Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Thank you, committee assistant Porter, for your initiative in creating books for us today. That's for those of you in the audience. That's a big deal for us. All right, so we're going to begin. We'll come to order. Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. We're holding this Committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street Building.

As folks who are frequent observers of this Committee will note, we're starting in the morning today. We, if necessary, will reconvene at 1:30.

The plan today is we will adjourn about noon for our respective caucuses, then return about 1:30 or 13:30 for your military types. I would ask that all members who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee present themselves. I'm going to unfortunately have to leave in a little while to go back to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Some housekeeping notes, AB 395 by assembly member Gabriel, AB 334 by assembly member Petrie Norris and file item 25 AB 498 by assembly member Michelle Rodriguez were going to be heard today but have been moved to out July 15th hearing. Congratulations because we need more bills because July 15th we don't want to be bored.

So I'm going to read now the items that are on the consent calendar. I want to note that a bill previously listed on the consent calendar has been pulled from the consent calendar and we will actually be hearing the bill today. That bill is File item number 29 AB 1363 by assembly member Stephanie.

We have 13 bills on consent today. They are as file number 3 AB 774 by assembly member Bar Cahan, file number 7 AB 651 by assembly member Brian, File number 12 AB 961 by assembly member Avila Farias Filem number 13 A.B. 1155 by Assembly Member Fong Filem number 15 A.B. 91 by Assembly Member Harabedian Filemum number 18 A.B.

1033 by asembly member Lackey. File number 21 AB 1510 by assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee. File number 23 AB 561 by assembly member Quirk-Silva with amendments. File number 24 AB 1390. 1387. AB 1387 by assembly member Quirk-Silva. File number 26 AB 1378 by assembly member Rogers. File number 27 AB

987 by assembly member Sharpe Collins. File number 28 AB 824 by assembly member Stephanie. And file item number 33 AB 418 by assembly member Wilson. All right, so the ground rules today are the same as we have had for the last, say, five years or so. For each bill, there will be two witnesses in support permitted.

Each of those witnesses shall have two minutes, in other words, four minutes in total for the support side. After the support witnesses testify, by the way, you don't have to have two witnesses, but if you do, they each get two minutes.

Then those who are here to support the various bills can report to the microphone and provide us their name, their affiliation and their position on the bill. After the support side testifies both the primary and MeToos, then the opposition will testify. Same rules, two minutes for each of the two primary witnesses. Plus so called MeToo testimony.

Name, position and affiliation. We're going to begin today as a subcommitee. I see senator Smallwood-Cuevas is here. And so we will begin with senator Smallwood-Cuevas. That is file item number one. Senator, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Senators. I'm proud to present the Senate Concurrent Resolution 89, which reaffirms the California Legislature's commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. DEI as a foundational piece of our commitments to justice, fairness, democratic participation and liberty. It is core.

SCR89 affirms that DEI principles rooted in the Constitution and in our civil rights legacy are essential to ensuring government serves all people, not just the powerful. And we say this at a time when democracy itself is under attack.

Across the country, we are witnessing coordinated efforts to dismantle DEI programs, to silence public servants, to erase the progress we fought for, often under the false banner of neutrality, of merit. That backlash is reaching California, too. At least 10 DEI initiatives in our state have already been scaled back or eliminated.

Lawsuits, misinformation and fear are forcing institutions to retreat from our equity work. And at the federal level, Executive orders targeting DEI have created sweeping uncertainty and financial harm, threatening billions in grant funding, academic research, workforce development, investments, all tied to inclusive practice.

But while other states turn back, California continues to lead Executive order in 1622 to equity integration efforts in both houses of this Legislature, we've taken real steps to embed fairness, inclusion and accountability into how our government operates. DEI is not performative.

It's not about breaking down the structural barriers that block opportunity, especially for black, brown, immigrant, LGBTQ women and low income communities. It's also about protecting the educators, the health workers, our public employees and advocates who are all too often targeted for advancing truth and justice in our institutions. And the evidence is clear.

While disparities still exist, California's economy grew to become the fifth. From the fifth largest economy in the world to the fourth largest. After implementing many of these equity centered programs, that is proof that we don't have to choose between growth and equity. We can and must do both.

With me to testify today are Lakeisha is Lakeisha Watkins from the Black Women for Wellness Action Project.

Ms. Watkins, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Chair Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak today. Just a correction, my name is Lakeisha Camise and I proudly represent Black Women for Wellness and Black Women for Wellness Action Project. We are here to express our unequivocal support for SER89.

This measure not only affirms California values and commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, but it also shows that these are principles that are foundational to a thriving, just and prosperous society. Since its inception, California has been a beacon of progress and a model for inclusive governance.

With over 70% of its population identifying as people of color, California's strength lies in its diversity. Upholding DEI is not some trend. It's an obligation to the communities that power this state.

From the tech hubs of the Bay Area to the cultural richness of Los Angeles, DEI policies ensure that talent from every corner of our state is recognized, respected and supported. If I can quote the successful serial entrepreneur Mark Cuban, he said diversity is good for business. It's not just a slogan. It's backed by Research.

In 2020, the McKinsey Report founded that companies in the top quartile for ethnic and cultural diversity outperformed their less diverse counterparts more by 36% in profitability. DEI enhances innovation, performance and decision making across sectors. We all watch the news, we've watched the media and we saw across this nation this aggressive backlash against DEI programs.

So it's not just political, it's personal. We recently seen that nonprofits are scaling back their DEI programs due to funding losses and fear of political retribution. Minority owned businesses and organizations.

Thank you. If you could conclude. Thank you.

Yes. Yes. Black Women for Wellness and Black Women for Wellness Action projects have longstanding, unwavering commitment to dei. We know our communities are stronger, our policies are smarter and. And our futures are brighter when everyone is included. We strongly urge your support for Ser 89.

Are there. Is there another primary witness? No. Are there others? I hear that support or me too? Is there a primary witness in. Are there others in support? Do I see people approaching the microphone?

Good morning. Andy Mason from cleanearth4kids.org in support of SCR89. There are several me toos supporting this as well. North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps and the Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice. Thank you. Thank you.

Tasia Stevens, on behalf of Catalyst California, in strong support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing none come forward. Is there a primary witness in opposition? Are there others in opposition? Seeing none come forward. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author. We have an extraordinary history of diversity in this state, and it's always been for the better of the country, of the state as well as the country. So I'm very, very proud of that.

And we need to continue to show off and really remind people of what part of what makes California. A big part of what makes California so great is the diversity. So I want to thank the author. And so many practical things are connected to dei Access to health care and the best health care.

Well, that's good for everybody. Language access. That's good for everybody because a more informed and inclusive community, we're a stronger democracy. So I want to thank the witness and thank you. I think this is a really good and timely reminder of what California is all about.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, you may close. We obviously do not have a quorum. There will be a motion at the appropriate time, I'm sure, but please feel free to close.

And I want to thank the good Senator for her comments and I want to thank the witnesses and those who support this bill. This is about California taking a stand. We're taking a stand in our diversity. We're taking a stand in our commitments to inclusion.

And knowing that DEI means real profits, real opportunity, real ideas and innovation that spring from the diversity across every sector. To turn our backs on diversity would be turning our backs on what California is all about and turning our backs on her people.

And we know now more than ever we need to stand with all Californians from all backgrounds, from all creeds, colors, against what is happening in our state. And we know that DEI is a foundational principle that gives us the power to do so. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, and let's see, our next bill is AB 1348, assembly member Bains. Do we have any other authors here? Appears we are at a standstill. If there are any authors to present in Senate Judiciary Committee available, please come on down. Also invite all members of the Judiciary Committee to come on down it.

Assembly member Bains, you may come up right away. You may proceed with AB 1348 when ready.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Chair and members. The Trump Administration is trying to erase immigrants from public spaces, and they are intent on using children to do it. The only reason to instruct ICE to operate around schools, playgrounds and daycares is to use children as bait to deport their parents. The sad truth is these tactics seem to be working.

In the wake of immigration raids, schools in the Central Valley have reported absences rates 22% above normal. Some charter schools in Los Angeles report absence rates eclipsing 30%. Not surprisingly, the biggest jump in absences is happening with the youngest students who are too young to walk to school alone.

Simply put, when parents worry that dropping their kids off at school might result in deportation, they don't go. When attendance drops, funding disappears. And when funding disappears, all students suffer. Regardless of immigration status. AB 1348 gives us a choice.

Voting no on this bill means we believe our schools deserve to lose funding because our representatives in Washington have failed to fix the broken immigration system. Voting yes on this bill means that regardless of your stance on immigration, you do not believe school funding should be caught in the crossfire.

And I'm asking for your support on AB 1348 today because our schools should not be made casualties in the political war they did not start and cannot end.

Do you have any witnesses?

Yes, she does. Yes. My name is Xavier. I'm representing the California Charter Schools Association. Want to thank the author for ensuring that charter schools are included in this important bill and also say that we strongly support this bill. Every child in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, has a constitutionally protected right to public education.

