Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning. Welcome to the 8-20-25 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 274 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at apro Assembly Code.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing room from its live stream on the Assembly website.

We will accept public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing testimony. Any such bill will be limited to a statement of name organization, if any end position on the bill.

The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. And for each Bill, each Member will be allowed five minutes of questions of witnesses only.

And I will be timing that as you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door. I encourage Members of the public who are in attendance to observe those rules and follow them.

Please be aware that violation of these rules or violations of General courtesy or decorum may be subject you to removal or enforcement processes. And I will say it is our expectation that everyone acts like adults in this Committee. Thank you. With that, I'd like to establish a quorum. If one is present, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We have a quorum. First, we would like to hear from Mr. Isaac Bryan, who's going to be presenting ACA 8. You are up. We have a motion and a second. And you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present ACA 8 on behalf of Speaker Robert Rivas, Pro Tem McGuire, and over a dozen of us were coauthors in this effort to protect democracy. We're living through an unprecedented moment in American history where our democracy faces daily attacks from the White House and from this Administration.

This constitutional amendment, along with the two companion bills, are measured and thoughtful response to the power grab that is happening out of Washington D.C., a power grab that seeks to further erase the rights of 40 million Californians who are counting on us. To be clear, this is not a fight that we sought out, but this is a fight that we are prepared to fight and prepared to win.

ACA 8 exists because Trump and the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature and other states, like Indiana and Florida, are attempting to redraw congressional districts in the middle of a decade pre-census, with the explicit aim of diluting black and brown representation and power and tilting next year's congressional elections in favor of the authoritarian in the White House.

Their maps are not about fair representation. Their maps are about retaining power at any cost, without accountability, without transparency, without the voters of those states getting their say.

They want to—they want to retain control in Congress at any cost, to continue their goals to protect the wealthy, the President and his corrupt companions, while gutting the liberties of everyday people, working people and struggling families, especially here in California. We deserve better. California deserves better. The American people deserve better.

ACA 8, also known as the Election Rigged Response Act, is our defense against Trump's unprecedented power grab. It would implement the temporary use of the maps outlined in AB 604 if, and only if, the people of California approve it. The people of California will get the final say.

If ACA 8 and the companion bills in the Legislature are passed on a special election on November 4, those district boundaries will be used. That's the main difference, by the way, here in California.

So, here in California, unlike Texas and some of these Republican-led states, we respect the people, we respect the voters, and we believe that they have the autonomy and authority to make major decisions like this that have national consequences.

These maps will be used through the 2030 congressional term only and only if Texas and other states enact their partisan gerrymandering, their power grab of their own congressional districts at the behest of the President. We will stand down if they stand down, but if they step forward, we are ready to fight fire with fire.

The trigger provision in the ACA is carefully crafted to ensure that a mid-decade redistricting required by a federal court order doesn't result in California changing its map. This is only in response to an authoritarian power grab. I'm joined by two incredible witnesses.

Jody Hicks, who's the CEO of Planned Parenthood, and Pastor Trina Turner, one of the current Commissioners of the 2020 Independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Thank you. And each witness on both sides will have two minutes each, both for opposition and supporters. So, four minutes total on each side for our main witnesses. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I am Jody Hicks, the CEO and President of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, here to represent all seven affiliates and over 100 health centers throughout the State of California.

And I'm here in strong support of ACA 8 and California's response to Texas or any state that is trying to game the 2026 Midterm elections. And I know this is the Appropriations Committee. I know that they'll—we have someone who will talk about the Commission. I want to talk about the impact to California.

And I think we heard yesterday a lot of why California would respond to what Texas is doing, and it's because the impact to Californians is so great. And if we are not able to have a fair election, if we're not able to fight back in the way that we need to, we're not standing up for our values here in California, and we're certainly not defending Californians.

If you remember, here in California, 67% of voters voted to ensure that California is a reproductive freedom state, that our Constitution ensures that Californians have access to reproductive health care. What just passed in Congress defunds Planned Parenthood on day one.

So, when we talk about the cost of what we're doing today, just on that one piece of that Bill alone, is taking away $300 million in federal dollars away from the services that Planned Parenthood provides. And we are not talking about abortion services. Those are already not federally funded.

We are talking about every other service that 1 in 4 women here in California rely on, which is cancer screenings, birth control, oftentimes prenatal care. The rest of that Bill has three and a half million folks in California that will be without health care in our state, not to mention the other economic sanctions. Thank you.

So, it's imperative that we're able to fight back. We know if Planned Parenthood or anyone else talks about the impacts of what just happened, Congress Members will be held accountable. But we're not able to do that if Texas is rigging the election ahead of time. So, thank you.

Thank you. And you will have two minutes.

Thank you. I'm Trina Turner, pastor, Executive Pastor, also though here today as a commissioner for the 2020 Redistricting Commission. And I'll read so that I can make best use of my time.

I am proud to have served in the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission following the will of the people to draw the fair maps that honor California's diverse communities of interest. Our work, you know, was rooted independence, transparency, clear voter mandate that the politicians should not choose their voters. But we have to be honest in the moment that we're in.

There's a breach of trust in our democracy that has already happened and it's hitting black and brown communities hardest. We've watched our current Administration dismantle DEI programs, send in National Guard and Marines into LA/D.C., under false claims of keeping order or stamping out rampant crime.

The reality, crime has already been down in many of those areas. But the very programs in our communities, the one that has been proven to work, they're being cut, creating the very instability that will be used to justify more force and more control and fewer rights. So, it's short sighted for California to only think about California.

