Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to give a few minutes. Our assembly session is still underway downstairs with adjournments happening. So we want to try and establish a quorum. So please give us a few minutes. Yeah, I left in the middle of adjournments in memory. Sorry, my allergies are bad today.

Get started.

Okay. Oh, gosh. Okay. Are you guys ready to go? Mr. Bennett, are you okay? If we get ready, Ms. Baines, we're going to start with them. Okay. Gotcha.

All right.

Good. There you go. I'd like to start by welcoming everyone. Today we will hear seven senate bills. Two items will be heard on consent that senate bill 352 and senate bill 804. We're going to start by establishing a quorum. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll.

Quorum? Call. Ransom. Present. Ransom, here. Hadwick. Arambula.

Arambula, here. Baines. Here. Baines, here. Bennett. Here. Bennett, here. Calderon. Demaio.

Here.

Thank you. We have established a quorum and we will go ahead and proceed. We're going to start with the consent calendar. Do we have a, okay. Okay. So we have a motion by assembly member Aramabula and a second by assembly member Banes. The motion is on SB 352.

Reyes, a do pass to the Committee on Appropriations and the motion on SB 804 Aetta do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the vote.

All bills will be heard and sign in order on the consent calendar. The motion is SB or SB 352, Reyes. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations and on SB804. Archuleta. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom.

Aye. Ransom, aye. Hadwick. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Baines. Baines, aye. Bennett. Bennet, aye. Calderon. DeMaio.

Yes.

Awesome. Today we're going to hear our bills based on the sign in order and seeing. Today we're going to start with Senate Bill 542, which is by Senator Monique Limon. In here, today we're going to have assembly member Bennett to present that bill on behalf of the senator. And so, Senator, when or assembly member, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members. California has a terrible history of oil spills. On the Central coast alone, the 1969 Santa Barbara spill devastated the coast and spilled an estimated 4 million US gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean.

In 2015, the Refugio oil spill, also in Santa Barbara, caused by a ruptured oil pipeline, spilled 142,800 gallons of crude oil along the coast and into the sea. Even with the technological advances and expansion of spill response, spills still cause millions of dollars in damage.

To reduce the risk of devastating future oil spills, SB 542 establishes requirements for the restart of oil pipelines in California. This ill requires a public notice and comment process prior to the Office of Spill prevention or Response using a certificate of financial responsibility issuing.

I'm sorry, a certificate of financial responsibility for an oil pipeline, providing an opportunity for the public to weigh in on what a worst case scenario spill could be.

This bill further requires, prior to the restart of an oil pipeline not in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test program to better identify corroded sections of pipeline, effectively reducing the risk of an oil spill. I have with me today Christina Garinge with the Center for Biological Diversity to speak in support of the bill.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity. With thanks to the Chair and to the committee, here in strong support of SB 542, this bill takes three practical, urgently needed steps to help prevent destructive oil spills in California.

First, it requires hydrostatic testing for each segment of an idle oil pipeline before a restart to reduce the risk of leaks from aging, often corroded infrastructure. Second, it creates a public comment process before issuing a Certificate of Financial Responsibility so operators can demonstrate to regulators and communities that they have the financial means to respond to a spill.

Third, it updates an outdated formula used to estimate spill costs to help determine whether operators can pay for real world cleanup and damage cost. Past oil spills have revealed serious shortfalls. For example, the 2015 Santa Barbara spill, which was caused by pipeline corrosion, caused $870 million in damage cost.

But their operators only had to show $30 million in coverage. Indirect testing there failed to accurately determine the degree of corrosion. Hydro testing is a direct assessment, a clearer measure of pipeline integrity. SB 542 creates a transparent and updated framework to determine operator financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill.

To enable holding responsible parties accountable and to fairly and more accurately calculate the true costs of cleanup and restoration. This bill is narrowly drafted. Its hydro test requirement applies only to restarts of pipelines that have been idled for five years or more. It doesn't impact active infrastructure or current fuel supply chains.

Oil spills devastate marine life, shut down fisheries and beaches, damage coastal economies, and erode public trust. California's coast supports $1.0 trillion economy driven by tourism, fishing, recreation and clean coastal resources. So we ask for your aye vote to help protect California's coastal communities, ecosystems and economy. Thank you.

Do you have another witness or.

I don't have another witness. Just an expert to here to help if we need it.

We appreciate that. Are there any witnesses?

Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? No. Okay, seeing none. We will bring it back to the members for questions. No questions. All right. Assembly member, we have a first and second. Would you like to offer close.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote. Awesome.

Thank you. We have a first by assembly member Arambula, a second by assembly member Calderon. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is a do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

SB 542, Limon. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom. Ransom, aye. Hadwick. Hadwick, no. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Baynes. Baynes, aye. Bennett. Aye. Bennett, aye. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Demaio.

Thank you. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to ask any senators who are on today's agenda to please join us in room 444 to present your bills. So staff, please notify your, your enators that we are ready to hear their bills. Thank you.

There's a Senator.

Okay, so next up, we're going to move to senate bill 616 by senator Rubio. Senate bill 616 with Senator Rubio. Community Hardening Commission Wildfire Mitigation Program.

Hello, senator. Find our witness out there somewhere.

No worries.

It's a big crowd.

Thank you for joining us, and whenever you all are ready, we'll proceed.

Hi.

Got it.

Thank you so much for your patience. I know there's a lot of action going on today. So today, thank you so much for allowing me to present this bill before you. I'm proud to present SB 616, which is an important bill that will take a crucial step towards improving the availability and affordability of property insurance.

This issue is critically important to all of us. As we know these days we've been been hit with a lot of tragedies as it pertains to wildfires. And we need all voices at the table. What we learned is that there's a lot of need and we need to solve the crisis.

And this is the first step moving forward to ensure that we do that. SB 616 will create an independent community hardening commission within the Department of Insurance. The commission will be tasked with bringing together state and local governmental entities as well as experts and stakeholders to create consistent data driven

Recommendations to standards needed to guide statewide fire mitigation policies and programs across our state and local agencies. Effective fire mitigation is critically important to help improve the availability and affordability of property insurance. As we all have heard the stories, that is one of the pressing issues of the day.

