition.

Kean Bliss on behalf of Anti Police Terror Projects, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Daniela Dean on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners of Children. All of us are...opposed.

Alyssa Moore for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, opposed.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee. Committee, any comments, questions?

Yes, I don't have a voice, really. I do and I, I don't have a voice.

Her voice is gone. She has comment.

I'll try my best. I have to say that this is, this is hard for me. It's hard for me to really decide which way I want to go on this because I do agree with opposition when it comes to the over punitive process of this and criminalizing folks that look like me and so many others.

The impact that it will have on barriers to research as we don't know what the research really is as it pertains to humans at this particular time.

And so, I guess for me, in light of what was passed with Prop 36 and the promises that was made for programs and support services, I don't, at this point, from what I'm hearing, I really see this as a way of increasing the potential of more folks being incarcerated instead of doing treatment.

I'm hoping that should this Bill continue to move forward, we figure out another way to make sure people get the help that they need. People want help. Putting them in prison or in jail is not the way to help them. This, in my mind, just from what I'm hearing, it doesn't stop overdoses.

It's not going to stop a number of things. And so, I'm just being candid with all of you that I'm finding this to be very difficult for me to make a decision today because of the fact that anyone who knows me, I'm not a fan of criminalizing my community at all.

I don't know if there's any way, I'm asking the author if there's any way to take some of the information that opposition is saying and really, you know, understanding that it's going to be hard for communities of color, but not just community colors, but those that have addictions there, there's addiction for a number of reasons.

So, what can we do with this Bill to get, I guess to add different types of treatments and just not adding another drug to a list that can truly hurt so many people and actually make some things worse.

What can we do to include a way to work with opposition or some way, shape, or form to get this Bill where it should be?

Well, I would argue that the Bill is in a good spot. But let me just address a couple of the things I think that you're reacting to and responding to, rightfully so. First of all, I wasn't a huge supporter of Prop 36 either for the exact same reasons that you have illustrated.

That being said, right now, this drug, as described by the Veterinarian who uses it on horses, is not illegal at all. It's not illegal to sell. He could sell it if he wanted to. All of you in here, you would die, but he could sell it to you.

So, the examples that these two have used, and they're both wonderful humans and I agree with them on many, many things, but they both gave you examples of Schedule 1 drugs, both in Florida and the drugs that they talked about. And I am not proposing a Schedule 1 drug, as they both know.

I'm Scheduling 3, which means you would not go to prison. Schedule 3 is the lowest rank. But if we don't schedule it, it's not illegal. It has to be illegal. And here's what I would submit to you.

I worked in the Public Defender's Office here in Sacramento County while I was in law school and I dealt with these type of low-level offenses all the time. And you all and the legislators before us have done an incredible job and probably your organization's advocating for it and staff Members like Mr. Ironside have been fighting for drug treatment and rehab and care courts for many years.

So, a person who faces some charge on this, first of all, highly unlikely that this is going to be the only charge they're going to get.

Second of all, if they did have this would make them eligible for all kinds of drug rehab, care court diversion programs, that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for if there wasn't a drug case involved as well.

So, I guess what I'm saying to you is I understand the inclination, and there are several people who spoke today, the inclination to say just stop criminalizing drugs. I don't quite agree with that though, because if we can't make it illegal, then we can't really address it. I do agree. This is not—it doesn't warrant Schedule 1.

It is not like heroin. It is not like some of the things that have been described to you here today. It can, however, kill you. And what's that? It will kill you.

And you know, here's the other thing. I would say we need to make it really clear to people who are dealing this drug that it is not intended for Marica's son, who's now no longer in our world because of something exactly like this, a veterinary drug cut into fentanyl to make the high last longer. He is gone.

We have to do everything in our power to prevent these very dangerous drugs intended for elephants and giraffes and horses and things that weigh a thousand pounds to not end up in the system of young men in our communities.

So, I would submit to you that the one person sitting in front of you today as a witness, as you described it, Assemblywoman, that is from a black and brown community, is the one whose son is deceased as a result of this drug and other drugs like it not being illegal.

So, I would ask you to strongly consider it. And if you can't do it today, I understand. I'm happy to meet with you after this Committee, should this Bill make it out of this Committee. I face you again on the Assembly floor and would hope that you would really think about it.