I watched the hearings on yesterday and wanted to say that if we stand on principle while our nation disintegrates, we're part of the problem. And are we really thinking about all of California? Because I think the 3.1 million children, veterans, and families in California that will lose food off of their tables would tend to disagree, California.

I think the 2.4 million Californians that will lose access to healthcare due to Medicaid cuts would disagree. There's been a lot of discussion about protecting lines drawn by the will of the people. Lines that I'm very proud of. However, the discussion is emphasizing the importance of independent redistricting.

That's fair, but we're doing that at the cost of millions of Californians. There are groups that I respect that says that they knew some is dead wrong in this. Gerrymandering is a threat. However, I want to say that marginalized concern communities is the exact reason why we need to move forward with ACA 8.

I'm in total support of it and believe it the right thing for our nation.

Thank you very much.

We will now turn to folks in the room who wish to express support for ACA 8 and for everyone who's wishing to express support or opposition, we are just doing name, organization, if any, and position.

Madam Chair and Members, Sarah Flocks, the California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association, in support.

Kaden Hart, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kunalakis, in support.

Thank you. We will now go to our primary witnesses in opposition. If they could step up. Is there only one primary witness in opposition who we recognize here? Since there's only one, we'll give you four minutes.

I object.

And if you could turn your mic on, please.

Okay, hopefully everybody can hear me. I'm Assemblymember Tom Lackey and I'm the Republican Caucus Chair. Assemblymember Gallagher is unable to be here, so I'd like to read his statement to the record, if I'm permitted to do so. I would love that. In California, we've always claimed to be a state that does things better.

Cleaner government, more transparency, a stronger commitment to fairness. More than a decade ago, voters provided—proved—that very point by taking one of the most powerful political weapons out of politicians' hands. That is this issue of redistricting. They created the Citizens Redistricting Commission where everyday Californians, not career politicians, draw our political maps.

No backroom deals, no party bosses, no lobbyists calling the shots. The result? Maps shaped by public testimony, not raw political muscle. Communities kept together, competitive districts preserved, trust in the process restored. It wasn't a Republican idea or a Democratic idea. It was the people's idea, and it worked. Now, Sacramento politicians want to take it back.

California Democrats, with Governor Gavin Newsom's support are proposing to rip this power away from the independent Commission and put it back under political control. Their goal? Protect a few moral—I'm sorry, a few more seats in Congress. Their excuse? Texas is doing it. That's not leadership, it's abandoning our principles.

Redistricting is how politicians decide who wins before voters get a say. It's the most brazen way to rig the system. When district lines are drawn for political advantage, the first casualty is often fair representation. Rural communities, in particular, risk being carved apart and their voices deluded.

Rural Californians lose the unified voice that ensures our unique needs and, and priorities are heard. That's exactly why Californians stripped the Legislature of this power in the first place. Giving it back to the very people voters took it from isn't reform, it's raw power grab and voters see through it.

A recent Politico poll possibly indicated that Californians oppose returning redistricting to the Legislature by nearly 2 to 1. Only 36% support this scheme. That's not a debate; it's a public rejection. This is bigger than party labels. Whether you're Republican, Democrat, or independent, you lose. When politicians draw their own districts, communities are carved up like a pie.

Competitive races vanish. Politicians stop worrying about what voters think because their districts are locked up for years. Voters lose, democracy loses. California should be the model for the nation, not a state that tosses out reforms the minute they inconvenience those in power. We showed America that redistricting can be done openly, fairly, and without partisan manipulation.

Throwing it away now tells every voter that fairness only matters when it's political and convenient. One partisan control is back in the game and never leaves—once partisan control is back in the game, it never leaves—and the people will lose their voice.

If Governor Newsom and the Legislative Democrats think voters will quietly watch them dismantle one of the state's most important Democratic safeguards, they're in for a surprise. The outcry will be loud, bipartisan, and unrelenting. This isn't complicated.

Our democracy works best when politicians have to compete for their votes, not when they manipulate the rules to keep themselves in power. That's why the voters passed redistricting reform, and that's why they still will support it. The message from the voters is simple. The power belongs to the people.

Let's keep it that way, and we won't let them take it. I'm also confused to some degree how redistricting bills are not being sent to suspense when it's been very publicly stated that these bills will result in a $200 million cost to the state.

You're at four minutes.

Okay, well, the, the last thing that I'd like to close with is I, I find it a little bit disturbing that I have someone sitting on this dais with me, Ms. Jody, who is married to someone who has been reported had an active role in this map making, and that would be Paul Mitchell.

I find that to be a conflict of interest, and I find it disappointing.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. We will now be going to primary witnesses in opposition. Name, organization, if any, and your position on the Bill. Okay. Seeing none. We will bring it back to Committee for questions. Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be voting no on ACA 8, which is a proposed constitutional amendment that the voters will decide during an unnecessary, unbudgeted, expensive special election this December. And we've heard all the reasons why this is an unfortunately bad idea, but I'll speak to the cost as we are in Appropriations.

This unnecessary special election is expected to cost California taxpayers more than $230 million. According to the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Orange County alone, this special election to gerrymander congressional districts and split apart communities in my district and in my own city is anticipated to cost between $11 and $13 million.

By voting to pass SB 280, or ACA 8, excuse me, you are voting to appropriate funding for a costly special election at a time when California faces painful budget cuts to health care, education, housing, and other critical services.