Not only is it not available, but sometimes the cost is unsustainable, which is again why this bill is critically important and needed at this time. Under existing law, work on community and home hardening is guided through an array of state codes, regulations by the state and local governments, as well as guidelines from nonprofit organizations.

And here's some of the list of all the recommendations and all the people that get together to give us those guidelines.

California Building Code 2 Chapter 7A, California Fire Code Chapter 49 on requirements for Wildfire Urban Interface Areas the safer from wildfire by the Department of Insurance, the low cost retrofit list from the State Fire Marshal, the defensible space guidelines from the Board of Forestry and many, many more.

So this simply attempts to bring all these voices together, work in collaboration and make sure that we're all moving in the same direction again. The fact remains that climate change is making wildfires more frequent and more destructive every time we get hit with wildfires.

The growing wildfire risks are driving the cost up of insurance and the availability is an equally big crisis as homeowners and communities work to harden their properties to make them more resilient to wildfire.

The key to success is the coordination of action across all levels of government and bringing leaders together listening to different perspectives, fire science, construction leaders, planning, insurance and emergency response disciplines. To ensure that we get it right. The commission will be comprised of seven embers or their designees.

In addition, the commission will be advised by an advisory council made up of representatives from a diverse group of people, again making sure that every single industry expert and stakeholder is at the table.

Lastly, and equally important, in the event of future wildfires, this is critically important to ensure that we do a post mortem per se and make sure that we look at the lessons learned learned. What can we learn? What can we do better and perfect what we've been working on?

So today I have two witnesses with me today and so so I will turn it over to my witness with the Insurance Commissioner's Office.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'm Josephine Figueroa. I'm Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. As a proud sponsor of SB 616, Insurance Commissioner Lara, I would like to thank Senators Rubio, Cortese and Stern for authoring this important measure.

SB 616 represents an important step for forward in our fight to protect communities from the kinds of devastating wildfires that have impacted many parts of California. The bill creates an independent commission within the Department of Insurance as with a single goal to align statewide efforts for for community and wildfire risk reduction and mitigation efforts.

The growing threat and impact of more frequent, more destructive and more costly wildfire has left many Californians struggling to find or afford insurance coverage they need. When communities take collective mitigation action, they more effectively protect themselves. Even a few homes lacking effective mitigation can be the weak link in wildfire defense.

That is why Insurance Commissioner Lara created the Safer from Wildfires regulation, the nation's first mandatory insurance discount program recognizing community wide mitigation. Without community wide mitigation, fire can more easily spread from structure to structure. A pattern we have seen year after year.

Firefighters and wildfire scientists know how to protect homes, but current laws spread mitigation efforts across multiple codes and agencies. Property owners looking for clear guidance face a patchwork of complex, conflicting and sometimes incomplete requirements. The Commission created by this bill will review existing hardening regulations and policies and recommend cost effective measures that improve insurability and reduce risk.

It is also oversees the creation of guidelines towards a comprehensive wildfire data sharing platform ensuring that all agencies across California could have the information they need to make informed decisions. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are. Do you have any additional witnesses in support? Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay.

Chair Members, good afternoon. Sean Bellack with California Association of Realtors here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. She respects. So glad to see.

On behalf of consumer watchdog in support.

Thank you.

Jeff Neal representing the County of Lake, in suport.

Eric Turner with the California Construction Industrial Materials Association in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Board Of Supervisors for the Counties of Fresno, Madera, Mendocino, Nevada and Napa. All in support. Thank you.

Julian Ofor on behalf of the League California City is in strong support.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members Owed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California.

Currently we have a support if amended position but certainly appreciate the direction that the bill is heading in the fire districts and the fire chiefs are reviewing the amendments and hopefully we can come back with a with a new position. But at the moment we're currently in support if amended.

Thank you. Okay with that. Is there anyone oh, sorry. Okay. All right. With that said, is there anyone who like to register opposition to the bill?

Sure. Okay, so we have one witness in opposition to the Bill. Please introduce yourself. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies Aqua represents approximately 470 public water agencies statewide. We respectfully have an opposed unless amended position on SB616 requesting that community hardening standards relating to the improvements to water infrastructure be struck from the Bill.

Aqua appreciates our conversations with the author's office and their willingness to hear out our concerns and look forward to future conversations about this Bill. But we have reviewed the recent amendments and our concerns still remain. Public water agencies are tasked with providing the public with safe and reliable drinking water.

These water systems are not designed to combat wildfires, especially the climate driven wildfires California experiences today. There are concerns that the Bill's proposed Commission with a focus on fire insurance and with a lack of utility representation could create statewide standards for water infrastructure that are not aligned with water agencies objective of providing safe and reliable drinking water.

Public water agencies are the experts of their unique systems and are the best entity for determining water infrastructure needs to best serve the communities they are accountable to. We believe it is inappropriate for the Commission to develop such statewide standards and that these standards would not reflect the complexities of our water systems.

Water agencies have additional considerations including maintaining water quality, financial constraints and other operational realities. There are significant concerns of a potential increased risk to litigation if water agencies fail to meet the established standards following a wildfire event. Costs from potential litigation would ultimately fall on ratepayers impacting water affordability.

Ultimately, this is not the right body to be making such recommendations in regards to California's water infrastructure. We look forward to future conversations with the author and her staff. For these reasons and without the requested amendments, Offer respectfully requests a no vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. With that, is there anyone who'd like to join an opposition to the Bill?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Respectfully with an opposing less amended position and align my comments with Aquas. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members, Steve Cruz, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, we have been in a opposed position. We appreciate the direction of the amendments. Been working really closely with the Senator and her team and we're hopeful we can get there. But at this point, still a few remaining issues we'd like to work through.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, well, seeing no one else, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Is there any discussion, any questions for the Member. Okay, well seeing none. Senator Rubio, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. You know, I want to just acknowledge the concerns that were stated, but just want to be clear. This Bill has no mandates for water infrastructure. We are really just trying to get at the heart of so many agencies working separately and bringing everyone to the table.