Fewer students in these classrooms due to fears of immigration enforcement means less funding for schools. This funding pays for teachers, counselors, and essential programs. When classrooms are empty, both educational outcomes and the student operations suffer. As advocates and educators and policymakers, it's our job to make sure that these students can learn in a safe environment.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 1348. Thank you.

Thank you. Primary witness? Yes. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members and staff, Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, in strong support of this bill for all the reasons stated so well by the author and previous witness.

We would just add that we think the bill is an important measure to align current law with the disturbing reality that we now face of a Federal Government that has declared war on our schools, on our daycares, on our communities, on our homes, on all the places and people that make our communities and cities what they are.

For the simple reason, well, for two reasons really, one so that they can get rid of people that they don't like, but also to create fear.

And it's that fear that's at the heart of this bill, where parents and students make the very logical, very defensible decision to not go to school because of the risk that they'll face some sort of violent kidnapping at the result of. At the hands of masked, unidentified people.

And so our school system is set up such that they lose funding. When that happens, when kids don't go to school for whatever reason, the schools lose funding. They can't do what they do as well as they could before, except for one of a list of specifically enumerated conditions, things like snowstorms and epidemics.

The schools don't lose funding for that. We see this as in the same category as those. You can still go to school in a snowstorm or an epidemic, but it might not be a very good idea. It might be too dangerous for it to make sense. And that's exactly where we are right now.

For a lot of our fellow Californians, it doesn't make sense to go to school given the dangers that they face. So this adds this condition to that list. But it also creates an additional circumstance where the students still have to have their constitutionally protected right to an education method.

They do still have to have access to some sort of synchronous education so that they can learn as they need to, so they can still be going to school, which then places additional demands on our members as both teachers and classified workers.

They still have to keep doing everything that they're doing, in some cases more of it, because the students are no longer physically there. So we think it's a sensible reform, one that makes a lot of sense and helps fight some of that fear that's being created by the Federal Government. And we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to the MeToo testimony. Those in favor, come to the microphone.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, serving and supporting 80 school districts and approximately. 2 million children throughout the county in strong support of the bill.

Good morning, Panarea Abdis representing the California Community Foundation, in support of.

Good morning. Mr. Vice Chair and Senator, Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda, also in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Recal Morales on behalf of Ed Trust West, in support.

Good morning. Cooper Kenney on behalf of San Francisco Unified School Districts, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senator, Adam Keglin on behalf of California LULAC and Alliance College Ready Public Schools in support.

Other witnesses in sport. My name is Tim Porteus. I'm here for my wife. She's a preschool teacher and they are scared and afraid because they cannot protect the children from watching these things happen, please support it.

Others in support. Seeing no witnesses coming forward. Is there a primary witness in opposition? Are there any people here otherwise in opposition? Seeing none come forward. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Durazo, thank you.

Thank the author very much for and all the supporters who were here. Could you just very briefly explain how the adjustment would be made in the ADA so that we make sure that the funding is getting and if you have any rough estimate of the kind of funding that is involved in this.

So we were told there was a estimate given. I will get that information to you.

So this will allow schools to be able to sign up currently right now as was stated by one of the people at the witnesses was that currently right now as a school, if there is a disaster like a snowstorm or flood, they can apply for funding because of that day students were not in.

This adds immigration raids to that list so, schools will be able to apply for that funding.

Yeah, I ask because the impact of the raids isn't necessarily just where a raid takes place. And so I think as one witness talked about, the fear is this goes way beyond the places, the individual places where a raid has taken place.

So I don't want our kids to be left out of the funding that they need because they weren't the specific target that day of a particular place. So, I just want to make sure that more broadly we define what the impact that it's having on our kids.

Thank you so much, Senator Aza, for those comments. This bill was inspired by me seeing the impact to my local district, especially in rural areas, that funding is really, really critical to keeping schools open.

This was really important and we saw, as I had stated, 22% absences specifically in my district district and this is a necessary first step and I think as we progress and we seeing more and more fear being elevated in our communities, there's going to be more that needs to be done. So I agree with you.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you. You may close.

Thank you so much to everyone that showed up in support. Thank you so much for the support from this committee and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And I'm sure at the appropriate time we'll receive a motion and vote on it when we have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. And I see Assemblyman Bennett is here for AB 506. You may proceed.

Thank you. Thank you very much and good morning, Mr. Chair and Senator. My I'm going to ask my witnesses to come up right now. And either way, because we've had a problem with pets and unscrupulous breeders, we've solved it at the physical stores in California. But we still have a problem online.

And rather than repeating what my great witnesses are going to say, I'm going to have my two witnesses great ahead and present their testimony. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And my first witness is Brittany Benisi and she's with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals.

Thank you Assemblymember Bennett. Thank you Vice Chair and Senator, for the time this morning. As highlighted in the LA Times investigation release this fall, misleading marketing tactics, predatory financial behaviors and gaps in regulations are allowing online pet sellers to take advantage of California consumers.

Allowing puppy mills, a predatory industry that makes cruel breeding conditions profitable by misleading consumers with wholesome images and minimal information to continue to reach Californians at a time when California shelters are overflowing with adoptable puppies, including purebred puppies, Kittens, dogs and cats.

AB506 is a key part of the three bill package led by Assemblymember Bennett, Chair Umberg and Assemblymember Berman. Focused on closing the final valves of the puppy mill pipeline in California. This bill seeks to address those who manipulate, obfuscate and take advantage of the emotional anticipation that comes with finding a new pet.

Prohibiting non refundable deposits, requiring basic information be shared and offering legal recourse for those taken advantage of. Large pet broker sites currently require exorbitant non refundable deposits from consumers before they even know who the breeder is or where they come from.

If a consumer learns the source of an animal and has concerns, their only choices are to move forward or lose their deposit. These practices not only allow puppy mills to reach California, but also encourages irresponsible breeding and online scams which according to the Better Business Bureau may account for up to 80% of pet sales currently online.

By requiring that sellers disclose the source of an animal when known, provide available vet records and and by prohibiting non refundable deposits, we can address these predatory behaviors and ensure that consumers have legal avenues for relief. Thank you to Assemblymember Bennett and to the Committee for your Time. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning Vice Chair Niello and Senator Durazo. My name is Jennifer Fearing. I'm here on behalf of San Diego Humane Society. We're a private nonprofit animal shelter serving 13 municipalities in San Diego County with animal care and control services. And we see firsthand the fallout from unethical breeding and deceptive pet sales practices.

We are proud to co sponsor AB506 because it brings essential transparency and accountability to the sale and transfer of dogs, cats and rabbits in California. Every day, shelters like ours encounter animals surrendered by distraught families, many of whom were misled about the health, origin or breeding conditions of a pet they purchased.

Often these animals arrive with severe medical issues that were hidden or undisclosed at the time of sale. Families are left heartbroken and burdened by expensive veterinary bills or forced to surrender their pet to a shelter. AB 506 empowers consumers with clear information about the animal's breeder, USDA license status and health history.

It also prohibits non refundable deposits on contracts, a common tool used by unethical brokers to lock buyers into risky transactions. These reforms directly support public animal shelters by reducing intake from these preventable situations and helping pets stay in homes where they are meant to be be loved.

The Bill holds brokers and sellers to a standard of transparency that our shelters already meet every day because we believe families deserve honesty and animals deserve better. Beginnings. We urge your aye vote on AB506. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in favor? For me too. Testimony.

Good morning Senators. Paul Yoder on behalf of Cal Animals and 200 animal shelters in California in support. Thank you.

Sorry, go ahead. After you.

My name is Tim Porteus. I've known breeders that don't do it correctly. Please help this to work. Thank you.

Hi, Bob Rolling Smith with the American Kennel Club in strong support. Thank you.

Any others in favor? Any others in favor? For MeToo testimony. Is there opposition here? And also for the author. Are you willing to take the amendments that have been offered by the Committee? Yes, I am. Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments, you may close respectfully ask for an aye vote. Great close.

And although based upon the number of authors that we have here, you could take longer if you'd like to. We will receive a motion, I'm sure at the appropriate time. When we have a quorum and take a vote, then we do. We are at. We are wanting for authors again.

If there are any Assembly Members to present a bill or bills to the Judiciary Committee, this would be a great time to show up. It.

To let assemblymember authors that are not here. You could perhaps choose to defer your bill till next week, and we might have some time slots open at about 3am to hear those.

You win the prize.

It's not even 11 and I've won the day. Good morning, afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators. AB 823 would ban the sale of non-rinse off personal care products and cleaning products containing plastic microbeads used as an abrasive to clean, exfoliate or polish personal care products containing plastic litter beginning January 1, 2029.

I introduced AB 823 because it's becoming more apparent the dangers of microplastics. And I wanted to do something to protect our environment and our public health. Plastic pollution is a major problem. Microplastics have been found all over across the earth from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench.

Emerging research is now linking plastic microbeads and microplastics to serious health risks. Microplastics have been found in the lungs, the bloodstream, placental tissue, breast milk, and even the brain, raising serious health concerns such as dementia, hormone disruption, infertility, and cancer affecting the lungs, blood, breasts, prostate, and ovaries. This is also an environmental justice issue.

It disproportionately affects those in communities that don't have access to advanced water treatment. Our I respectfully asked for aye vote. And I have here with me Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste and Allison - oh my gosh. Waliszewski? No, that's like not right - with 5 Gyres Institue. two of the sponsors of the bills.