And I take special note of the Ms. Hicks, I believe her name, who spoke earlier, and I just want to quote from her statement last May, when the Governor announced a cut to Planned Parenthood in the state budget, and her statement at the time was, with this May budget revision, Governor Newsom, Governor Newsom, the author of this effort to spend $230 million is effectively defunding Planned Parenthood in the State of California.

While I recall your comments were related to the congressional efforts and the federal budgeting, however, this $230 million could go a long way to support your Planned Parenthood programs in California.

So, I suggest maybe you also talk to the Governor. He's spending $230 million. It could better go for health care, mental health, housing, homelessness, all the long list of horribles in the state of California, yet he can find $230 million out of the deficit-based budget to fund this election.

If we want to have an election, I don't support it. It should be tied into another election. There's been no financial analysis—I haven't seen any anyway—of the cost to the State General Fund or to county budgets.

No one has time to figure this out where the money is going to come from to provide for a state, another state mandated, unfunded, urgent item, which is an election in November. I will be voting no and when it comes before me and ask you to do the same. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Would you like to respond?

Yes.

May I respond to that?

I just want to be very clear, because I think facts matter, the Governor's proposal was to cut that funding. The Legislature rejected those cuts, and the final adopted budget restored all of that funding for health care, including funding to Planned Parenthood.

Should also be noted that California pays over $80 billion in federal taxes that we don't get back. $70 billion of that went to Texas. That's money that is also being cut from Head Start programs, education programs, veterans' benefits.

And I find it horribly offensive that $40 billion of our own money couldn't return home for disaster aid in Los Angeles and not a single Republican in this Legislature is demanding that it come home.

So, if we're talking about the cost of a special election versus the cost of our democracy or the cost that Californians are already paying to subsidize this corrupt Administration, those costs seem well worth paying in this moment.

Can I just respond to that? Just briefly. It's still $230 million. There's nothing to blink your eyes about. It is money that could cost, could be allocated for costs other than a special election. If it sits there in the budget, why not put it to health care?

Why not put it to all these issues that are very important in California? But suddenly $230 million materializes as essential. Democracy is not hanging by an edge. I think this is really overstated and it's hyperbolic and it does not do a respectable service to the people of California to engage in that kind of hyperbole.

Thank you very much.

The last thing I will say to that is just I wish we had the same conversation when we ran several pointless recalls in the last few years.

Thank you. And we'll go to Mr. Tanipa now and a Member—each Member—has five minutes to opine on this Bill.

Thank you and good morning. I've got some really fiscal related questions. If is there anybody pointed to that I can.

Yeah, I'm ready.

Okay. Yesterday there was a lawsuit filed in response to the pending legislation. There will be undoubtedly additional lawsuits filed against California.

The Attorney General has already needed to request emergency funding to pay for the litigation. Do you anticipate needing to come back and ask for additional funding for the litigation? And if so, do you expect that in this normal budget year or budget cycle or, or is it going to be an emergency ask?

I think similar to the funds we gave to the Attorney General during the special session at the beginning of this year that have returned billions of dollars back to California at the expense of only $50 million investment—investments—that we spend protecting ourselves from this hostile Administration paid back several times over.

So, you believe that that funding will be used in the lawsuits to fight this, and no more additional funds are going to be allocated towards that?

I believe that the Attorney General's Office, both now and under the previous Trump Administration, has been wildly successful fighting the unconstitutionality. I'm asking for the funds. May I finish talking about...?

I've only got five minutes. So, I'm asking for the funds. I'm not asking how good they are.

If you can let him respond, that'd be great.

Reclaiming my time.

I thought I had five minutes.

I think we're on the opposite end. I have to reclaim. I just need the funds portion. Do you believe that there's going to be a budget asked now or later?

I believe that any investment we make in the Attorney General's Office yields back several times over more resources back to California.

I'm not talking about how good they are. I'm talking about do they need more money?

Mr. Tangipa, I think he's answered your question.

Okay. Will litigation costs be tracked and reported separately so taxpayers can see the true cost of this measure?

I think anytime that public dollars are spent, it is always in a transparent way. And the Attorney's General's office has been incredibly transparent in how they use those litigation dollars to fight return dollars back to California.

It's estimated that this special election will cost $235 million to complete. Is the appropriation for the special election ultimately going to come from the General Fund, all while the LAO has already highlighted to us structural deficits and a projected budget shortfall next year, ranging in between $10 and $30 billion?

I can tell you it's not going to come from the $80 billion that Californians pay to subsidize this corrupt Administration that has been held hostage from the people of our state.

The rural counties I represent are feeling heavy budget pressure. Our counties can't afford to foot the Bill up front for this special election. Is the plan to provide them full upfront costs of the election or are we going to reimburse them post election?

I imagine there's a lot of economic insecurity in rural counties, especially when $100 billion has gone into ICE enforcement that has destabilized our agricultural economy and many sectors of our state. I think those resources could definitely be spent in a better way.

Isaac, I've got a rural county that has three people that work.

It's Assemblymember Bryan, sir.

Please refer to him by Assemblymember Bryan, please.

Or the Member from Los Angeles.

Sorry about that. I'm still learning.

I know.

The state has a long history, really, of creating mandates that are supposed to be funded. My big worry on this is that there's so many unfunded mandates and money actually doesn't get back to them. What guarantees do we provide to make sure that this won't happen, so those counties that are trying to operate in this state, California, to make sure that they're made whole?