Our insurance market has been destabilized and we just want to make sure that we have best practices in place and make sure that we get data to ensure that every time there's a crisis, we can move forward in a more strategic way. And so I appreciate the concerns and we'll continue to have conversations. Absolutely.

We're open to those conversations. And with that, our respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you all for your, your presentations and testimony. With that, do we have a motion? Okay, so we have a first by Assembly Member Calderon, a second by Assembly Member Bennett. Secretary, please call the roll, the roll. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Insurance.

On SB616. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Insurance. Ransom. Ransom, aye. Hadwick. Hadwick. Not voting. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bains. Bains, aye. Bennett. Bennet, aye. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Demaio.

Thank you. We'll keep the roll open for the absent Members. Thank you. Okay. With that, we're going to move forward to Senate Bill 429 by Senator Cortese. Take your tabs whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present SB 429, which establishes the nation's first public wildfire catastrophe model. I will be accepting the Committee amendments as outlined on page four of the analysis.

And I appreciate the work and the help of the Committee and working through this and to the chair as well. California is experiencing an insurance crisis that we all know, and it's one that's been driven in large part by our increased wildfire risk.

As of 2023, nearly 1.3 million homes were at risk of extreme wildfires, and over 80% of new properties built were in high or very high fire risk areas. Catastrophe models predict the future losses of natural disasters and are often used as benchmarks to establish zones of residential and commercial risk.

Publicly accessible data and actuarial analysis can help achieve wildfire mitigation at the community wide scale needed to prevent more tragic loss while establishing the state as a national leader in innovation and safety. This Bill, SB429, helps homeowners, businesses, and developers understand whether they're getting a fair deal on insurance.

When homeowners know their risks, they can take meaningful steps to reduce it, protecting their communities and lowering insurance costs. With us today to testify in support is Josephine Figueroa. On behalf of the Department of Insurance. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Figueroa, you have two minutes to present. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara.

As a proud sponsor of SB 429, Insurance Commissioner Lara would like to thank Senator Cortese for authoring this critical measure to strengthen our wildfire mitigation efforts by allowing California to use all available tools. With extreme wildfire increasing over the past decade, there's a need to better plan and prepare communities at a level we have never seen before.

SB4 tonight would establish the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program and allow the Department to pursue a partnership to research public catastrophe modeling to reach the goal of improving wildfire safety. The model acts unites two critical strategies. Building a publicly accessible model.

Alongside outreach initiatives to identify and educate users of the model, SB 429 would allow the Department to harness the power of California's public and private University systems, charging the Department with initiating competitive grant program to create and research an educational center housed at one or more California universities.

This would be the first of the nation public wildfire model and will be a critical tool for firefighters, city leaders, scientists, and students and keep California at the forefront of safety and innovation. Wildfire models can be critical to building safer communities.

They can provide insights for state and local emergency planners, aid wildfire safety efforts and save lives and property and support effective regulation of insurance rates. And by analyzing past wildfire disasters, a model can point to changes needed to prevent your future ones. Our goal is to make communities safer.

Publicly accessible information is essential to driving positive changes on the ground. A public wildfire model will be an important resource for state agencies, local governments, and other groups focused on protecting lives and homes for catastrophic wildfires and making insurance more available and affordable. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, here just for technical questions.

Awesome. Thank you for being here. With that said, I'm going to open it up. Do we have anyone else? Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Primary witnesses in opposition? Okay, we'll see no primary witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone here that would like to add their support to this Bill.

On behalf of Climate Action California. Karen Jacques in strong support.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors and strong support.

Good afternoon. Sheer Spector for stone advocacy on behalf of consumer watchdog and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to add opposition to this Bill? Okay, seeing no one. I'm going to bring it back to second. All right, well, we have a motion and a second. Are there any questions for the Senator? Okay, seeing none. Senator, would you like to offer a closing statement out of respect?

We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a first by Assembly Member Arambala, a second by Assembly Member Bains. Secretary, please call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended.

SB429 Cortese the motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom.

I believe it's the pity. Is it Committee on Insurance. Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong Bill. Yes. Aye.

Ransom. Aye. Hadwick. Hadwick, aye. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Bains. Bains, aye. Bennett. Bennett, aye. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Demaio.

Thank you. We'll keep the roll open for the Ms., the absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you again.

Okay, we're going to move forward to Senate Bill 256 by Senator Perez. Whenever you're ready.

I also have handouts. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to thank the committee staff for their work on SB256. I would like to start my presentation by accepting the committee's amendments.

SB256, the Enhancing Infrastructure for Wildfire Mitigation Act, will strengthen California's wildfire mitigation by improving planning, enhancing emergency response, and increasing public safety through better communication and undergrounding of power lines using strategic cost cost-effective methods. Over the past decade, California's wildfires have destroyed 53,970 structures and claimed 207 lives, with numerous incidents traced back to electrical infrastructure failures.

The Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles County alone destroyed 16,246 structures and caused 30 deaths, ranking it amongst the most destructive. UCLA estimates the broader economic impact for Los Angeles County could reach 131 billion dollars, with up to 45 billion dollars in insured losses and 297 million dollars in lost wages.

To address this crisis, the legislature has strengthened oversight of electrical utilities through wildfire mitigation plans, system hardening, and safety power shutoffs. It has also authorized a long-term program to underground power lines. However, the recent wildfire revealed gaps in our state's mitigation efforts. Altadena, for instance, was not classified as high risk.

Yet the destruction caused by the Eaton fire underscores the urgent need to rethink how we assess wildfire risk. Media reports also revealed delayed response time for firefighters during the, for firefighters during the wildfires, raising the need for better coordination with emergency services and utilities.

This includes assessing PSPS to ensure decisions on power shutoffs are transparent and clearly communicated. Following the wildfires, Governor Newsom ordered an acceleration of underground utility systems in fire-damaged areas like Altadena and the Palisades.

While undergrounding of high-risk power lines is a well-established wildfire prevention strategy, participation in the state's program remains voluntary even after communities rebuild from wildfires.