But I do think the fact that it is Schedule 3 and not Schedule 1 should give you some measure of consideration that it is not intended to incarcerate additional individuals, but rather, intended to identify a drug issue, make that drug illegal, and serve the people of our state. Only if the Chair allows you to.

Assemblymember, do you have any more questions?

I did have another response, but it's okay to respond. Go ahead.

You want the veterinarian?

Yes.

Assemblymember, thank you. Thank you for the latitude. Assemblymember, a point of clarification, Xylazine is not an addictive drug. Xylazine—meaning that I can give the same dose of xylazine to a horse 100 times and achieve the exact same effect in the horse all 100 times. That's contrary to opioids, which the body becomes addicted.

So, the mechanism by which an opioid works in the body is that you have to take more and more and more of it to chase that high, right? With Xylazine, that's not the case.

So, it isn't the type of drug that somebody says, I need this, I need more of it to feel the way I want to feel. A rehab is not going to help somebody kick an addiction to Xylazine because they don't become addicted to xylazine.

Most of the time, Xylazine is put into these fentanyl products without them even knowing it. And you know, the vial, it comes in a 100cc vial. From our research, in the small research, that's been done in the fentanyl-xylazine combination, a 100cc vial could kill everybody in this room. Can kill upwards of 50 people.

If that's not a drug that should be under lock and key, I don't know what is. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is that okay?

We're good.

Thank you both for talking a little bit more about the Bill. And I do want to say that I am truly sorry for your loss. I really am sorry for your loss. As we continue to move forward in this state and as voters have voted for 36, it is, it is what it is.

I truly ask us, though, as we continue to move forward to push forth legislation that when we're talking about things such as this and we want to really help people, you say that this is supposed to help them get rehab care, coordinate, and diversions.

But as we know, the funding is not where it probably should be to help to get that done. We don't have the capacity to get it done. There's a lot of things that come into play to keeping the promise again, that's being stated here, that if we do this, this could help here.

I just need us to do a better job and me being elected here, too. We collectively have to do a better job of making sure that we do keep the promise and provide treatment and get it there so people can get the care that they need.

Because I'm tired of having these same conversations when we know that it's going to hurt our people either way on both sides. No one's winning in this situation. Now, I wish that we can come up with a better way to address this.

Your words has been helpful, so I'm still going to process in this moment until he calls for the vote. I'm just not a fan of the way we do things right now as it pertains to servicing our people. And we, we collectively, y'all, we have to do a better job collectively of getting this right.

Thank you for, thank you for...

Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to appreciate all the efforts from the author, the supporting witnesses, and obviously, ma'am, just echo my, my colleague from San Diego's comments. You know, gutted by your loss and appreciate you being here and it's very powerful to hear from you and appreciate the opposition.

I don't think anyone can disagree with your, your opinion. And I do think that for us up here, you know, we only have so many tools to try to address these issues and we want to save lives. I think that's the point of this Committee. It's the point of the Legislature.

And I do think that we have an imperfect system in addressing these issues. And I think that Senator Sharp-Collins made a lot of good points. I do think that the author also made some great points in that this is a multipronged approach that we need to take.

And obviously, we need to invest more in behavioral services and addiction services. And this isn't a panacea or a silver bullet. But I do think that we need to do something to curb the supply. And I do think that the supply of this substance is a problem. It's killing people.

I do think that the data that we see in Florida and other states, I don't know, maybe, maybe the deaths and maybe the negative consequences would have been higher if they hadn't have actually acted on it.

I mean, so we have to be careful of saying, well, even after they made it a controlled substance, death still went up and use went up. Well, yes, but in the, in the counterfactual that we have no idea what that would be.

I have no doubt that use would have still gone up and deaths still would have gone up, right? So, we need to be careful as to correlation causation and how we use statistics. And to the point about we don't have a scientific basis to make this judgment.

I don't know what a scientific basis looks like other than significant amount of deaths and usage are occurring every year and we see the outcomes of, of tranq use. You have to amputate, in certain cases, limbs from very few uses of it. That seems pretty scientific to me that this is a very dangerous substance.