The only money that's not getting back to us, not to the fire torn areas of Los Angeles, not to our Head Start programs, not to our health care infrastructure, not to our agricultural economy, is the $80 billion in federal taxes that we paid that we have asked for back in emergency times that the Federal Government has used as leverage and held hostage and subsidized their plans, including the plans that are happening in Texas right now.

I think it's sad right now that I'm asking very fiscally appropriate questions, questions in the Appropriations Committee and I haven't gotten a single answer on how the money is going to get there, how much money is actually needed, and where are the cost estimates.

All I'm asking for is can we do this and do we have funds with a projected deficit next year?

And we're saying, I'm sorry, we also have Department of Finance here who can weigh in as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, Members. My name is Christian Beltran. I am with the Department of Finance and thank you, Assemblymember Tangipa, for the questions.

Just to clarify, the language does specify that the Department of Finance will continue to work with the Secretary of State's office as well as our county partners to ensure that funding for this election will be made in advance to the election.

So, we will continue to ensure that counties, particularly your counties as well, will be made whole and not have to cut any additional funding to public safety programs or any of the kind of healthcare programs.

Does the Department of Finance next year also expect an estimated, and agree with the LAO's analysis, that there's a structural deficit next year?

I think we can all agree that we are not in the best budget situation given federal pressures and given other kind of hostile acts that we are seeing from the Federal Government, and therefore, we are continuing to plan for the worst. And we do have projections that are consistent with the LAO.

However, we would just encourage the Legislature to understand that the Department of Finance will continue to work with the partners that we have both on the state and federal levels to ensure we are continuing to get as much funding as possible.

I'm sorry, your five minutes is up. This is your last question.

Okay. We have in front of us many questions that need to be answered because it's fiscally responsible here in the State of California. We are elected in the State of California to get our budget right. That is not happening right now. We know that. But we need to make sure that the right people are here.

Because that was my first question, who should I point the financial questions to? And you said you were ready. It doesn't seem like it.

But what we need to know right now is who drew the maps, who got paid, who didn't go on vacation, who is involved in this and who has a vested interest in all of this money being allocated. That is very important. That is the number one question everybody is asking.

Can somebody, somebody, anybody, tell us definitively whether it's leadership, whether it's the DCC, whether it's Paul Mitchell, whether it's special interests, who got paid to draw the maps and who is doing this, and did they register under the State of California to make sure that they can do this? Answer the question.

Mr. Bryan, would you like to address that and then we'll move on to other Members?

Sure, I'm happy to. And I appreciate you still learning which Committee does what because you started out understanding this is a fiscal Committee and then went straight into your partisan BS. And that's perfectly fine.

These maps were drawn in collaboration between many stakeholders, including experts who have been drawing lines for multiple municipalities for over a hundred different jurisdictions across California and beyond. It was in collaboration with the Legislature.

Who are those many individuals and how much did they get paid?

We're allowing Mr. Isaac Bryan to.

It was also in collaboration with the 10,000 comments that were submitted to the independent redistricting Commission, which is why nearly 80% of this map mirrors the map before. Let's also be very clear.

The person who drew this map is the authoritarian in the White House who called for destruction of the foundations of our democracy by clawing back five seats that don't belong to him in Texas and forcing the people of California to respond. The people of California will draw this map on November when they have their voice heard.

The Legislature does not draw or implement these maps. The people get the final voice and the maps will change, not even a little bit, unless they say so in November. And I believe strongly that they will.

But we should know who paid to prepare you because that's all we got.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Still learning those rules.

Any other, any other questions from Members on the Committee? Mr. Gonzalez.

I know there's a lot of conversation about cost and, and I think the budget figures were 100 and something. What was it? $230 million to taxpayers to have the special election.

But I just want to ask the question to the Department of Finance that they can confirm from many studies that are out there that say from mass arrest, detention to deportations in California could cost the state's economy $275 billion and eliminate $23 billion in annual tax revenue.

The loss of immigrant workers, including undocumented individuals and those losing lawful status, would hinder projects like rebuilding Los Angeles after wildfires, reducing food supply, and increasing costs. And in 2022, undocumented immigrants contributed $8.5 billion in state and local taxes, a figure that would rise to $10.3 billion if they could work lawfully.

So, if we're sitting here arguing about $230 million, I wish there was this sort of outrage when it came to the billions of dollars that are being lost as a result of people who look like me who are being detained, we're being held hostage, and we're sitting here arguing about, well, who drew the maps, who held the pen?

Well, guess what? The California—we were the ones who went out there and we were the ones who said that, you know, you're obsessing over who participated in the structure and how they did it. The public did it. And in the comments that were mentioned, it said, banning principles, fair representation, mass power grab, losing when politicians.

I'm from Texas, I know what happens there. And they are not listening to the people. They're holding them hostage. In fact, their own Legislature is stuck there and they can only get a police escort. So, there's all this talk and rhetoric about, oh, you know, who's drawing the maps and how are they doing this.

And Republicans in Texas and Florida and across the county are actively rigging districts to silence voters and protect Donald Trump. But we're figuring out where all this money is coming from while immigrants, who make us the fourth largest economy in the world, are suffering.

So, the question is if you can confirm that as a result of these raids and all of the hostages that are being taken by this Trump Administration, who are taking brown people, the billions of dollars that it's costing California, and why we have to have this election in the first place.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gonzalez, and I appreciate the question. You know, I would just like to say that we, as the Department of Finance, continue to track the economic implications that are stemming from the Federal Government, whether it's through tariff policy or immigration enforcement.