Additionally, a few months after the Eaton fire, investigators began examining whether a defunct zombie line contributed to the wildfire. Engineers from the Southern California Edison suspected that an electrical charge may have jumped from active high-voltage lines to an idle line that had not been live for more than 50 years.

SCE's Chief Executive Officer, Pedro J. Pizarro, stated that company is investigating every possibility, including the potential involvement of SCE's equipment. SB256 strengthens California's wildfire and emergency response policies by expanding mitigation planning to include wildland-urban interface areas where homes are built near forest or wildland, and by addressing past communication failures to improve future coordination.

It also mandates utilities to collaborate with regional emergency centers and enhances PSPS notifications. Finally, it ensures undergrounding is actively considered during the recovery process rather than left entirely to a voluntary participation and requires IOUS to create a removal plan for permanently abandoned lines.

The bill originally included language requiring large electrical corporations to cover the cost of wildfire mitigation without passing these costs onto consumers through higher electricity rates. At the request of the Energy and Utilities Committee, we've removed that provision to allow for consistency and alignment across various other related measures.

In its place, we are adding language to clarify the legislature's intent to decommission electrical infrastructure that is no longer in use and support the undergrounding of electrical distribution lines in ways that limit the financial burdens on consumers, avoiding increases in electricity rates.

The inclusion of language in the findings and declarations intersects with other bills that restricts IOUS from earning a rate of return or profit on certain wildfire mitigation capital expenditures. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Is there anyone who is a primary witness in support of this bill? Okay. Is there anyone who would like to add their support to this bill? Okay, we're going to move forward. Is there, are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Okay. Seeing none. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Joe Zanzi with San Diego Gas Electric. We had an opposed position going into Utilities and Energy Committee. After reviewing the amendments from that committee and the proposed amendments from this committee, we are able to go to neutral on the bill. So, thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Laura Parra with Southern California Edison. I'm in the tweener position. We have to just continue discussions on the abandoned lines and idle lines, but I think we'll get there. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jon Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, also going neutral based on amendments and energy. Thank you.

Ryan Pessah with Western Wood Preservers Institute, Treated Wood Council, and North American Wood Pole Council, opposed.

Thank you. Senator, we want to thank you for your work, working with the committee to get this bill to the place that it's currently in. With that, would you like to offer a closing statement? Or, I'm sorry, before I do that, did the committee have any concerns or questions? Okay, I guess not. Okay.

Would you like to offer a closing statement at this time?

Yeah, absolutely. So, unfortunately, my lead witness, Nick Artson, who is a member of the Altadena Town Council, was not able to make it today and really wanted to be here. So I'm going to go ahead and read a statement on his behalf for my closing.

Good afternoon. I would like to focus today on one main aspect of SB256. This bill would require the commission, on or before January 1st, 2027, to update a general order to require each electrical corporation to remove all permanently abandoned facilities as specified. Let me explain why this particular element in the bill rises to the top for me.

Earlier this year, on January 7th, 2025, a devastating fire started Eaton canyon, located in the Altadena area. While there are still, investigations underway, video shows fire sparking around 40 feet up at the wires of a transmission tower on the mountain just above the canyon.

A separate video shows fire on the ground under the tower shortly after the massive sparks occurred. Here's what is important to note. The transmission tower mentioned had not been used by SoCal Edison for more than 50 years.

But Edison officials told the Los Angeles Times that the tower and the idle line it carried somehow became reenergized the day the fire started. The line on that tower is called the Mesa-Sylmar Line.

The company reported to state regulators that four lines, including the dormant Mesa-Sylmar Line, saw a momentary increase of electrical current around the same time the fire began.

In an interview with the Times, Pedro Pizarro, Edison International Chief Executive, said the re-energization of the line through a rare phenomenon known as induction is now a leading theory into what sparked the deadly wildfire that destroyed half the town of Altadena.

10,000 structures, and most importantly and terribly, 18 lives were lost because of a long decommissioned tower and dormant line that was allowed to stay in place for more than 50 years. No acknowledgement of the dangers of keeping it up there. No regulations to demand its removal. But it is being proposed now. So what will you do?

Nearly 6,000 homes, including my family's home, everything we owned, every item of history and memorabilia passed on to me and entrusted in me by my parents throughout the years. Every memory I saved from my childhood in hopes of passing along to my own children.

Memorabilia, items found while digging through my childhood basement and garage with my father when he was dying of cancer a few years ago. All gone. Their schools, churches, the park where my husband and I were married, and the bulk of the shops and restaurants we would frequent. Gone.

I mention all these personal and heartbreaking losses because I remind you there were 6,000 residences lost, so there are 6,000 more stories of heartbreak and devastation, likely because a long dormant structure that was allowed to sit on that mountainside without any regulation to have it removed. This body did not see the danger of letting that sit, and now we have suffered for that oversight.

But now we have the chance to make it right for the inevitable disasters yet to come. You make many important decisions and protect your state in so many ways. But I would argue that rarely do those decisions reach this level of consequence.

You have the chance to do the right thing and put forward the effort to keep us safe from devastation and loss of lives. If this bill does not move forward and another similar future disaster like this occurs, you will need to ask why we didn't do the work to stop it when we had the chance.

I urge you to pass this out of committee so nobody has to experience what Altadena did. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Perez. We have a first by Assemblymember Arambula. Second by Assemblymember Bennett. Secretary, please call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll keep the roll open for the absent members. Thank you, Senator.

Okay, Gotcha. Okay, we're going to move forward. We have our final Bill of the day, which is Senate Bill 509 by Senator Caballero. It is with the Office of Emergency Services Training in Transnational Repression. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members, for the opportunity to present SB509, a Bill to develop specialized training for local law enforcement to recognize and respond to the growing threat posed by foreign governments targeting diaspora communities. I'd like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill and will be accepting the Committee amendments.

Marginalized groups identified as dissidents and asylum seekers to the United States, including ethnic and religious minorities, increasingly face attacks on their human rights while in the US from foreign governments hostile to them. These countries see their diaspora communities as threats to their political stability and often, often extend the repressive measures beyond their own national borders.