We only give prizes for arriving to present your bill. We do not give prizes for correctly pronouncing.

Well, thank God, because my last name is difficult for people to pronounce.

Please proceed.

Thank you so much, Chair Umberg and members. My name is Alison Waliszewski, Director of Policy at the Five Gyrus Institute and proud co-sponsor of AB 823. Over a decade ago, California led with AB 888, banning plastic microbeads in rinse off products like toothpaste and facial scrubs. But that law left a major gap.

AB 823 closes the loophole by expanding the ban to include leave on personal care products with intentions added microplastics, cleaning products with plastic abrasives and cosmetics with plastic glitter. If we banned microbeads in rinse off products a decade ago, why are we still allowing them to leach from products that stay on our skin and absorb into our bodies?

In 2019, San Francisco Bay - our researchers, partnered with SFEI to do a study and found that in San Francisco Bay, there are between 14,000 and 2 million plastic particles per square kilometer, and that includes microbeads. These microplastics are found in our drinking water and in our bodies where they release toxic chemicals like PFAS, heavy metals and carcinogens.

There are already safer and widely available alternatives on the market and this bill has broad support and no registered opposition. AB 823 builds on California's leadership on aligns with the state's microplastics strategy and the Safe Drinking Water Act and protects public health and the environment from an entirely preventable, preventable source of pollution.

We can't afford to let microplastics accumulate in our ecosystems or our bodies. We kindly ask for your support in an aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Nick Lapis of California Against Waste. We are also proud co-sponsor of this bill. As Alison said, AB 823 expands the scope of an existing ban on plastic microbeads that the legislature passed in 2015, and Congress subsequently enacted that same year.

At the time, the world was just beginning to learn the scale of the microplastics problem, and the legislature tackled the lowest hanging fruit by focusing on rinse off products, things like toothpaste and body wash where you could see the beads and see them go down the drain.

We've learned a lot since then and the bill expands AB 888 to cover other products that have readily available non plastic alternatives. This committee's jurisdiction is specific to enforcement, so I will very briefly speak on that.

The bill before us today uses the same civil penalty enforcement mechanism from the 2015 law, which is administered by the Attorney General, city attorneys, and county councils. That model worked. It led to near universal compliance, resulted in a shift to safer alternatives and did not burden regulators or courts with endless disputes.

In fact, I'm not aware of any actual penalties or enforcement actions from the 2015 law. This is an easy to enforce low-cost solution to stop an unnecessary source of plastic pollution. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Ocean Conservancy and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, please to support AB 823. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Noah Melroy on behalf of proud co-sponsor Breast Cancer Prevention Partners; I've also been authorized to express support for Rethink Waste, Salinas Valley Recycles, Story of Stuff Project, The Last Plastic Straw, Plastic Pollution Coalition, Skin Owl, and Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kris Raynes for Californians Against Waste as a co-sponsor. Also authorized to give our co-sponsor support on behalf of Clean Water Action and also metoo's for National Stewardship Action Council, Breast Cancer Over Time, FACTS: Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Green Science Policy Institute, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Black Women for Wellness Action Project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Williams with the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Apologies for not getting our letter to the committee in time, but we are in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Senator Durazo; Paul Leota on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and also Stop Waste, in support.

Thank you.

Andy Mason from Clean Earth for Kids in support. Also in support, North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, California Nurses for Environmental Health Justice also mentioned a moment ago, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice and Activist San Diego.

Thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, in support.

Thank you.

Michaela Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OB/GYNS and the Environmental Working Group in support.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support of AB 823? Please approach a microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 823, please queue up. 1,2,3. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing none, would you at the appropriate time?

It sounds like Senator also wishes to move the bill, so would you like to close?

At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

At the appropriate time, that'll happen. Thank you. All right.

Very appropriate.

Thank you. All right. And I see Assemblymember Connolly is here. Yes. So unfortunately, yes. Assemblymember Connolly; gosh, it's been a while. So, Assemblymember Connolly, file item number eight, then file number nine. And then if no one else appears, then Assemblymember Gonzalez. So, all right. Assemblymember Connolly; file item number eight, AB 419.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Pleasure to be here. Pleased to present AB 419 today. This will help our immigrant student community by requiring schools to post the immigration enforcement actions at California school's guidelines for students and families, otherwise known as Know Your Educational Rights.

This guide, developed by the California Attorney General, advises immigrant students and their families of their educational rights and protections under law. The guide outlines what information is required for school enrollment, tools for family safety plans, steps to protect student information and resources to prepare for situations where parents or guardians are detained or deported.

From 2011 until 2025, ICE operated under a policy prohibiting immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, including schools. However, the Trump Administration issued a directive in January rescinding these protections on sensitive locations. Our California students, regardless of their immigration status have the right to a free public education and the confidentiality of their personal information.

Undocumented students and students in mixed status families often already face disadvantages related to language and income, and these struggles are worsened when students are removed from school due to fear of immigration enforcement.

AB 419 will ensure that immigrants, students, and families know what their rights are, what information is required for school enrollment, and what steps they can take to protect their information. Again, every child in California deserves to pursue a public education without fear.

With me to testify and support is Elle Grant, Policy Advocate from the California Alliance for Child and Family Services and Tiffany Mok, Legislative Representative for CFT.

Floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. I'm Elle Grant, here on behalf of the California alliance of Child and Family services. We represent 165 nationally accredited community-based organizations focused on child welfare, juvenile justice, special education and behavioral health.

Our members span all 58 counties and serve over 1 million youth and families each year, engaging closely with local schools.

Our member organizations serve and support immigrant communities and have shared with us the significant disruption that immigration enforcement has caused not only to student attendance and performance, but to children and family's sense of safety and trust. Community spaces that are typically buzzing and full of activity are eerily quiet.

Some families are choosing to live out of their cars over accessing benefits for fear of deportation. Staff have tearfully described the impact they see on their students, families, and colleagues saying when attendance drops in schools, it's more than just empty seats.

It's children not getting meals, not attending counseling appointments, and losing access to safe spaces that buffer them from trauma. These declines will have lasting academic and behavioral health consequences, and we must act urgently to equip students and families with one of our most precious assets information.

Broad access to the Know Your Educational Rights Guide can provide a sense of security for families in otherwise uncertain times, empowering them with knowledge and knowledge of their rights and emergency resources.

The right to a free public education is critical to the success of our communities and AB 419 will help safeguard schools as spaces for children to learn, grow, and just be kids. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other witnesses in support of AB 419.

Hi. Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, we just wanted to echo the second sentiment of the first witness and also note that CFT is committed to promoting high quality education, securing the conditions necessary to learn, and when students have fear, they don't learn well.

And so, this is one simple step we can take to help ensure that students have the best conditions for their learning environment. Thank you so much.

Senators, for this bill in support, Paul Yoder on behalf of the County of Marin and also the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Mr. Chair and senators, Adam Keigwin on behalf of California LULAC, in support.

Mr. Chair, Roger Johnson, Chairman of the Sacramento Area Coalition of Mobile Homeowner Associations, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Valerie Johnson with the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition, in support.

Mr. Chair and members, Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Good morning. Jeannette Zanipatin on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, as well as Chinese for Affirmative Action, in support.

Good morning. Orchidia De Reyes with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARC, and Hispanos Organized for Political Equality, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and we're pleased to support the bill.

Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association, in support.

Tim Porteous. I'm Youngstown Mobile Home Park in Petaluma. Also representing GSMOL, CARA, and SCOMOLA in support. Please.

Thank you. Others in support of AB 419. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to A B419, please approach the microphone saying. Seeing no one approaching. Let's bring it back. committee questions by committee members. Senator Durazo, at the appropriate time, we'll move the bill. Senator Niello has a question.

Quick question. I'm always wary of mandates on having served on a board of supervisors on local governments, and the notice is already required to be sent to the homes. So, I'm wondering why this would be a better notification than actually sending the notice to the homes of students?

I think it's both. So, we certainly want it to be sent home. But the purpose of this bill would also be to ensure that it's on the school site and also on the website of the school locations and the district.

That's better notification than actually sending it to the home?

But it also would be sent to the home. So, I don't know. I guess I'm not following the better. It's both.

Well, the issue is mandating practices on local governments. That can be a bit burdensome. And having to do it three different ways just seems like it's a bit of overkill. And again, the issue isn't the notice itself. The issue is mandating practices on local governments. That always concerns me.

It's noteworthy to me. There's no opposition flagging that issue. In this case, I think given the importance of getting this notification out to folks in a variety of effective ways.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Other questions in address? So, at the appropriate time, I believe we'll move the bill. Would you like to close?

All right, thank you very much. Next file item number nine, AB 806.

Thank you. Chair and members. Proud to present AB 806, which will provide mobile home park residents the right to install cooling systems within their homes and require park owners to maintain reasonable temperature conditions in an indoor common area. California is no stranger to climate change and extreme heat events are on the rise.

As we all know, in 2023, North America experienced the hottest year on record, and a majority of counties within California face consistent temperatures over 100 degrees. Extreme heat results in more deaths in the United States and than all other disasters combined.

Mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat due in large part to the fact that many park leases contain limitations on installing cooling systems. While existing law requires that mobile home park residents have access to heating systems, the same is not currently true for cooling systems. AB 806 aims to change that.

The bill will protect residents by providing them the right to install cooling systems within their homes without facing the threat of eviction and provide a temperate common area within the park when feasible during extreme heat events.

Our mobile home park residents deserve to have access to cooling in their homes and parks without facing the threat of eviction. I will now pass it off to my witnesses, Caitlin Vibey, representing Legal Aid of Sonoma County, and Fred Olabak, a mobile home park resident from Santa Rosa.

Alrighty. Thank you. The floor is yours.

Chair and Committee Members appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of AB806. I'm Caitlin Vibey. I'm a Policy Analyst at Legal Aid of Sonoma County. Our organization provides free legal services to low income and vulnerable residents in our county.

AB 806 responds to the urgent and growing need to protect the 1.6 million Californians living in mobile home parks throughout the state from the threat of extreme heat, which we know is becoming more frequent, more severe and more dangerous.

Extreme heat disproportionately impacts low-income individuals, seniors, people with disabilities, and those with health or mobility challenges, many of whom live in mobile home parks. In fact, three quarters of all mobile homes are located in inland areas in the state that experience the highest temperatures.

And research shows that mobile home residents are up to eight times more likely to die from exposure of indoor heat than residents who live in any other type of housing. But despite this, we continue to see some park owners block residents from installing even the most basic cooling.

Usually this is done through lease or park rules that ban external modifications of homes, effectively prohibiting the most energy efficient and most affordable forms of cooling like window A/Cs or swamp coolers. Even though these units use less power than a space heater or even a hair dryer.

AB 806 ensures that residents have the right to install cooling systems in their homes. And it requires residents are able to access a cooled common space that exists within their park during extreme heat events. These are simple but lifesaving protections for residents in mobile home parks who are our state's most at risk residents.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 806. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Chair Umberg and Committee Members. My name is Fred Olabak and I'm one of 1.6 million Californians living in mobile home parks. Many of us are seniors, veterans, immigrants, and folks with disabilities. I strongly support AB 806. Mobile home residents should not be left in harm's way during dangerous heat waves. But that's exactly what's happening.

Many of us have no access to basic cooling. I live in a park that prohibits window ac units or any cooling system that requires exterior modifications to the mobile home simply because management thinks they are unattractive.

I could buy a window unit for $300-400, but under current park rules, I would be forced to buy another system that's much more expensive: $15,000-20,000. That's no lie; the difference between $400 to $15,000-20,000. That's money I and many of my neighbors simply don't have. I'm just trying to make my savings last.

Without this bill, thousands of us will face another summer without any cooling. AB 806 will allow me to address my own cooling needs for a reasonable price. The temperature inside my home has reached as high as 85 degrees with 80% humidity. Very uncomfortable. I've spoken to others whose homes have hit temperatures of over 100 degrees.

When this happens, we need access to safe air-conditioned common areas for relief during the hottest parts of the day. I strongly support AB 806 and respectfully ask for your aye vote to protect the health and safety of mobile home residents like me and my neighbors.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next witness please. Well, metoo's. Those who are in support, your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good morning. I'm Janice Barker. I am from Youngstown Mobile Home Park in Petaluma. I am also here on behalf of GSMOL and the California Association of Retired Americans. We support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My Name is Rhonda Hobbs. I live in Petaluma State's Mobile Home Park in Petaluma, and I strongly support AB806.

Thank you.

Morning. Chairmembers. Roger Johnson, Chairman of the Sacramento Area. Coalition of Mobile Homeowner Associations, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. I am Marie Kunio, a resident of the Youngstown Mobile Home Park, and I'm strongly in support of 806.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, committee members. Thank you author for bringing forward this bill; Kai Clausen, on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andy Mason, representing Clean Earth for Kids, strongly in support. Also in support, North County Equity and Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice and Activist San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jaime Minor representing MCE. We serve energy customers in Solano, Napa, Contra Costa and Marin counties, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Malcolm Sibley, mobile home resident in Petaluma, California at Royal Oaks Park. GSMOL member and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

C.T. Weber, Vice President, CARA, in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach microphone; AB 806.

Tim Porteous from Youngstown in Petaluma and with GSMOL, SCOMA and also CARA, please support this bill.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 806, please approach the microphone if you're in support. If you're opposed, now's the time to approach the microphone. If you're opposed to AB 806, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Chris Wysocki with WMA and, Assemblyman Connolly, I had a long speech, but, and you have our letter, but I want to just cut to the chase. WMA would remove its opposition from this bill if a couple of things should happen. The first is remove the cooling center provision of the bill.

This is very problematic for us as an industry. It would often cost tens of thousands of dollars for these for these areas, and they wouldn't be used all that often. A lot of other reasons listed in our letter. The second deals with the individual homeowner air conditioning units.

And what we'd like to suggest, or maybe have this committee consider, is take the first amendment and then we can continue working on the second amendment, which I believe would solve much of the problem. We model this bill after SB 1190 that was passed by this committee to exempt master meter parks from implementation of AB 806.

The fact is, we have a lot of parks around the state with a statewide goal of transitioning ownership and operation of the electric systems from the existing mobile home parks over to the serving utility. This would solve the amperage problem.

We've got a lot of parks in the state that are 20 or 50 amps, and if everybody decides that they want to turn on their air conditioning at the same time, the system's going to fry, and that's a danger to health and safety.

So, in transitioned parks, we would be very comfortable removing our opposition to this bill and make sure that residents and homeowners have access to air conditioning units in their homes. But what we can't afford is for those homes to jeopardize the health and safety of the other park residents by tripping a switch.

And that would be very problematic. So, with those two amendments, we could get to a neutral position.

Thank you, Mr. Wysocki. Others in opposition, AB 806?

Good morning. Trent Smith, on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance; line our comments with Mr. Wysocki.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others in opposition, please approach. Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Yes. Senator Niello.

Just curious what your comment is on the opposition's concern.

Thank you for asking. Yeah. So, let's kind of take it in order. So, the bill, as currently written, would provide, to the extent there is an issue with amperage in the community that would be excluded already. We do not want to have a situation where systems are blowing out electricity for everyone in the park.

So that's already dealt with. The second point, though, more broadly, is whether we should just exclude master metering. We would argue that that is too broad of an exclusion. And the analogy used was solar, which we would submit is fundamentally different here.

What we're talking about is in terms of these individual cooling units for a resident is about the same amount of electricity as you would use to run a hair dryer.

Compare that with a solar system, which on an individual unit requires a lot of different equipment installation and actually is run a lot differently than what we're talking about here. So, we certainly are always open to discussing issues more.

But as we sit here today, we certainly believe it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to exclude all master meter systems in parks from the requirements of this bill. The second point is on the common areas. Look, we disagree. We think that's an important part of the bill.

I would question the cost estimate provided. These are situations where there is an existing common space that would just be upgraded for the park. But again, that's something that we're willing to continue to talk about. But if I'm understanding opposition correctly, they are now requiring both changes to eliminate opposition. We're not there.

So that's kind of where I'm at this point.

Taking the second point first, it would seem to me that if there was an allowance, a suitable allowance for individual homes to be air conditioned, that the common space would seem to be not as needed.

But with regard to your first point, you've indicated that your bill, as written, takes into account the concerns they have with regard to the master system, if you will. That is not reflected in any of the analyses that I've read.

So, I will take that comment meaning if your bill, if the language of the bill is unclear, that you're willing to clarify that point as the bill moves forward.

The bill, literally as written, says if it creates an issue with amperage, that the bill does not apply in that case.

I think they're going well beyond that. They're saying as a matter of course, if there's a master meter system it is excluded; that's way different.

How does your bill read again?

It certainly includes master metered systems, but there's a feasibility provision that says if there is a problem created in amperage or the system, then it's excluded from.

In other words, if it -

You can't make it. Sorry to interrupt. But you can't make that blanket suggestion right out of the box that just because it's master metered. Again, we're talking about running a hairdryer.

Yeah. My understanding is that their issue is if there's a master system that can't handle the load.

Correct.

And that's you saying your bill addresses that?

I believe so.

Let me, let me just, if you don't mind, Assemblymember Connolly, and you send Assemblymember Niello. Let me just read the language in the bill that may resolve some of this. Here's what I understand language being it says this is with respect to cooling systems.

It says paragraph one, "...shall not apply if management establishes either of the following: A: installation, upgrade, replacement or use of the cooling system would violate federal, state or local law.

B: the amperage required to power any individual cooling system, including the common area cooling system, as described in subdivision D, cannot be accommodated by the power service to the park as demonstrated in writing by a federal, state or local governmental enforcement authority." Is that the language that you referring to? All right.

Perhaps the opponent could clarify.

Yeah. And thank you for the question. And you know, with all due respect, I think we just have a fundamental disagreement that that's clear language.

Because what that provision of the bill actually, in our view, presents is that every time an individual homeowner wants to put an air conditioning unit, they've got to have HCD, or a local enforcement agency come out and determine will that one individual unit jeopardize the integrity of the electrical system of the park.