We continue to track our monthly cash receipts, and we'll continue to do so and be able to report that to the Legislature as we have more information.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions from Members? We do have a motion and a second. Ms.—oh, yes, Mr. Arambula.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is your mic not working?

Well, that's one way to silence some voices. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask questions. I have great respect for my two colleagues who are here on the dais, but I'm going to start with a bit of being a fanboy, having watched so many of the independent redistricting commissions. Trina, you were our Central Valley representative.

You stood up for us. I watched you time and time again during those hearings, making sure that you were standing up for community and protecting us. And so, I want to ask, with all real honesty, why we need to repeat this process that was so well done back there just a few years ago.

Can you help answer that to me? Because I started my week meeting with my preacher, meeting with my faith leaders, wanting to be led in this moment, knowing that it's important for us to stand up for people of our great state.

Yes, and thank you for the question and the opportunity to respond. I think most of what we hear talks about numbers, figures, policy. There is an old saying in the church that talks about—warns people against being so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good. And in this case, I think in all of our appropriation meetings, we need to think about being so politically minded that we're no community good.

People are suffering as a result of what's already going on. And it's one thing to stand on policy and principle when you have beautiful, non-threatened communities to go home to, but for our Central Valley communities and other places in California that seen right now, terror on the streets, separations of families, overreach by our Administration, we cannot wait for another five years, six years, 10 years. We need to take action now.

And when history is told, we need to be able to say that we stood on the right side of trying to stop this authoritarian government that we have currently going on. Numbers, 230 million is not a lot of money.

We can find it and certainly it can be offset by some of the other things that currently going on. I'm not an expert in that. I'm an expert in facing people all day, every day, that's living in real fear.

And we still will have a fight because their voices are intentionally being muted now so they don't show up later. The people will speak if they're allowed to speak.

If we don't continue to face issues like trying to get rid of voting by mail, getting rid of the bail, all of that is a one story, one picture designed to silence voices.

If the Congress didn't stand up against our Administration and face that and speak out against it, and we expect people to do it without any cover and protection, I'm hoping that all of our elected officials will do what our people is counting on you to do, and you know that they're being impacted now by what's going on.

Thank you for that answer and thank you for being able to ask that question.

Thank you. Any other Members have questions? Mr. Bryan, would you like to close?

Absolutely. I'd like to just address finally a few things that had been said. Opposition witness, my colleague said that stealing congressional seats is the most brazen way to rig the system. I could not agree more.

That is exactly why in this moment we have to stand up and push back against the power grab that is happening from the authoritarian in the White House through the State of Texas. My colleague also said that 2/3 of Californians don't believe that the Legislature should draw and implement new maps. I agree.

That's why I authored legislation two years ago calling for independent redistricting commissions at every level of California government. And it was opposed by every single Republican, including the gentleman who I love, who's sitting right next to me.

That's why I also passed an update to the Fair Maps Act that was signed into law by the government that prevented us from drawing maps around incumbency. Again, it was voted down by every single Republican in the Legislature. In fact, the leader of the Republican caucus spoke in opposition or the Republican—Mr. Gallagher spoke in opposition.

The public in this moment doesn't want us to bow down and roll over and allow for the foundations of our democracy to be eroded and taken away from us so that our country becomes no longer recognizable. I also think the fiscal hypocrisy that I've heard today is mind blowing.

The State of California was impacted by over $10 billion from the haphazard tariffs that were coming out of Washington D.C. The Governor spoke very clearly about it in the May Revise. I've said it many times through this hearing already, the State of California pays over $80 billion in federal taxes that we do not get back.

Money that Los Angeles, who's on fire in January, has desperately asked for and federal aid. We have a $1 billion extortion attempt on the number one public University in the country, UCLA, and I don't hear any Republicans standing up for those California tax dollars.

I didn't hear any Republican standing up to the big, beautiful scam that put trillions of dollars of national debt on the backs of the future generations of California children and cut billions of dollars in critical services, benefits, nutritional assistance, and the things that our children and families need to survive.

So, to sit here and talk about the cost of a special election to save democracy being too high is unconscionable, hypocritical, and unbecoming of anybody in this body. The people of California have asked for us to stand up. That is why we are moving this ACA forward, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Bryan. The motion before us is do pass. It was moved by Mr. Solache, seconded by Mr. Fong. I also just want to add some closing comments as well. I appreciate the spirited debate that we have had here in the Appropriations Committee. I have deep respect for you, Mr. Lackey.

So, thank you for representing the opposition. I do want to make a comment to one of your comments though. You know, Ms. Hicks is here in her position as a leader of Planned Parenthood and not as the wife of someone who has participated in this.

And she is a professional in her own right who is leading an organization that provides very critical services for millions of people across the State of California, and that is who she is here representing. Planned Parenthood is an organization that I have benefited from myself when I did not have health care when I was younger.

And she has every ability to be here to speak on behalf of those who need those resources. So, I just want to respectfully remind us why she is here, in which capacity she is here.

The other thing I would like to say is since this is a fiscal committee, you know, the cost of inaction is way too high right now on what is before us here in this body. The cost to our democracy is what we are talking about right now.

The cost to families, millions of whom who will lose health care because of what this Trump Administration is doing. The cost to these wildfire victims who are not receiving the deserved resources that they need to rebuild. The cost to our working-class families who are losing their SNAP benefits. That is what we are talking about here.