Authoritarian regimes have made use of advanced technologies such as digital surveillance and social media monitoring to track, intimidate and threaten individuals living in democratic countries.

Tactics such as harassment threats and even physical violence, often carried out covertly or with the assistance of international law enforcement, undermine the right to safety and and freedom of expression to their former country people.

Transnational repression is a direct violation of the human rights of those living in the diaspora, especially those who have sought refuge in democratic societies.

While the United States has mechanisms in place to protect individuals from transnational repression, the current system is not fully equipped and local police departments are not trained to know how to document the growing scale of these threats.

A more comprehensive and coordinated approach would help ensure that California can provide adequate data and information to the victims of transnational repression. SB509 strengthens our country's commitment to human rights, safety, and justice for every law abiding individual, regardless of their background or country of origin.

The Bill ensures that law enforcement officers receive this specialized training needed to recognize and respond to the unique threats posed by foreign governments to targeting individuals on US Soil. With me to testify in support is Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association and Hamid Yazdan Pana with Immigrant Defense Advocates.

Thank you, Senator. And for your witnesses, you'll have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Hamid Yazdan Panan. I'm the Executive Director of Immigrant Defense Advocates. We work directly with immigrant communities across the State of California, focusing on policies that protect the civil rights of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

As an Iranian refugee and former immigration attorney, I've seen firsthand the dangers people flee and the threats that can follow them. My family came to the United States to escape political repression in Iran. And nearly three decades later, the Iranian regime still targets dissidents here on US Soil.

Just a few months ago, two men were convicted in New York in a murder for hire plot against an Iranian journalist, a textbook case of transnational repression. Unfortunately, these threats are far more common than most people realize. California is home to more than 125,000 torture survivors, more than any other state.

Many fled regimes that punish free expression with prison or worse. And even here, they aren't always safe. Victims often stay silent out of fear of law enforcement, immigration consequences, or because of trauma. That's why SB 509 is so important. The Bill provides training for law enforcement to recognize and respond to transnational repression.

It helps ensure immigrant communities can access protection and support without fear. I urge you to support SB509.

Chair Members, good afternoon. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association want to be candid and admit that there are lacks. There's a serious lack of understanding about what these situations are.

And they're incredibly complicated types of events that even amongst police chiefs they don't understand what it is, what to look for, the science, the factors behind it. And so we really do think that there should be some kind of statewide consistent training to be able to identify, you know, when you're dealing with this type of a situation.

And so I think that the Bill is important in that regard. And then I want to say too, I know that there are groups that have concerns with the implementation and how this training ends up being presented to law enforcement.

I have had a chance to talk to some of those organizations over the last few weeks and remain committed to continuing those conversations should this Bill go through and be signed into law.

Ensure that the training that is produced for law enforcement is balanced, does represent all of those various points of opinion and concerns and issues because again, it is very, very complicated to try and understand and want to make sure that the information that we present to law enforcement is very balanced and useful and helpful and for those reasons, strongly support the Bill.

Ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your witnesses for their testimony. With that, I do believe that we have primary witnesses registered in opposition. I would like to invite Pushbita Prasad and Samir Kalra to join us at the table.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Samira Kalra and I'm a civil rights attorney and managing Director for the Hindu American Foundation. I want to start by thanking Senator Caballero and her staff for the constructive dialogue on this Bill and for some of the proposed amendments that have made been made thus far.

We also appreciate the Committee suggested amendments that remove vague terms such as proxy, adding clarification on the protection of First Amendment rights and ensuring that the timeline for implementation is being extended.

We believe, however, that the amendments do not go far enough in ensuring that any mandated trainings for law enforcement on transnational repression are implemented in an unbiased manner and are not weaponized against any community.

Before making a decision estimated to cost $905,000, create four new positions and impose vague requirements on law enforcement agencies, we need to take a step back and further study the issue. Given that there are still many more critical questions than answers with this Bill, we urge you to not pass it today.

Specifically, there is still a great deal of uncertainty in how these trainings will be implemented. Who will OES consult with to developing the curriculum for such trainings? Are there even any existing consultants on transnational oppression that can be used or that local police departments will be able to hire?

Who are the impacted diaspora communities that law enforcement must reach out to to develop trainings as required in Section 2B6 of the Bill? And what will be the process to decide that? How will we ensure that a diversity of groups will be approached and not only ones that are pushing a specific political agenda?

And who will determine the specific countries that engage in transnational oppression most frequently for the training? Clarity on these questions is necessary in order to prevent OES trainings on transnational oppression from being politicized or from institutionalizing biases against diaspora communities from specific countries of origin or with specific viewpoints on geopolitical issues.

Accordingly, I respectfully ask for your no vote on this Bill in its current form until further protections and clarity is added. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for the Committee for Hearing us. My name is Pashmita Prasad. I'm a board Member at the Coalition of Hindus of North America Kona. I'm here to register our opposition to SB509 as it stands today. It's a cleaned up version of the failed Bill AB 3707 from last year.

Since that Bill failed last year, there have been vandalism attacks on two New California Hindu temples, bringing it to a total of four Hindu temples in 14 months in this State of California. This and other August bodies have not condemned any of these attacks publicly and in our conversations, many lawmakers were not even aware of these attacks.

The same goes for the police. The attacks on our temples were not obviously anti Hindu. They did not pay Hakan crois on a synagogue or portray that one God was superior to another.

No, the graffiti was anti India, anti Modi, clearly implying that the congregants of these temples are proxies for the Indian governments and thus seen as worthy targets by the transnational terror organizations that are targeting us. That is why we oppose this Bill. We know how it plays out here.

Hindus in California, many of them are legal immigrants, but not yet Americans. And when they visit their temple, they're sort of getting a warning that they are now tainted by dual loyalty. This Bill would give the force of law to this threat that we have been facing.

We're also disappointed by the process, even though we've seen some engagement. But it's been very hard to engage. And many of our reasonable amendments, some of the critical amendments, have been rejected. Our efforts to, and this is not an aberration, our efforts to engage in productive dialogue with the legislative body have often been rebuffed.