If you've got 200 spaces in a park, are you going to have HCD come out to every single one? And what if the load can only handle 50 spaces? Is it the 51st person that you tell? No. I mean, it's problematic.

It's certainly an issue we are willing to work on, and I think that we can get there. It's just the language right now, we're not there yet.

So just also to shortcut some of this, and I appreciate your suggestion that we actually amend the bill here in committee. I learned that lesson a long time ago and so we're not going to do that today. We are going to have a continuing conversation, though. Wonderful. All right.

And just on the last point, I would respectfully submit that kind of backwards. You evaluate the system and then enable individuals to go forward. You don't evaluate each mobile home park. There's clearly an ability to evaluate an electrical system and its capacity.

Alrighty. I would agree with the Chair. We're not going to amend it here. But it sounds to me like the two of you are probably not that far apart. So, I would encourage you to continue talking about it.

All right. Other questions by committee members. So let me just make a few comments. First, there are three issues I see here. One is the cooling issue for individual units. And I strongly agree that an individual, in order to provide for their own health, welfare and well-being, should be entitled to install some sort of cooling unit.

There's some time place and manner restrictions that I think would be appropriate. Number two, in terms of the power, I don't know whether or not this provision actually responds to the concerns about overload and danger in health.

And I know you share the same concern that we all have is that we don't want to endanger any development because of an electric overload.

But I would encourage you to work on that language so that it doesn't require an entire revamping of the electrical system but does provide for individuals to be able to install their own cooling unit.

Thirdly, as to the common area, which I do think is distinct from your own unit, I think the common area, when you move to a park and you see that there's a facility, a clubhouse, if you will, and that clubhouse does not have a cooling system.

When you actually sign the lease, and you're aware of that, that's a different circumstance than your own unit, what you want to do with your own unit. So, as I said, we're not going to amend the bill, but I'm going to encourage you, Assemblymember Connolly, to continue to work on this.

I take this on as some of my responsibility not to get some of this stuff worked out prior to today. Not on you. It's on me. And so, we will continue to monitor the situation.

I appreciate it.

And I recommend I'm going to vote aye.

I appreciate that. We would welcome your continued involvement. We're happy to have the ongoing discussions.

Really what we're trying to prevent as well is the status quo, and you heard it from the residents, is folks are actually getting evicted right now over proposing that they be allowed to have a cooling unit in their own home. We think that's wrong. And that's the spirit of the bill. We'll continue to work on it.

But today respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. I'll recommend an aye vote. All right.

Thanks.

Thank you. Okay. Yes, I see Assemblymember Berman is here. Assemblymember Gonzalez, you've been very patient. Assemblymember Berman's here and Assemblymember Dixon is also here.

And so, if we go in the requisite order, it will would be Assemblymember Berman, then Assemblymember Dixon, and then Assemblymember Gonzalez. Assemblymember Berman, floor is yours.

Thank you. Chair Umberg. Good morning, senators. Today I'm presenting AB 559, which will extend critically important consumer protections to the construction of accessory dwelling units, otherwise known as ADUs. In the last 18 months, the Contractor State License Board has received more than 20 complaints, each about four separate ADU contractors with consumer harm exceeding several $1.0 million.

This bill would expressly state that ADUs are home improvement projects, thereby triggering numerous contract and payment rules. Additionally, this bill would enhance penalties for down payment and progress payment violations to deter crooked contractors from preying on consumers.

AB 559 is sponsored by the Contractors State License Board and supported by the Associated General Contractors of California and the California Low Income Consumer Coalition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is Rebecca May, Legislative Chief at the Contractors State License Board.

All right, Miss May.

Good morning, Chair Umberg and senators. Rebecca May, on behalf of the Contractor State License Board Sponsor of AB 559. I want to thank Assemblyman Berman for authoring this page bill. AB 559 is in response to significant consumer harm that has occurred resulting from the increased popularity of ADUs.

CSLB has received a considerable increase in complaints alleging contractors have abandoned their ADU projects despite requesting and accepting substantial amounts of money yet failing to do the work that they agreed to do. This bill would eliminate any question as to whether an ADU is in home improvement by adding ADUs to the home improvement definition in contractors' law. It ensures consumers contracting to build an ADU at their home are afforded the same home improvement contract protection, such as down payment and progress payment restrictions.

This includes restricting contractors from requesting or accepting down payments greater than $1,000 or subsequent progress payments that exceed the value of the work performed or the materials delivered. This bill also enhances penalties for individuals who violate progress payment rules causing financial harm to their customers.

CSLB believes AB 559 will afford consumers additional protection by clearly requiring contractors to adhere to the same progress payment rules they are subject to for other home improvement projects like garages, basements, and other projects defined as home improvement in existing law. I'm appreciative of your consideration today and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 559, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 559, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one. One person approaching. Yes. Thank you.

Made it just in time. Good afternoon, Dani Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, now turning to opposition. Anyone else? Anyone opposed? No one's opposed. All right, let's bring it back to committee. Senator Durazo. Questions?

Just a comment; want to thank the author. I have a different but similar bill with regards to consumers and home improvement loans. So, I appreciate the addition of this issue.

Thank you.

All right, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I do want to publicly say there are some folks that have concerns. We are going to continue working on them. We have a shared goal and vision of what we want to get accomplished. Just working through some of the details.

All right, thank you very much.

Yeah. Thank you.

Appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion.

Appreciate y'all.

So, next we have Assemblymember Dixon; two bills: file number 10 and file number 11. First file number 10, AB 392.

Good morning, Chair and senators. 392; let me get to that one. I'm pleased to present AB 392. First, I'd like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for working with my team and me so diligently on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments.

I believe the collaboration between our offices, the bipartisan support of this bill has received throughout the legislative process shows that this is a bipartisan issue and importantly, a bipartisan solution. AB 392 tackles the nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit media and sexually explicit content of minors to a pornographic site.

Fundamentally, this bill is about protecting minors and ensuring consent. In our hyper technological age, it is extremely easy for individuals to upload nonconsensual sexually explicit materials online. Every single person here has a smartphone, I am sure capable of uploading, sharing and saving any content. But this content is the subject of this bill.

1 in 12 people is a victim of image based sexual abuse, and anyone can become the next victim. Once sexually explicit media is uploaded online, it is almost impossible to remove it.

The legislature has passed a number of worthwhile measures to provide protections for minors and victims who have had their sexually explicit content either recorded or shared online without their consent. However, a core issue which has never been addressed is number one, the identification of the uploader and number two, holding the websites which host such media accountable.

So specifically, this bill has three components. First, this bill would require that before adult content or media is uploaded, the uploader must sign a statement certifying that an individual consented to being recorded, that an individual consented to the sexually explicit material being uploaded online, and that the individual was not a minor, as minors cannot consent.

Second, AB 392 requires that prior to uploading content, the uploader must provide information sufficient to enable the operator to contact the user. This provision is paramount in tackling the core of this issue. Users who upload nonconsensual sexually explicit media or media involving minors commonly do so anonymously and so face no recourse for their actions.

This bill would hold them accountable. Third, this bill also holds pornographic adult websites accountable and allows an injured party to file a civil suit against the operator. We need to hold these platforms and these uploaders accountable.

As I mentioned in my introduction, AB 392 is about consent, protecting minors, and holding both the users and websites liable and answerable. I have with me today, Uldouz Wallace, who will be speaking in support of AB 392, and I respectfully urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Miss Wallace.

Hi, my name is Uldouz Wallace, and I was a victim of the iCloud hack leak in 2014. My most private moments were stolen and shared without my consent. And it destroyed my life. I was gang stalked, harassed, and bullied. I lost work, money, relationships, and everything that you could ever imagine.

I was shamed and isolated and the goal was clear. It was to get me to end my life. But this isn't about me. This happens every day to children, women and men from all walks of life. Imagine this happening to someone that you love. Imagine them being violated and humiliated, and there's nothing in place to stop it.

That's why I created the Protect Act and Foundation Ra. Current laws are reactive. They allow the abuse to happen. And after the damage is done, survivors are left with a mess that can't truly be undone. And what kind of laws allows this kind of abuse to be uploaded in the first place?

And now with AI advancing rapidly, so is its abuse. Deepfakes, face swaps, and synthetic content are being created faster than laws can keep up. The AI moratorium was removed, leaving no federal protection. Now more than ever, states need to step up. We need the Protect Act urgently, and if we don't act fast, we're all at risk.

And here's the truth. You could be the next victim. All it takes is a photo, whether from social media or taken without your knowledge, and AI can turn you into something that you never consented to. No one is safe. As a survivor, I know how badly this is needed.

People reach out to me in foundation raw every day: devastated, disappointed, and failed by assistance them built on placeholder bills. They thought there were real protections in place, only to find out that there is no laws to actually protect them.

And once the damage is done, they're left to chase takedowns, relive trauma, and clean up a mess that should have never happened. Most nonprofits that claim to help.