And to the extent that suppliers and dealers are openly taking advantage of our communities, the same communities as Assemblymember Sharp-Collins talked about, it's incumbent on us to do something. And until we decriminalize all drugs and until we fully fund our behavioral health system and drug addiction treatment centers, we need to curb the supply.

I don't want to see a bunch of users who actually need the help be incarcerated, put into our criminal justice system. I think that is a negative consequence of this.

And I will fully admit that I would love to see a system in which we can just go after dealers, just go after suppliers, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law because they're taking advantage of innocent people and they're making money off of folks. Our witness's son is a good example of it.

But we don't have the ability to unfortunately do that.

I mean, I would call upon our law enforcement partners, many of whom are here. You go into LA County, you go into any major city, open drug dealing on the streets, open drug dealing, whether it's tranq, whether it's fentanyl, whether it's a lot of different substances, and our law enforcement partners are not doing enough to actually arrest dealers, prosecute them, and actually try to curb the supply.

So, whether it's tranq or any other substance, I would call upon all of us to do more in actually bringing some consequences in funneling illicit drugs into our communities. And I think this is part of that.

And so, while I do agree that this is tough, I don't think this is a perfect way of addressing the problem. I think we have to do something. Again, I don't think the answer is we just don't do anything.

Because until we have a system in which we totally revamp the way that we view drugs, and that would be all drugs are legal, all of them are dispensed from a dispensary or some sort of pharmacy, we're not there.

And until we get there, we need to make sure that people actually have some consequences for supplying our communities with very harmful substances just as this. So, I will support it today. I'm going to move the Bill and appreciate the discussion we had today.

Anyone else? Mr. Lackey.

I think this is really an important discussion and I think what's kind of getting lost here is the fact that trying to schedule this substance recognizes the misuse of this substance, whether it leads to incarceration, treatment. That's kind of a different—how it's applied is not prescribed in what you proposed.

That's true.

All you've proposed is that we recognize it as a controlled substance. And I think, how can you argue against that? This is an animal tranquilizer and this is not an addictive substance. It's used for a different purpose. It's usually not even used by itself.

It's usually used as an enhancement to increase the impact or like a synergistic impact of a substance. And so, this should not even be debatable that it should be controlled. That's all that this Bill does. And so, I'm clearly happy to support common sense. Thank you. Sure. I'll second the motion.

A second. So, I will—I'll end on this part, and I'll have you close, Senator. Things that were brought up as far as law enforcement.

So, as everybody may know, I was prior law enforcement, and I had a Bill a couple years ago where we—that passed—that I wanted to know where tranq was, as far as overdoses go. And so, making sure that when the autopsies were, that we can actually find out the numbers.

Going back to the comment that you made with us weaving all of our laws together, not one will fix it, but together we can all accomplish at least a big chunk of that. Another thing is it's hard to enforce laws when there's a drug out on the streets that I can't enforce.

So, by doing this, this will help law enforcement do that. This is something we brought up a couple years ago with tranq.

This is something I brought up right here in this room that we had the opportunity to make that illegal at the time, instead of chasing it, always chasing, always changing, and chasing the new drugs that come onto the market. And we're going to continue to do this.

There's something that we don't even know of yet that we're going to be talking about in a year or two from now.

I look at this just like with any other crimes that we never even thought were going to be on the books, that had to do with like let's say Internet crimes, you know. 20 plus years ago we had no idea we even have like an Internet crimes or AI, stuff like that.

So, we need to evolve, and we need to address those issues as it goes. And I think that's what this Bill does.

I'm, I'm happy that you brought this forward and I know there are some concerns from some of our Committee Members and rightfully so, but I think they need to understand that the intent that you have with this is with a good heart, making sure that people get the help that they need, and making sure that we continue to keep our public safe.

And by doing that, we have to give those tools to law enforcement to do that. And so, with that, I'll have you close. But prior to that, the Chair has a non reco on this and you may close.

Yeah. Thank you so much. And you know, thank you to the opposition and to the Members who spoke so eloquently. Everybody who participates in this process makes the bills better and more effective to help achieve the goal we all ultimately want to achieve, which is helping people in California. Assemblymember Harabedian couldn't be more right.

I don't propose to have the one solution. I'm just a Senator, just one piece. As Assemblymember Alanis said, it's one part of a woven solution. We need our care courts, we need drug programming, we need behavioral services, but we also need to give tools. And I have elected the lowest level of schedule possible for a lethal drug.