Our requests for meetings to legislative matters are hard to get. And overall, we lack the kind of privileged access to institutional authority that the people pushing for this Bill have been getting. We asked for an amendment to ensure diversity in the cultural competency clause that this Bill wants to create. This was rejected.

This reinforces our fear that the intent of the Bill is to create bias in the law and to elevate some preferred voices in the diaspora community while suppressing others. You guys, everybody knows immigrant communities in California are under extreme stress right now.

And that's why we need guidelines to ensure that they do not face persecution for simply exercising their First Amendment rights. The Bill ignores objections from multiple faith communities, district attorneys. It suppresses real concerns about violence while dividing immigrants. I'm terrified of the future this Bill would bring, and I ask you to vote no in its current form.

Thank you.

Thank you. Again, I'd like to thank the Senator, the witnesses in support, and as well as the witnesses in opposition to this Bill. At this point, we're going to open it up. Is there anyone who would like to join or speak in support?

If so, please join us at the microphone if you'd like to speak in support of this Bill.

Thank you, Chair and Members, my name is Puneet Kaur. Here on behalf of the following organizations in support of this Bill. The Sikh Coalition, Hindus for Human Rights, Jakarta Movement, the Sikh American Legal Defense Fund, and the American Sikh Caucus Committee. Very thankful to the author, co-author and Committee for all your work on this.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jaydeep Singh. I'm a former intelligence analyst with the California State Threat Assessment center and a former Homeland Security Policy Coordinator for the State of California. I wholeheartedly support this Bill. Thank you for the time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in support? Is there anyone who'd like to register their opposition for this Bill? Please join us at the microphone. Okay, you can all line up at the microphone. Please state your name and your opposition and we'll just move on to the next person. Thank you.

This is Dr. Dilip Ameen from Burlingame. I'm opposing this one Bill. I'm a President of Interface Shadi, President of Hindu Speakers Bureau and also active Members at Sanatan Mandish, San Bruno. Our Hindu community is really scared. Thank you. Please consider. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ramya Ramakrishnan. I'm the Community Outreach Director and law enforcement liaison at the Hindu American foundation. Opposing the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. Deepthi Mahajan. I'm the President of Hindu Pact and also on behalf of Vishwindu Parishad of America, I oppose the Bill. I'm from San Ramon, California.

My name is Lakshmi Rao. I am a longtime resident of Roseville and Roseville city Commissioner. I 100% oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Rakesh. I'm from San Bruno Bay Area. San Bruno. I strictly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Padmaja Hindukuri. I'm a longtime resident of Fremont Bay Area. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, I'm Sangeeta Shankar and I'm the California Regional Director for the Hindu American Foundation. I'm a resident of Sacramento county and represent organizations across California like Swadhyay Chinmya, Mission Folsom Hindu Temple, Sri Venkateswara Temple, Shiva Vishnu Temple, BAPS and Samskrita Bharati. I strongly oppose SB 509.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Mahesh Farjani. I'm from Fresno. I took time off today to come. Here to oppose this Bill. Please consider that strongly. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Chirant Kalyanpura. I'm a Folsom resident. And I'm a Hindu, proud Hindu. And I oppose the Bill. Thank you.

This is Raju Amin and I oppose this SB509. I live in Burlingame, California. Thank you.

I am Purva Vyas. I am coming from, coming from Fresno. I oppose. Say SB509 Bill. Okay. Thank you. Hi, this is Seema Divedi. I am from Fresno. I oppose this.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Arian Duavetti. I'm a ninth grader at Clovis west. And I oppose SB509.

Good afternoon. My name is Ashwin Arab. I'm with the Coalition of Hindus of North America and I oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Taraj San. I'm a resident of Roswell and I oppose the Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Pawan Deshpande. I'm with the Hindu American foundation from Los Altos. I oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Ethan Katir. I'm a former Finance Commissioner for the City of Davis and I am the National Programs Director for the Hindu American Foundation and a fourth generation Californian. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

This is Lalit Kumar from City of Roseville and represent Hindu Cultural Center. I strongly oppose this Bill. 549. Thank you.

Hello. Shankar Ratneshwaran from Rancho Cordova, California. I represent Swatiay and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi, I'm Sridhari Shankar from Rancho Cordova and I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good evening. This is Kaushik Macharla. I live in Dublin, California. I'm with the Hindu American Foundation. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Isna Datusalia representing Annapurna USA foundation and a resident of Roseville and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Amok Sashital. I'm in ninth grade and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Venkata Manish Maramreddy from Roseville. I'm a sophomore in college. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hello. My name is Manti Sharma. I'm a resident of Roseville and a sophomore in college. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

Hi. I am Prena Kumari from Ro City. I oppose this Bill.

My name is Meena Sharma. I am from Roseville. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Bhaskar. I'm from the City of Folsom. I oppose this Bill.

Namaste everyone. My name is Prabhakar Maramreddy and resident of Roseville and a volunteer of Hindu Science. I strongly oppose this speech. Thank you.

Namaste. Good afternoon. I'm Aarti from Roseville. I oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon and thank you for your time. My name is Shailendra Karodi. I'm from Roseville and I'm associated with Coalition of Hindus of North America. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Jai Simon from Folsom. I strongly condemn this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Aria Joshi. I'm from Sacramento and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Namaste. I'm Dr. Ranaji Joshi. I live in Sacramento. I'm first generation immigrant. I oppose this Bill.

Good afternoon, I'm Himanshu Patel and I'm from Sacramento, part of the Gujarati Samaj of Sacramento which is one of the oldest organizations in this area. And we strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. This is last call. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in regards to this? We'll seeing no one. I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions? Assembly Member Baines.

I just wanted to thank Senator Anna Caballero for her hard work on this Bill. So I want to thank the witnesses and the police chiefs as well for their hard work on this Bill. Protecting the freedom of speech for everyone is so important.

Thank you so much Senator Caballero and our co-author Assemblymember Soria for their support on protecting that as an addiction doc and law enforcement knows it well. There's been a plethora of international gang related drug and human trafficking that has taken over our streets.