Thank you very much. You urge an aye vote

Oh okay. Thank you so thank you for sharing your story. I'm sorry that you've had that lived experience but appreciate you turning that pain into something positive.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

All right, next witness, please. AB 392; if you're in support of AB 392, please approach the microphone. Seeing one more person approaching. Okay, sure. Come on forward. For those of you who support in me-too testimony, now is the appropriate time to provide us your name, your affiliation and your position.

Ellie Fenton Sutliff on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the law school at the University of San Diego. We thank the office for her bill. And urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Emily Campbell with the Capitol Baptist Capital Ministry and in support with Lighthouse Baptist Church.

Thank you.

Rock Campbell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry, on behalf of Faith Baptist Church in Wheatland and Freedoms Way Baptist Church in Castaic, we support.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support of AB 392? Seeing no one else approaching, let's take turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 392, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. No questions. All right, Assemblymember Dixon, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I would appreciate and respectfully request your aye vote. And let's just clean up this law so we don't have victims going on for years and years trying to deal with uploaded material that was never consented. So, thank you so much.

All right, thank you. I expect there'll be a motion at the appropriate time. Turning now to your second bill, file item number 11, AB 426.

Thank you, Chair and good afternoon, senators. Once again, it is my pleasure to present AB 426 today. AB 426 would prohibit the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle, also known as a UAV, remotely piloted aircraft or drone at the scene of an emergency that impedes firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in an emergency response in their emergency response duties. AB 426 would also authorize the Attorney General, county council or city attorney to bring civil action against an individual who violates emergency response airspace with a specific drone or unmanned aerial vehicle.

Violators can face a civil penalty up to $75,000 for each individual violation. During the recent devastating wildfires in Pacific Palisades, we saw the risk that drones can pose to our first responders at the scene of a major emergency response.

A civilian operated drone punched a hole in the wing of a Super Scooper from the government of Quebec and grounded the aircraft for several days until it was repaired. In total, the drone caused just over $65,000 of damage to the Super Scooper and put two crew members lives at risk.

AB 426 is an important step to strengthen our deterrence against the unlawful operation of drones at the scene of emergency responses. In times of emergency, whether it be a wildfire or a flood, every second counts.

And we must ensure that our brave first responders who are already risking their lives in life threatening situations, are not put in further jeopardy while performing their duties. AB 426 has received no "no" votes in committee and has broad support from firefighter organizations and law enforcement associations in LA and Orange County.

I have with me today Division Chief Kevin Fetterman from Orange County Fire Authority and Marcus Detwiler from the California Special Districts Association to discuss the importance of this measure.

All right, thank you Chief. Floor is yours.

Today I'm here on behalf of California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. Cal Chiefs has been around since 1897 and covers nearly every fire agency in California. Cal Chiefs and FDAC would like to express strong support for Assembly Bill 426. The fire service deploys drones on large scale and highly complex fires routinely.

However, today I'm here to talk about the emerging and important threat that's growing and very dangerous. The use of non-coordinated and nonpublic safety drones in active fire areas. In California, we established what's known as fire traffic areas or FTAs around wildfires.

These are consistent with FAA TFRS and are critical in allowing local, state and federal fire agencies to safely operate aerial firefighting resources and contain fires quickly for the protection of lives and property. But when unauthorized drones enter these FTAs, they put our entire aerial operations and your firefighters at risk.

These intrusions create the potential for midair collisions forcing us to ground aircraft and halt suppression efforts. A stark example of this occurred during the Palisades fire when the non-coordinated, nonpublic safety drone struck that contract super scooper punching a hole about this big in the wing.

What many don't know is that over the course of that incident, there were more than 700 drone incursions into that fire traffic area in LA. This resulted in the ceasing of air operations on numerous occasions. We have a saying in California, if you fly we cannot. These drone incursions compromise our ability to protect your communities.

They put lives at risk. On behalf of Cal Chiefs and FDAC, I urge you to support AB 426. This bill will bring much needed accountability to those who operate drones irresponsibly in emergency airspace. Thank you for your time and your continued support of the California Fire Service.

Thank you. Next witness, AB 426.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association. CSDA. CSDA represents all types of special districts, including fire protection districts, park districts, air quality management districts, geologic hazard abatement districts, healthcare districts and more. CSDA is a proud supporter of Assembly Bill 426.

As was referenced before, during the recent fires in Palisades area in LA County, an unauthorized individual operating a drone impeded critical lifesaving work underway by first responders. This is demonstrable, therefore, of the insufficiency of existing law to prohibit this type of behavior. Enter AB 426.

AB 426 would prohibit an unauthorized individual from operating or using a drone, a UAV or a remote piloted aircraft at the time same scene of emergency. Specifically targeting conduct that impedes or otherwise inhibits the actions of first responders in the performance of their official duties.

In this way, AB 426 ensures that the risk of civilian interference is minimized and that first responders are free to conduct their life saving operations. For these reasons, CSDA is a proud supporter of AB 426 and would encourage an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in support of AB426. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else? Seeing no one else, let's turn to the opposition. I'm not aware of any opposition, but - oh, there is opposition.

All right, if you're opposed to AB 426, now's your time. Please come forward.

Zeenat Yahya with ACLU Ca Action, in respectful opposition.

All right, thank you. Anyone else opposed to AB 426? Please come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing none. Assemblymember Dixon, would you like to.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. All right. Appropriate time, expect to be a motion. The ever-patient Assemblymember Gonzalez.

All right. Assemblymember Gonzalez, floor is yours.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, I am pleased to present AB 770 which creates a targeted exemption under the Outdoor Advertising Act, or OAA to allow the City of Los Angeles to establish a signed district at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

This exemption will enable the city to unlock a critical revenue stream to support the renovation and modernization of Los Angeles Convention center which is keyed to venue for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Located in downtown Los Angeles, the LA Convention Center is one of the largest convention centers in the country and hosts a wide variety of events including concerts, trade shows, exhibitions and conventions. And this coming summer at Kcon. While expansion plans have been discussed for years, they became a top priority following LA successful bid for the 2028 Games.

The convention center is slated to host at least five Olympic sporting events.

In preparation, the city has proposed a major expansion modernization including 340,000 square of new space, upgraded public amenities, installation of exterior digital signage and this project is expected to create 8,700 temporary jobs and 2,200 permanent jobs, attract an additional 500,000 visitors annually and drain over $550 million in economic impact over the next 30 years, which as we all know, is greatly needed, especially for the City of Los Angeles as it's in recovery.

A critical funding source for the project is projected revenue generated by proposed digital advertising signage. AB 770 ensures the city can establish a signed district that complies with state law and activates its revenue stream. This bill enjoys broad support including from organized labor, the business community, local residents and Mayor Karen Bass.

Primary witnesses in support this morning include Anh Nguyen, on behalf of the Central City Association of Los Angeles, Eddie Alvarez with the LAOC Building Trades, and Freddie Quintana, Senior Director of State Affairs, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, to help provide any technical questions. Take it away.

Alrighty. Two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Anh Nguyen with the Central City of Los Angeles, also known as CCA and proud co-sponsor of this bill. We represent over 300 businesses, institutions, and nonprofits in downtown.

I speak before you today with the full support of the LA business and labor communities with me and we urge you to support this bill as it is critical to modernizing our convention center. The convention center is a major economic engine in the heart of our city, but it's not operating at full capacity.

It is small, outdated and cannot attract the country's most sought after conventions. We're losing conventions to other cities like St. Louis and Kansas City and losing the vital sales tax and tot revenue that come with it. But we're at a critical inflection point.

There is no other shovel ready public infrastructure project in LA that can generate the magnitude of jobs, direct city revenue, and indirect economic impact that this can: 8,700 temporary jobs, 2200 permanent jobs, an additional 500,000 additional visitors to LA, and over 550 million in economic impact.

These aren't distant projections, but near-term tangible gains that will be felt in our communities and the benefits ripple far beyond downtown. Thousands of workers throughout Southern California depend on this ecosystem to earn a living. When the convention center thrives, so does the supply chain of local businesses that feed into it.

But this hinges on AB 770's urgent passage. The project is financially unfeasible without it. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness please.

Good morning, my name is Eddie Escoto Alvarez. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am a Council Member and representative of the LA/OC Building Trades. We represent over 160,000 sisters and brothers of the unique construction industry, and with our Executive Secretary Ernesto Medrano. Echoing my good friend Anh Nguyen from CCA, our LA Convention Center is due for an upgrade as Los Angeles and Southern California looks to host and welcome the world to the Olympics for the third time.

This project is covered under a community workforce agreement which mandates that 50% of the project, which is more than most projects, is covered by local hire. Which means that the folks that are going to be working on this are people from the community, look like me and live nearby.

Beyond the jobs on this project, this is a major economic anchor, not just for construction, but for all the entertainment industry jobs connected to the trade shows. Many folks here with us today depend on these jobs to get them through. Our own executive secretary started as a handler, as a teamster down in the docks.

So, we want to see downtown built up. I am a resident of downtown. I grew up in downtown, I live in downtown. We have, we're ready to see this built up. We have union-built projects that are shovel ready beyond this, but they're waiting to see if the convention center is going to be built.

This is like I said, a major economic anchor for the whole entire community, the whole entire Southern California. And people are ready to build, but they want to see if the anchor is going to be built also.