But don't take it from me. I'm just the Senator. I don't have the same experience as the two sitting next to me. I can't imagine the weight of wearing my son's picture around my neck every day and spending my days advocating for fewer drugs to be on the streets killing other people's kids.

I thank Marica from the bottom of my heart for driving across our city today to come and sit here with us and tell her story.

I also thank a veterinarian who probably never in a million years, when he went to vet school, thought he'd be sitting in a Public Safety Committee in the California State Capitol begging a bunch of legislators to make illegal a drug that he uses regularly because he knows how lethal it is. Don't take my word for it.

I'm not an expert. I did not lose my son. And I do not put horses to sleep every day to try to work on them. These two do. And they are imploring you to make xylazine a Schedule 3 drug to make it illegal in the State of California because it is lethal. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please take roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Congratulations.

Thank you. Awesome. Thank you.

Next we have item number two. There's also SB 11. When your witnesses are ready, you may start.

I'm gonna go ahead and start. They can make their way up here because I know you have a very busy schedule. This is. First of all, thank you colleagues too. On SB 6, I'm here to present AI Abuse Protection Act, which establishes a legal framework for regulating artificial intelligence, voice, image, and video cloning technology.

The rise of artificial intelligence presents an opportunity for innovation in a variety of industries across California. It's actually quite exciting. However, the lack of a comprehensive legal framework for addressing deep fakes and non consensual images is beyond troubling. It leaves individuals vulnerable to various forms of exploitation, identity theft, scams, misinformation and misrepresentation of character.

Unfortunately, this technology has disproportionately impacted women and young girls, though not exclusively through the creation of sexually explicit photos and videos, often shared online and on platforms. In one well known case, pornographic AI generated images created of Taylor Swift gained over 45 million views on social media in under one day.

A similar instance occurred with singer songwriter Billie Eilish. Of deep fake videos found on the internet, 95% are sexually explicit and feature women who did not consent to their creation.

While some deep fakes target public figures, easily accessible AI software allows users to create non consensual content featuring anyone. SB 11 addresses the misuse of AI technology by establishing guardrails as follows, clarifying the existing definition of likeness to include AI content, requiring consumer warnings on AI software, establishing violations for the misuse of AI technology and preventing AI generated evidence tampering in courts.

The bill provides a balanced approach to AI regulation while providing remedies for victims of AI abuse, remedies not currently available in the State of California, but critically important to our maintaining AI regulations as we move forward. Colleagues, I ask for your I vote today and with me to testify.

I have actually an expert in this field, Steve Wimmer, who is an AI developer and tech expert from Transparency Coalition. Appreciate him being here with me today.

Honorable chair and members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. My name is Steve Wimmer and I'm here today on behalf of the Transparency Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring artificial intelligence is developed and deployed in a way that promotes safety, transparency, and the public good. I'm here in strong support of SB 11.

In short, in expanding on what Senator Ashby has already said, this legislation protects people from harm. Harm resulting from the creation and misuse of AI generated digital replicas. Harm that can impact our kids, our loved ones, our reputations and our livelihoods.

Coupled with the deep analysis of the rules of evidence, the impact of SB 11 is one of great safety and trust of AI at a time when it is needed most.

We have been, as you know, at a critical legislative juncture, and I'm referring to the recent attempts in Washington to place a moratorium on the enforcement of state level AI legislation. To be clear, and many policy experts would agree, this would have had a far reaching negative impact on public welfare and safety.

States have always been the laboratories of democracy, and in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, state leadership, California's leadership, is now more important than ever.

By passing SB 11, you're not only protecting Californians from some very specific misuses of AI, but you are also sending a powerful message to the nation that thoughtful, specific, targeted regulation is not the enemy of innovation but its essential partner.

You're demonstrating that regardless of what happens in Washington, we can and must continue to address the potential harms of AI without hindering its promise. I urge you to continue California's leadership in this space. I strongly urge you and respectively urge you to pass SB 11. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the public that wants to show the support, name, organization and position, please.

Morning. My name is Renee Jo with the Center for AI Digital Policy in support.

California Civil Liberties Advocacy in support. Oh, Matty Hyatt. Sorry.