None of us want to be in this situation, but our hand is being forced and we will not unilaterally disarm. That is why we are here. And we are doing this in the most transparent way possible by allowing the electorate to determine if they want this or not. This is going to go to the ballot.

There's triggers on this. It reverts back to the Commission. This is the best case scenario for where we're at. But we will not stop fighting in California, and I believe our electorate will respond to that as well. That is what we are moving forward today.

That is what is going to be on the floor of the Assembly for debate tomorrow. I deeply appreciate the conversation, but with that, I am proud to move this Bill forward. It is going to move out of this Committee today on a B roll call. Thank you, Mr. Bryan, and everyone who participated.

And Ms. Cervantes, you are up next and you will be presenting SB 280. And I just want to remind everyone, Members will each have 5 minutes for comments on the Bill and primary witnesses will each have two minutes for a total of four. Opposition witnesses will each have two minutes for a total of four.

And Members of the public will say name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill. We have a motion by Mr. Fong and a second by Mr. Pacheco and you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, today I'm proud to present Senate Bill 280 which calls for a statewide special election on November 4th of this year.

The special election would allow California voters to consider Assembly constitutional amendment 8 which would allow this Legislature to engage in a one time mid-decade redistricting of our state's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives. This Bill also makes the necessary statutory changes to allow the June 2026 statewide primary election to be held on time.

California did not start this redistricting fight. This fight was brought to us. The truth of the matter is if we let Donald Trump get away with rigging elections in Texas and other red states through partisan gerrymandering, we will not have free or fair elections in the United States in the future.

If Donald Trump pursues this power grab, California stands ready to respond. SB 280 appropriates the funding necessary for the Secretary of State and our county registrars to administer the special election. The amount needed to administer the election will be determined by the Director of the Department of Finance and appropriated from the General Fund.

The State Controller will then distribute monies to the SOS and the county registrar so that they have the funding they need. This is done on the front end so the funding is available as we march toward the election in November. Madam Chair, we have two witnesses who are here to testify.

Thank you. You will each have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Members, I am going to reintroduce myself. I am Jody Hicks. I am the CEO and President of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

I realize some of you I do not know, but before that, some of you I do know because I also have a 20-year history of being a healthcare advocate, particularly for our most vulnerable communities in California and advocating for patients on Medicaid. So that is why I am here today.

Planned Parenthood was the first action that happened with HR1. So the defund happened day one. It was $300 million.

Thank you for quoting me and acknowledging that I am holding folks accountable if they are making cuts to Planned Parenthood, to Medicaid, to any section of our health care that affects patients in a deep way which some of our own California budget proposals did.

We have advocated to ensure that people in our most vulnerable communities are able to get access to the health care that they need, including reproductive healthcare. What HR1 did, though, is decimate that, and it is $300 million every year.

So the cost and the fiscal analysis for being able to fight back against a Congress that is attempting to hold onto power to continue to have economic sanctions and hold California accountable for the values that we all share, which includes reproductive freedom, which includes diversity, inclusivity and equity in health care, has to be stopped.

Our Congress Members need to be held accountable. We want to be able to do that in the traditional way, but we're not able to if other states are rigging the system. And that's why I'm here today encouraging your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Trina Turner, 2020 Redistricting Commissioner I wanted to say that if we could balance a perfect budget, but we do it on the backs of people where it brings them harm, it is absolutely a problem for Californians. California can't be seen centered in this moment irregardless to what else is going on in the nation.

The proposed districts aren't perfect as the current ones aren't, but it certainly should not elicit the critique and fear that some are going for this cost of 230,235 million is well worth the money spent in order to be able to protect our communities.

The new maps, by the way, use most all of the same criteria, VRA included, and the almost 40,000 community of interest testimony received. It was all used. Most districts that we focused on were actually kept intact. The proposed margin, the proposed even the proposed maps even managed to split fewer areas than we were able to split.

There were some issues in that in that there were some communities that were split, but we're talking about balancing what's going on. I'm not confused as a Commissioner that this is in this moment, not about California. This has nothing to do with recanting or figuring out that independent redistricting was incorrect. It was great. It's wonderful.

We need to do it across the nation since that's not happening right now, California, we need to be able to stand up in this moment and we do need to.

I'm in total support of SB 280 for the election that needs to take place now because I think the work before us is to get our people to understand, Californians to understand why we're taking this approach in this moment that is different from what we did just five years ago.

The day is different, our time is different, our nation is different. Our congressional. The representatives have not stood up for California. They have not voted in a way that protects all of our nation. And so we now have an opportunity to play a role in that.

The last thing I want to say is many of our people, a lot of times we have often said California was not a swing state, so we don't get a lot of voice up front. But in this moment, California is centered in this conversation and we need to stand up now. Support of SB 280. Thank you.

We will go now to folks in the room who wish to express support, name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill.

Madam Chair, Members, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, on behalf of our 2.3 million Members, we are in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Honorable Chair and Members. Amy Hines-Shaikh with UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and their 200,000 IHSS providers who are funded by MEDEL largely and would like to stand up and support that and this Bill in addition to Unite Here, Local 11 and their 32,000 Members. Thank you.

Thank you. Annie Chow at the California Teachers Association in support.

Good morning again. Kaden Hart, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kis in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Conor Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Thank you. We will now go to primary witnesses in opposition. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Okay, we will have any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition, name, organization and position, if any, anyone in the room wish to express opposition? Okay, we will now bring it back to Committee.