With that being said, we want to put our best foot forward for the world and we ask for your help and support. AB 770 thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support. AB 770, please approach the microphone.

Morning, Chair and senators. Freddie Quintana on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to sponsor this legislation in support and available for technical questions.

Thank you.

Yes. Good morning. Tom Davis, California ITAC Council, in strong support and we thank the author for carrying this vital legislation for us. There's a lot of jobs.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Rob Nothoff with the Los Angeles County. Federation of Labor where we proudly represent over 850,000 workers across every industry in LA County, speaking in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley on behalf of my clients, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Aloha. I'm Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers and support.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support, please approach. Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 770, please approach the microphone.

Good morning. I'm Amy Lerseth. I'm here on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. Respectfully, we are in opposition to the bill. Our members represent over 90% of the legally erected outboard advertising in the state. We initially supported the bill when it was addressing important issues for customary maintenance on outdoor advertising.

The June 13 amendment though, significantly altered the bill, stripping that out and inserting the provisions for the LA Convention Center. As noted by the author, AB 770 would establish new sign district for the convention center that effectively authorizes billboards currently prohibited under existing law. It sets a troubling precedent.

By exempting these displays, the bill undermines long standing state and federal regulation that exists to ensure fairness, safety and avoid significant financial penalties for noncompliance with the federal Highway Beautification Act. In fact, the committee report mentions on page six that Caltrans has actually requested. Pardon me.

That Caltrans denied the city's request to certify the sign district, pointing out that several of the proposed displays violate the Highway Beautification Act. Billboards are subject to stringent regulation, including specific limits on size, spacing and total square footage. For example, under the current law, total sign area cannot exceed 1200 square feet.

Yet according to the City of LA's staff report, AB 770 would authorize up to 36 new billboard displays, many of which would exceed these sign limits, including one super-size measuring 26,000 square feet, which is located directly adjacent to highways 110 and 10. The stakes are not theoretical.

Under federal law, the US Secretary of Transportation is authorized to withhold up to 10% of state's federal highway funds for noncompliance. For California, that could be upwards of $400 million. This concern is not without precedent. In 2022, Governor Newsom vetoed a similar exemption bill.

If you'd wrap it up please.

Yes, I can. And I have Ron Beals here in case there's any technical questions that.

Okay, thank you very much. All right, others in opposition. AB770.

Hi, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Ron Beals, Attorney for the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. I'd be happy to answer any technical questions on the bill. I would also give a short shout out to the staff who did an excellent job on summarizing a very difficult subject law that this committee has.

I don't think seen a bill since Phil Eisenberg was the chairman of the Committee. So...

Thank you. I might be the only person here who served with Phil Eisenberg, but I take that as a compliment. And yes, you always smart to compliment the staff because they do an excellent job. So, thank you. All right.

Mr. Chair and members, Megan Loper on behalf of two family operated independent billboard companies, Veale Outdoor and General Outdoor Advertising that are in opposition.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in opposition, please come forward. Let's bring it back, committee. Senator Niello, Senator Durazo, you have a question?

Yes, thank you. Well, I'm proud to be a principal coauthor of the bill and represent Los Angeles Central Los Angeles. And I just want to emphasize how important this is not just for Los Angeles, but also for what we all are waiting for.

The Olympics, the Paralympics, and so many other massive, huge events that we need as a unique source of revenue for this to go forward. Not everybody has that available to them and we do. And we need to take advantage of it. I believe it's somewhere around - is it, and the author could clarify this: how much revenue we could expect from this signage district?

About $550 million.

Okay. I don't know of a single other source that could give that to us. Unless, I don't know, Mr. Umberg, Senator Umberg writes a check. But this is a highly unique opportunity. It's a unique source of revenue.

It's an asset that the city has and frankly it's an asset that will benefit all Californians because of the revenue and the taxes that are going to be generated from this, we need to take in Los Angeles. We need to take advantage of this asset. And it's again, not just for a year or two.

This is going to be for several years. I'm really proud and glad to see the coalition of the chamber, labor and others involved in this. So, I would urge and support this bill.

Thank you. All right. At the appropriate time, I expect Senator Durazo make a motion. Assemblymember Gonzalez, would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 770 is about lifting the City of Angels. Not just the name, but in spirit. It's about believing in the power of people, the promise of our city, and the legacy that we're building for generations to come.

As we prepare to welcome the world, let us rise together with purpose, with pride and with faith in what Los Angeles can become. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All righty. Thank you very much. So, thank you, Assemblymember Gonzalez. We don't have a quorum yet on that topic. I would ask Sergeant Steven and Sergeant Matt to call offices. There is some chance that we may get not just a quorum, but actually we only have six authors left.

I know, as amazing as that sounds, but we only have six authors left. So next in order would be Assemblymember - would be Chair Kalra, then Assemblymember McKinnor. So, Chair Kalra.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'll be beginning with AB 1362. AB 1362 will require all foreign labor recruiters to register with the Labor Commissioner, not just those who recruit workers through the H2B visa category.

In 2014, California passed SB477 by Senator Steinberg to better regulate FLRs by requiring them to register with the Labor Commissioner and most importantly, providing protections and remedies for temporary workers being recruited to California. However, this law has been interpreted as only applying to H2B workers, despite the author's stated intent that it be applied more broadly.

Human traffickers have exploited this loophole, leading around 345,000 temporary foreign workers coming to California annually without essential labor protections. These workers include H2A visa holders who make up the temporary visa category with the most documented instances of human trafficking.

AB 1362 rightfully corrects this law so by making it clear all foreign labor recruiters are required to comply with the provisions of SB477. At this time, I would like to address the opposition's claim this bill would be duplicative of California's farm labor contractor law.

AB 1362 addresses foreign labor recruiters who largely operate outside the United States to recruit all types of workers and protects against harms that occur while the workers are deciding whether or not to accept a job in California and still living abroad.

As well explained in the Committee analysis, by contrast, the farm labor contractor law specifically protects farm workers once they have already taken the job and are in California, which is an entirely different stage of the process. Harms that result from violations of the farm labor contractor law arise during the work itself.

While this bill is seeking to cover against harms that result from unlawful behavior in the recruitment process amidst rollback of work protections at the federal level and changing border policies, it is urgent that California ensure all temporary immigrant workers are protected against wage theft, human trafficking and other labor violations.

Here to testify in support are Stephanie Richard, the Director and Visiting Associate Clinical Professor with the Sunita Jain Anti Trafficking Initiative, and Jeanette Sanipathin, Director of Policy and Advocacy with CHIRLA.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Richard and I'm the Director of the Sunita Jain Anti Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School. I am a proud sponsor of AB 1362, a Bill that provides critical protections for temporary workers as California continues to fight against fraudulent labor recruitment and labor trafficking.

Each year, 350,000 temporary workers come to California on 16 different visa programs across industries from agricultural to tech. These include the A3, B1, H1B, H1C, H2A, H2B, L1, O1, P3, and TN visas. Just saying that's a mouthful. So you can see how complicated this process is.

But all temporary visa holders receive the same common vulnerability recruitment by foreign labor contractors who subcontract with employers to bring workers to our state. This unchecked system has led to widespread exploitation as documented by anti trafficking experts and ethical businesses for the last 20 years.

It is rare we have a policy solution that experts all agree will prevent trafficking before it starts. Let me tell you about Jose, a worker I represented. Jose came to California on an H2A visa to pick avocados.

A recruiter told him he had to pay a fee, so he took out about $3,000 in a loan to cover it. Once he arrived, he was crammed into a single room with 34 other men, also H2A visa hold. He was promised work, but his debt kept him silent.

Too afraid to complain, his employers threatened to call the police and have him deported if he spoke up.

Jose later told me that if he knew, he should not have had to pay the visa fee and that he had a right to a written contract in his own language, outlining his visa and job conditions, he would have sought help earlier and escaped this abusive workplace.

That is what AB 1362 does, but it's also good for business. AB 1362 is narrowly tailored to address the issue of third party recruiters engaging in trafficking. If you're a business that recruits your own workers as AB 1362, it does not apply to you.

For businesses that use third party recruiters, all you have to do is use a registered recruiter. So this bill helps businesses.

By ensuring there's no double dipping. So I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Professor.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, next witness, please. AB 1362, please queue up if you're in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Jeanette Sani Pathin. I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy at CHIRLA and I am a proud co-sponsor of AB 1362. Over 10 years ago, testimony in front of the same Senate Judiciary. A similar Senate Judiciary Committee on SB844 on SB sorry 477 highlighted this case.

More than 250 Thai agricultural workers were fraudulent, violently recruited workers were charged recruitment fees of up to $25,000 upon arrival. Traffickers confiscated passports, imposed debt bondage and subjected them to threats and threats and physical violence to prevent escape.

Testimony also detailed how these workers were housed in rat infested conditions and forbidden for leaving the farms, demonstrating the exact type of recruitment abuse that SB477 was designed to prevent. Today, workers recruited by fraudulent labor recruiters who come to California on H2A and other temporary visas still receive no protections for these abuses in California.

As a sponsor of the bill, we invited workers to come and testify today about their experience. But unfortunately they were not able to be here with us today. Conti and I will share their testimony. Conti was 18 years old when she came to the US from Sri Lanka as a domestic worker on a B1 visa.