This gives law enforcement proper tools to interconnect between agencies so that we properly detect and hold people accountable for the drugs that are destroying our communities. As an addiction doc that was on the front lines of fentanyl.

I have seen how fentanyl has destroyed our community as coming in from not just our border but from our ports as well. Coming from foreign governments that are sending it over into our country. The international gang units that are taking over our streets.

There is a real threat to Americans from foreign governments that are trying to destroy our country. At the same time, our witness that was speaking up in immigrants advocacy. It's a very scary time to be an immigrant right now. How do we hold people accountable and at the same time have empathy and compassion for immigrants?

I am the daughter of two immigrants that escaped persecution from a country and they came here and I was able to have those freedoms that they were not able to have. And thank you so much for lifting this and protecting immigrants and protecting their freedom of speech.

And at the same time working with law enforcement to hold people accountable that are destroying our youth with international gang and drug trafficking. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Senator or Assemblymember Demaio.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I think that the intent is laudable and I'm always in favor of providing more training resources to law enforcement. Have we gotten a sense of the cost associated with implementing the requirements of this Bill?

That's what we're working on is trying to get good costs. Quite frankly a lot of the information will come from the Federal Government. They're the ones that have the experience with international issues and we're trying to get a sense for what it will take.

This really is to provide an opportunity for local officers to know how to handle concerns raised at the local level, concerns about threats that may have been made. Things they see in the community right now, they just don't have any training, anything to do with other countries, foreign countries, or foreign agents coming over.

This will give them the ability to understand, collect the data and then forward it to the Federal Government for analysis is really what it amounts to, so, the costs are being worked on as we speak.

I agree with you that our best approach to implementing a program like this would be to work collaboratively with the Federal Government. And I do know that a program like this would potentially attract federal grants.

Unfortunately, as you well know, our state's decision to declare war on the federal law enforcement agencies with SB54 makes that potential non existent. And that's a casualty here. Not having the funds, not having the ability to coordinate with the Federal Government.

Because on the one hand, State of California says, oh, we want to work together, collaboratively, give us money, let's work together. And then on the other hand, we're not only not coordinating, we're actually weaponizing state taxpayer money to thwart law enforcement. So it's a little bit of an inconsistent or not only a little, it's a lot inconsistent.

And I think we have to revisit that first and that would probably improve our ability to deal with some of these issues. Setting that aside, though, the opposition is here today and they have suggested that they have significant concerns with how the Bill is currently structured. They're concerned about constitutionally protected freedoms.

They say that they've offered some amendments. What is your appetite, your willingness to work on those amendments? Because I would like to see the opposition come on board in support of the Bill. And I'd like first ask the author, what can you do to make that happen?

And secondly, for the opposition, can you get to supporting this Bill? Because I think that would be a worthy goal. But if the answer is no, there's, you know, there's just a fundamental disagreement, then I'd like to know that as well.

Senator, may I interject for. Is that okay? Yes, that's fine. Okay. Assembly Member Demaio. I just wanted to make sure that you had clear answers. So our Committee staff did reach out and work to find out what the estimated total, because I want to make sure that you get the accurate answer.

So the estimated for four positions would require $905,000 to implement SB509. But there is also an opportunity to use the threat assessment grant funding from Cal OES if the Department so chooses to do so. So I just wanted to ensure that you got a clear answer. And then we'll go ahead and allow Senator Caballero to respond.

And then we'll also be happy to update you on the exchange between the Committee as well as the opposition, which did result in several amendments to make sure that the Bill is workable for everyone. So, Senator, back to you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, let me just say that that if you know me, you know I work the heck out of my bills. And we had numerous conversations staff did with the opposition. It's my belief that fundamentally nothing that gets changed in the Bill is going to change their mind. They're here today.

You can ask them that question yourself. But we've taken a number of amendments. We have. We're trying to keep the Bill lean and clean and not add a whole bunch of details to it, and in particular, not restating what is already the law.

And so I'm just surprised to hear that we didn't meet, that we were hard to get ahold of and that that there were issues that we haven't talked about that haven't been raised, that are being raised now because this has gone through the Senate and this is our last Committee here in the Assembly.

And we've really worked hard to try to get what is a balance, understanding that in different countries there are different people that may not have gotten along with each other and that comes to this country.

And it's important not to pick sides but to say if anybody's getting threatened, if anybody is being harassed, if anybody is feeling that their safety or they're in danger of, of an attack or repression of any kind, that there's a place where they can go and that place is to report it to the police so that there's an understanding by.

The police. Services available that something may need to be done, that it's important to protect the individuals that are getting harassed and threatened and that there's a place to report it up the chain. So number one is we've made a number of amendments.

And number two, it's my belief that there's not a real interest in the end supporting the Bill. But I could be wrong.

It looks like. Yes. You'd like to.

Yeah. Thank you. Sameer kalray, Hindu American FOUNDATION for the record, I appreciate the author's comments and actually we have had some very productive conversations, as I mentioned, and there were some versions where we were not too far off in terms of some mock ups and some other discussions on amendments.

And with the Committee's amendments, I still don't believe that we're that far away to moving to a neutral position on the Bill and we'd love to continue to work on some additional amendments to get it across the finish line.

That sounds hopeful.

Okay, thank you. I think I'll just add that we want to make sure we talk a lot about diaspora communities. We understand there is diversity and we want to see that diversity reflected in the Bill. Maybe it gets a little more prescriptive, but it has to be acknowledged that some communities in California have better access than others.

And so typically if you don't get prescriptive, the ones that are already in will become stronger and the ones that are out will are going to go out further into the cold. And we don't want that to happen. Thank you for that.

Do you mind clarifying when you say that you know, those who have access, those who don't, it will be stronger. And the reason I asked for that is because I know our Committee pushed really hard to make sure that this was neutral, not specific to any specific diaspora.

Make sure that no matter what your religious or ethnic background, that you would be able to benefit from the protections. So I would love if you can offer, just for the benefit of our Committee Members here who maybe didn't engage in those dialogues with you, do you mind providing a little bit more of context to that?