We have DOF here to answer questions if need be. Ms. Dixon, you can go first. And I want to remind Members they will each have five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I don't think I need five minutes. I will be voting no. I will be saying much of the same that I said in the previous measure, on SB 280, which calls for a fiscally irresponsible special election to be held on November 4th so voters can determine the fate of ACA 8.

This unnecessary, again, stated again, special election is expected to cost California taxpayers more than $230 million. And according to the Orange County Registrar voters, this special election for Orange County alone to gerrymander congressional districts and split apart communities in my district is anticipated to cost between 11 and 13 million.

By voting to pass SB 280, you are voting to appropriate funding for a costly special election in a state that routinely spends money that it does not have. In fact, we all know just this year California faced a budget deficit of over $12 billion. And you had to make.

We in the Assembly and the budget committees had to make painful cuts. Has been referenced in health care, fire prevention, education, housing and other critical services.

I just have to ask how that the cost for the special election of $230 million could have helped plug some of those gaps and those costs that were mandated or made necessary because of overspending by the Legislature and the Governor. So there's a lot of budget fixes that need to happen.

And here we're piling on another $230 million. When we talk about the vulnerable people. $230 million on their health care benefits would have gone a long way. Wildfire mitigation. My party side of the aisle recommended I think $1.0 billion for wildfire mitigation. I think it came in at 200 million.

Another 100 million would have helped the people in California to mitigate on future wildfires. We know there are significant priorities in this state to help people to help us be providing the needs and the services of our communities. And $230 million to be spent before November 4th. Where it comes from, where they found $230 million.

What is not going to be spent whether it's on education. I deal with educators all the time K through 12 higher education. Their budget cuts, their research cuts. Cuts all across the board because of a budget deficit has nothing to do with the Federal Government. The Federal Government doesn't fund elections. The State of California funds elections.

And where is this money coming from? The cost of this special election unbudgeted by the counties and not provided for the state budget passed only two months ago make a mockery of the budget process and an independent redistricting process. I think to hyper politicize this effort is shameful.

I will speak all the references to the President United States. I'm not here to defend him. But the Governor of this state obviously has future interests and this one he wants to mobilize national attention.

I will make this as a statement and that is what's driving everyone to march in order to ensure that he is positioned to run for President of the United States. We all know what he's doing to get national attention. But to hold hostage the taxpayers of California to fulfill his political goals is inappropriate. So I'm obviously strongly opposed.

For these reasons, I'll be voting no. And I encourage others to realize the folly of this entire exercise size. Thank you.

Would you like to respond or answer in your close.

Madam Chair. Happy to answer in my close.

Okay. And we have Mr. Solache.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I just want to respectfully to my colleague say that I do not plan a march in order to support anyone 2028 yet, but I will march in order to support democracy and support the constituents in my district who are being snatched by these agents without documentation.

I am every day fear for my community that I represent. So this is an investment to our Californians that we owe. I truly understand that we have to ensure that we safeguard our budget and I appreciate that. But this is a time where dollars at the federal level are at stake.

In MediCal, Medicaid, I plan supporting health care for our Californians. So in this case we will make that investment to protect democracy in California. Thank you. And throughout America. Because this is not a Republican issue, a Democrat issue. This is an American issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other question, Mr. Gonzalez?

Just to the Department of Finance. How much was the, I think it was in 2021, the special recall election that we had. And then out of curiosity, there also is an election for Assembly District 63 where a former colleague was promoted to this Administration and left that vacancy, costing taxpayers dollars in a special election as well because they fulfill their term. How much is that costing us?

Good morning Madam Chair and Members and staff of the Appropriations Committee. Millie Yan with Department of Finance. Thank you Assemblymember Gonzalez, for your question. My understanding is that in 2022, for the Gubernatorial recall, 100 or $270 million was appropriated for the effort and approximately 200 million was spent for the state and the counties.

And in terms of the AD63 election, I don't have that information offhand, but I am happy to go back and get that information for you.

Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members? Mr. Tangipa.

Good morning. I just again have some very important fiscal questions. I represent the second-largest district in the State of California in the Assembly. I have six very rural, very small counties. Some of them have only three elections workers. I'm just trying to make sure this moves to where we want it to be.

They need to be made whole. They are trying to keep up with the mandates on this state. There is a very big divide in this state and it's mainly urban versus rural than it really is right versus left when it comes to the financial side of things, which is what I am trying to focus on.

I just need to know with this Bill, the amount that is appropriated to it, is this a blank check or do we have the dialed in approach to how much funding is going to all of our county elections clerks to perform their duties?

We just need to know are the current cost estimates that were granted right now because the state has a track record of being over 400% overestimates, we need to rein that in.

If the Department of Finance has already admitted that there is a structural deficit next year, that is our responsibility as legislators in the State of California to be very mindful of the dollars and taxpayers that they are giving us.

Do we have all of those dialed in or is it a blank check for when a county says I just need more for this, that they're just automatically going to get it? Are we just going to allocate money? What is the appropriation limit?

DOF. Thank you, Assemblymember Tangipa. I appreciate your concern over the costs. SB 280 includes an appropriation for the Secretary of State and allows the state controller to allocate resources to counties based on a schedule that we are currently in development with the Secretary of State. So it is a moving.

It's a developing issue right now and we are working with the Secretary of State to develop a schedule.

Do we, do we have a cap? Do we have a cap on how much can be spent? Because I just. I had to run a Bill to put a cap on other projects in this state. Is there a cap there? So that way we don't go from 250 million to half a billion dollars.