Good morning, chair and members. Colin Samuel with Brownstein on behalf of Chamber of Progress in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Good morning. Connor Gusman on behalf of SAG AFTRA in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Hearing and seeing none, opposition? Do we have any opposition? Please come up. Have a seat. You have five minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce here today. We currently have an oppose unless amended position for SB 11 and have provided proposed amendments to the author for her consideration.

Our opposition is not with the author's underlying intent and purpose of the measure, but rather with the need for some clarity. Our proposed amendments would do three things. First, clarify that the bill applies to those applications publicly available to consumers which are specifically designed to create digital replicas.

Narrowing those applications that are specifically marketed ensures that the bill applies to tools that are designed explicitly to create realistic digital imitations of people's faces, voices, or likenesses and which advertise or highlight these replica capabilities rather than sweeping in general purpose AI tools that can technically be used to create replicas but do not explicitly market that as a core function because they have other use cases.

This amendment would also remove the required consumer warning from B2B interactions. A B2B use case for digital replicas is scalable personalized communication and content creation, especially in areas like training, customer service or marketing.

For example, creating a digital replica of the company's real chief training officer and using it in internal onboarding videos to introduce company culture, compliance policies, and safety training. Second, clarify the warning would be for any unlawful use rather than the ambiguous misuse in the current bill.

And lastly, remove the obligation for DCA to draft the warning while leaving them as the enforcement authority as well as reducing the penalty to not exceed 5,000 per violation. We appreciate the senator's patience as we work to provide her amendments and look forward to that continued conversation.

All right. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Align our comments with the chamber and appreciate the ongoing conversation with the author's office.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn to the committee. Committee, any questions or comments? Assemblywoman Nguyen.

Thank you. I'm just wondering, senator, if you can address some of the comments that were made by opposition.

Sure. But thank you for the question, assemblywoman. So, first of all, appreciate the chamber and TechNet for their concerns. We've had ongoing dialogues, and we'll keep going. We just haven't agreed on language yet. Their chief complaint is around the labeling requirement and some of the fines and fees associated with the bill.

And I want to be sure that any labeling requirement that we would modify doesn't create a loophole that would weaken the bill and allow for more deep fakes online, particularly because we are talking primarily, at least 95% of those are online, about protecting women whose images are being used for pornographic reasons.

I want to make sure it's as strong as possible, but I do understand their concern. Continue to be in, in strong dialogue with them.

Thank you. No others? Okay. The chair has a I reco, and I will have you close.

Respectfully ask for an I vote.

Madam Secretary, please take the roll for item two.

SB 11 by Senator Ashby. The motion is do pass to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

[roll call]

Thank you, colleagues.

That measure is on call.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, senator. All right, looks like we have some open spaces here.

All right, we're going to do consent calendar. For the proposed consent calendar, we have SB 380 Jones and SB 423 Smallwood-Cuevas.

On the consent calendar. Schultz. Alanis.

Hold on one second. Can I get a motion for that, please? Thank you.

Apologies. For the consent calendar.

[roll call]

Okay, we'll wait till after we take a break. Do we have add ons? Okay, we'll do add ons, too. We'll do some cleanup. Madam Secretary.

Item one, SB 6 was just heard. Item two, SB 11 is on call. Item three, SB 19 by Senator Rubio.

[roll call]

That major passes.

For item four, SB 248 by Senator Rubio. This measure was on calls.

[roll call]

A measure now passes.

Item 5380, still waiting to be adopted on consent. Item 6, SB 423, still waiting to be adopted on consent. Item 7, SB 431, still waiting to be heard. Item 8, SB 524, still waiting to be heard. Item 9, SB 690, still waiting to be heard. Item 10, 692, still waiting to be heard. Item 11, SB 701.

This motion was heard on testimony only. And it needs a motion and a second.

And a motion and a second.

Item 11, SB 701 by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.

[roll call]

The measure will remain on call.

Item 12, SB 759 by Senator Archuleta. Schultz. Haney. Lackey. Lackey, I. For item 13, SB 820. That measure is still waiting to be heard. For item 14, SB 834, by Senator Durazo. This motion. This measure was testimony only and needs a second motion in a second.

Anybody want a motion, a second? Durazo. Item 14.

834.

Have a motion and a second.