Yeah, I think one of the amendments that we were disappointed that was rejected was when we had specifically said diversity and cultural competency. Why is that important? Because I have faced this personally. I've gone to police, I've talked to lawmakers, I've talked to media, I've talked to people trying to explain what happens when our temples get attacked.

When a Hindu man walks into Taco Bell and faces a 10 minute verbal assault from another brown person right, and they struggle because there is no box that they can neatly put anti Hindu hate into right, they ask me, is it racism? I'm like, no, because, you know, we're from the same race, right?

So if we don't have a box, we struggle to get our stories across. It's telling, as I mentioned, that four, I mean, I would say if one temple vandalization is too much, four in 14 months. And the fact that many people here didn't know about it is telling in itself, who has access, who doesn't.

It's telling that 14 months later, nobody has been prosecuted, no arrests have been made. It's telling that no media has covered this at a holistic level.

We get some crime reports when they happen, but nobody's looked at it and said, wow, why is one community's place of worship coming under attack over and over again in the same way with using anti India, anti modi slogans? And by the way, one of the temples attacked is from a family from Fiji.

So you can see why. You know, we have second generation, third generation Hindus here who are worried it doesn't even matter where they are from.

Thank you for that. Assembly Member Bennett. We're gonna, I think we got. You have one more comment you wanted to make, Mr. Colwer? Yes.

Okay. Samira Kalra, Hindu American foundation for the record, I think I just wanted to clarify that that section that's being referred to is section 2B6 where it mandates culturally competent outreach to impact the diaspora communities.

I think the request would be just to add diverse impacted diaspora communities so we can ensure that it is done in a balanced manner and that multiple communities, there's outreach to multiple communities and it doesn't just go to certain communities that already may have some inroads with OES or other agencies and that there is a, there's a wide reach in terms of that culturally competent outreach.

Thank you for that. Assemblymember Bennett.

I requested to speak before this dialogue just took place.

And what I was going to say, and I'm still going to say is I just wanted to compliment the author and compliment the Committee Chair because I know you have worked very long and hard, both of you and your staffs on both sides on this Bill in terms of trying to move this. So just my compliments.

That's what good government is. You have to roll up your sleeves. You have to work at it. You have to listen to everybody and try to do the best you can. So my compliments and I will move the Bill.

Thank you very much. I appreciate. Thank you for that. And just in response to what has been raised, that's the addition of one word is not something that, that I would disagree with. We're trying to make sure we have diversity and cultural competency. And so that makes sense to me.

But I will, I guess one of the challenges with trying to edit things from the dais is they ask us not to do it because later on we get in big trouble.

But I'll work with the Chair to try to include the word that you talked about, which is diverse in an appropriate sentence, so that it, it makes sense. And I appreciate that, that clarification that was really helpful.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to take liberty.

I normally don't take liberty to speak about the engagement and interaction, but I think I really want to first of all, thank all of you who came out, took your time off of work to come and to state your opposition, to state your position, because I do want you to know that we do take your voices very seriously and that we do respect and want to make sure that you feel that you have been heard as part of this democratic process.

So I do thank you for doing that. I also want to, just for the public record note that I did get an opportunity to meet with a group from the opposition. And because of your concerns, the Committee was able to meet.

And some of the changes we were able to get the author to agree to, which I think they would have agreed to anyway, was making sure that we were a protecting First Amendment rights as part of this and, and clarifying that this Bill would not supersede anyone's First Amendment rights.

I'll tell you, I learned more about transnational repression. I didn't know that there was such a thing happening at such a high level that we needed a statewide Bill.

But doing the research and understanding that the FBI is also noted from China, from Russia, from Iran, Ukraine, all these different places that there is such a thing, we thought it was really important that we, if we were our Committee, was going to hear this Bill, that we made sure that everyone felt safe here in California through this Bill.

And so one of the another piece that we are continuing to work on is when you're talking about the training because the opposition did raise concerns who's going to do the training and is this going to be culturally competent. So I appreciate the author accepting the word diverse.

And then we also ask that we continue to work with posts in regards to what will be in the training and that the training does cover, you know, a multitude of diversity to ensure that everyone is represented in this particular training and that it is a neutral training that does not put.

We don't want to participate in putting any one group over another. We want to make sure that everyone is protected.

So I do want to just acknowledge that we did make our best efforts to try and make sure that you were heard and that we definitely appreciate that the author was very amenable to hearing and to agreeing to, and even now agreeing to making sure that this worked.

And so we will, as we move through appropriations, continue to work to make sure cultural competence is covered. We also have seen, and there are currently grants for folks in temples in places that need additional security.

But ultimately we want to get to a point where that's not happening in our state, that people don't need grants for security. And so I want to thank all of you for your participation. And with that, are there any additional questions or comments, Assemblymember dimaio?

Just that I like the dialogue that's been going on here. Let's continue that. And I'm not going to be supporting the Bill today, but it's my hope that a sincere effort will be entertained by the opposition. As I know that the author has already shown in her history of leadership, she's open to working constructively with opposition.

Get to a yes. What does that look like? Try before this gets to the floor. And there are processes, as the chair pointed out, for doing that in the next Committee.

Thank you, Assembly Member DeMaio. Seeing no one else wanting to speak. Question. Okay. Seeing no one else wanting to speak, we have a motion from Assemblymember Arambula. A second from Assemblymember Bains. The Chair has no specific recommendation. With that, Secretary, please call the roll.

SB509, Caballero. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom. Aye. Ransom, aye. Hadwick. Hadwick. Not voting. Arambula. Aye. Arambula, aye. Bains. Bains, aye. Bennett. Bennett, aye. Calderon. Calderon. aye. Dimaio. Demaio, not voting.

Well, it seems like we have all Members here, so the Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your dialogue. It's great. Okay. Do we need the keys? zero, okay. So we're going to move forward to do add ons in the consent calendar. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so SB what's the first one that was out? Okay. The consent calendar is out.

[Roll Call]

That is 429 is out.

[Roll Call]

616 is out. That concludes our meeting. Thank you.