She signed all her paperwork in English and was never paid. Paid and worked almost 24 hours a day. She was physically abused and she was threatened that if she left her family in Sri Lanka would also be threatened and harmed.

Angela also came to the United States on a lawful visa with the promise of a great job in the Philippines. Coming to the US Was like winning the lottery. Once she got here, she realized that it wasn't. She had to work almost 12 years to pay back a $10,000 debt for her visa.

She worked over 18 hours a day, often slipped on the floor. And when she tried to leave her trafficker would threaten that he would call the police on her. All these workers, as I said, wish they could have been here today to tell you their stories and the need for AB 1362.

None of these workers were aware of their rights or could ask for any assistance or help. For these reasons we urge your aye vote to ensure that workers like Conti and Angela have the protections from both labor and trafficking abuse here in California.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Name, affiliation position.

Mr. Chair and Members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of the Sunita Jain Anti Trafficking Initiative, been asked to provide support from a couple different groups.

Verite Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, Central Valley Justice Coalition, Sacramento Economic Policy Institute, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California Justice at Last, Equal Rights Advocates, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, CRLA Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto and Prevention Global. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the American Apparel and Footwear Association in support.

Thank you. Good morning Chair, Members, Ken Wang on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members, Kaitlyn Vega for the California Labor Federation here in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? AB 1362, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1362, please queue up.

Good morning Senator and Members of the Committee. My name is Kimberly Clark and I'm with the California Farm Labor Contractor Association. While we agree with the overarching goal to protect workers and the state's agricultural industry industry, we oppose AB 1362, the foreign labor contractor registration for agricultural workers.

As the bill would add more administrative burdens to agencies and employers already dealing with flawed registration systems without providing tangible increased protection for workers nor actionable enforcement resources to deter bad actors.

California's existing farm labor contractor licensing program requires biannual examination, nine hours of continuing education each year and annual registration by the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement Licensing and Registration Unit, which in fact was the model used to design the foreign labor contracting registration.

The Licensing and Registration unit is well known in the industry for being inefficient, presumably due to insufficient resources, with some licenses taking months to process. We applaud the unit's assistant chief, Melinda Davis, and her team for their recent efforts. However, we must ask how charging an overloaded state agency with re registering employers would better protect workers?

In addition to federal requirements for employees seeking to bring temporary agricultural workers, current regulations give oversight powers to multiple state agencies. Cali OSHA ALRB, the Employment Development Department and others down to the county and local levels. For example, this bill has been lauded as a way to ensure safe living conditions.

However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development and EDD are already tasked with with this excuse me, already charged with this task. As farm labor contractors know all too well there are bad actors that harm workers and the agricultural industry.

We support targeted enforcement to fight bad actors who flaunt existing laws and the allocation of resources to that end. But AB 1362 simply creates additional burden for those already doing the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition AB 1362 please approach. If you're opposed, please queue up.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Brian Little with California Farm Bureau in respectful opposition to AB 1362. For all practical purposes, AB 1362 is identical to AB 364 offered by former Assemblymember Freddy Rodriguez, which Governor Newsom vetoed in 2022.

Among his reasons for vetoing that bill is the redundancy that we've expressed concern concern about and that my colleague Ms. Clark talked about before in his veto message.

He wrote, many foreign labor contractors are already regulated through federal and state agencies, and this Bill would create a redundant process for many of the contractors already covered by this Bill. For example, California already has its own program requiring farm labor contractors to be licensed by the Labor Commissioner's office.

With some of the problems attendant to what Ms. Clark talked about in her statement, AB 1362, we labor trafficking is a horror and we should do every reasonable thing to try to stamp it out.

AB 1362, in our view, is not a reasonable thing because you're putting the burden of trying to do something about human trafficking on people who are already operating businesses that are being operated legally above board and with a state license that they're required to get by state law with all the attendant requirements that Ms. Clark described for you a moment ago.

These are not the people who are doing the human trafficking. Requiring these people to get another to go through another process very similar to what they already had to do in order to get their state license will not serve the purpose of trying to control human trafficking.

It will merely hamper a very important aspect of what we need to do in agriculture in order to ensure labor market liquidity so we can harvest crops and provide food for Californians and for the rest of the United States. For those reasons, California Farm Bureau respectfully requests your opposition to AB 1362. Thank you.

Thank you. Others opposed Your name, affiliation and your position

Cody Boyles on behalf of The Nisei Farmers League in opposition. Thank you.

Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Grape Growers. We respectfully understand the intent of the bill and appreciate the intent of the bill, but for the reasons articulated in the Governor's veto, we are respectfully opposed.

Thank you. All right, Anyone else opposed? AB 1362. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Senator Durazo.

Yes, I have a couple of questions and thank you very much to the author. There are a couple of issues that were raised by the opposition and hope that you could help understand why the need for this bill. One is the alleged redundancy has been referred to. So if you could address that.

Yeah. And so, yeah, there is argument that is duplicative. But. However, farm labor contractors and foreign labor recruiters operate at different stages of the process. Farm labor contractors are regulated as employers within the United States.

They hire and manage workers once they arrive in the US in violation of farm labor contract law arises from abusive behavior during the work itself. Foreign labor recruiters operate outside the U.S. recruiting workers in their home countries before they reach their employers. This stage of recruitment is largely unregulated, leading to wage theft, debt bondage and human trafficking.

And quite frankly, the farmer that hires them may not know that. And under this bill, they would not be liable if they don't have the knowledge of that. It's really the FLRs that we're trying to regulate because of the unscrupulous acts that have occurred.

If you have a farm labor contractor that's working above board, sorry, a foreign labor recruiter that's working above board, they shouldn't have a problem registering and ensuring that those that they are hiring understand their rights as workers in the United States. And so, you know, farm. And addressing the vetoes, the veto message focused on farm labor contractors.

Again, this is not about farm labor contractors. We've had conversations with the Administration to clarify that. This is about foreign labor recruiters who operate outside the United States that are recruiting workers before they reach their employers. And if a employer or grower contracts with a registered foreign labor recruiter, then that's all they need to do.

There'll be no issue of any liability with an employer. So really we're just trying to focus on those foreign labor recruiters that right now are outside of the law as it applies to what applies separately to farm to farm labor contractors.

Great. And another question is, again, there's been from the opposition saying that the burden is going to be on legal businesses. How would you respond to that?

I mean, that's always the case. That's why we have strong wage theft laws, because if someone commits wage theft, they're disadvantaging legal businesses that don't. And so clearly, the burden is going to be to root out the unscrupulous actors so that everyone plays by the same rules and that benefits everyone.

Well, thank you. I want to thank you for moving this bill forward, no matter how many times some version of it gets turned down or vetoed. I think we owe it to the state that we will protect people who come in to work, and they should not. They should not be abused in this great nation of ours.

So appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. No other questions or comments. At the appropriate time. I'm expecting if Senator also will move the bill. So I think she's anticipating that Governor Newsom will have gained in wisdom over the last couple years. All right, Senator Kalra, would you here to close?

I also have that same hope, and with that respect for Yasmin, I voted the President.

Thank you. Okay, let's turn now to File item number 17. It's a Judiciary Committee bill.

Chair Kara, thank you so much. AB 1525. Presenting on behalf of my Judiciary Committee colleagues. As officers of the court, attorneys are sworn to uphold and protect the rights of others. This obligation requires attorneys to take positions that at times may not be socially or politically popular.

Unfortunately, attorneys are now finding themselves targeted for for professional retribution for representing clients and taking positions that displease some political groups seeking to protect California attorneys.

This bill ensures that attorneys provide legal advice or other assistance to those in need of reproductive health care, cannot have their California law license threatened because another state seeks discipline for providing legal services that are wholly legal in California. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Those in support of AB 1325, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1525, please come forward. No one coming forward. All right, let's bring it back to Committee for questions by Committee Members. Questions by Committee Members. There are none. Yes, you're on a roll.

Assembly Member Kalra, would you like to close? Respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so we're getting very close to a quorum here. Assemblymember McKinnor, floor is going to be yours. Momentarily after Assemblymember Mckinnor, we would normally have Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. We're getting very, very close.

So what would be marvelous is if we could take up at least A portion of the calendar before we have to break for our respective caucuses. All right. Assemblymember McKinner, you have two bills. Number 18. Would you like to start with file number 18? A.B. 57.

Yes.

All right. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Members. A.B. 57 seeks to address historic and systemic inequities in home ownership by reserving a portion of funding within the California's Home Purchase Assistance Program, specifically for descendants of formerly enslaved people.

The legacy of slavery and the long history of discriminatory housing policies such as redlining, racial covenants and exclusionary lending practices have resulted in deep and persistent racial disparities in home ownership. Today, the home ownership rate for descendants of formerly enslaved people remains nearly 30% percentage points lower than that of other households.

It is important to note that AB57 identifies future beneficiaries based on a legal status, not race. Descendants of formerly enslaved people can look like anyone in this room. Senator Weber Pearson and the Legislative Black Caucus is working closely this year on a separate legislation that would create a legal process to identify descendants of formerly enslaved people. And.