And that is more than reasonable to expect with the track record of projects in this state.

Thank you. I appreciate your concern about the costs. We do have benchmarks from past efforts that we would hew close to.

Okay, thank you. And now I have. I reached out to almost all of my county elections Clerk asking them what financial questions do you have? How can you implement? There are a lot of rules in this that also require them. Covid era regulations, additional Voters Choice Act.

Some of my counties are not Voters Choice act simply because they don't have the personnel to do it when you're asking three people to show up.

The labor laws in the State of California are very conflicting with the Voter Choice act and the amount of work that they can do and they can't onboard and hire for a temporary special election. All of those costs are specifically for Inyo County, Mono County, Mariposa County, Calaveras County and Tuolumne County.

I am here to make sure that they can make up for it because some of my counties just this past year have had to reduce their budgets because they can't afford the state mandates by 15%. They are struggling very heavily. So the question that they are asking is this Proposition would require significant redistricting implementation.

If this is passed by counties, is there an appropriation for this unscheduled portion of it after the election is happening? The mandate, that is mandated, with this mandated work that must be completed after the certification of the election on December 2 and prior to the opening of signatures in lieu on December 19th.

Because they've got about two weeks, two weeks to redo all the districts to open the signatures in lieu for the primary election. Is there additional funding after the election is done appropriated to them to make this happen?

Thank you for your concerns. The intention is to provide funding to county elections officials in advance of the election. And we are working with the Secretary of State right now

After the election.

And in terms of that, that is, this is a very developing issue that we will continue to look at as developments occur.

I think we should all worry to be fiscally responsible in this state to do our job as state electeds. And what we heard right now and what my counties are watching right now is you are asking them to do something, to have a Hail Mary from the 99-yard line. I've got three people in an elections office.

I have very urban area. I have the fifth largest city in the entire State of California and I have the smallest community as well. Shouldn't they have some consideration? And if we are going to take all of these dollars and punt them away for it, they are struggling now.

Do we not expect them to struggle in the future? And how can we say that we are fiscally responsible and taking care of those dollars. Thank you. It should worry everybody.

Thank you Mr. Tangipa. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Ms. Cervantes, would you. Ms. Caloza, did you want to speak? No. Ms. Cervantes, would you like to close?

Yes, Madam Chair. You know, I find it interesting some of the fiscally responsible questions that were just asked, you know, just yesterday in Assembly Elections Committee. You're worried about us spending too much money now. Today you're worried about not having enough money. I certainly. Or it was the opposite.

You know, I certainly want to just highlight that it was the cost that we're talking about in this fiscal Committee today. The costs are going to be just as much as a failed recall that your party placed on Governor Newsom, that was irresponsible. That wasn't fiscally responsible.

The cost this election is going to cost is as much as a new ballroom that President Trump is going to build at the White House. Is that fiscally responsible? It's also half the cost of the retrofitting of the Boeing 747 that President Trump is questionably accepting from Qatar to build, to have as his new Air Force One.

And today I do want to highlight, as was mentioned by the Department of Finance, that the counties will be made whole. The counties will be made whole. Voters have a vested interest. They have a vested interest to say no more to Trump's power grab.

And today, we will continue to move forward collectively and stand up against this authoritarian presidency. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Cervantes, and appreciate the conversation today. That is out on a B roll call. Thank you.

Okay, we will now move to Mr. Laird, who I believe you are presenting a SB 283, SB 470, and SB 697. Is that correct? Great. You can begin when you're ready. Do you want to start with SB 283? Great.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair. Senate Bill 283 is the Clean Energy Safety Act. There was a fire earlier this year at the Moss Landing battery storage plant that is in my district. There have been no guidance from the state in the permitting. Whether it's state or local.

This bill would provide that you can't build industrial battery storage in combustible buildings, that the. The safety standards related to lithium, widely recognized as the most comprehensive, would be taken into the building code, and that there would be consultation with fire departments during the process of planning and inspections before it is open.

There are no anticipated state costs. This is sponsored by the professional firefighters and the electrical workers. It's supported by all the local boards of supervisors on the coast in my district, emergency responders, energy developers, energy providers. It has no opposition, has received bipartisan support. I would respectfully ask for an ivo.

Thank you very much. I think we just heard a motion and a second. Great. Any primary witnesses in support? Any folks in the room wish to express support?

Hi, good morning. Meg Snider with Axiom Advisors here on. Behalf of Fluence and support. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nosman on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, County of Monterey in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses? Primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Any questions or Comments from Committee Members. Okay, we have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

I respectfully will move this out on an a roll call.

Thank you very much.

Great. And now we are moving on to SB470.

SB470 relates to the Bagley Keen Act. I authored SB544 in 2023, which set up new system for open meeting laws just for state boards and commissions that sunsets. And this Bill would extend this law till January 12080. This has worked. What it does is it gives a choice.

Any state border Commission can use existing law or they can go to having a physical quorum present and allowing remote participation in. And it institutionalizes things we learned during the pandemic. If the system. If people access it remotely, you have to take remote testimony. If the system goes down, you have to pause the meeting.

People have to put cameras on if they're doing it remotely. It is allowed access for people with disabilities and for seniors, which is why disability and senior organizations are sponsoring and are in strong support. It actually is a cost saver. So I will.

I have here Ethan Rarick, the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission, as a primary witness and support. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an iPhone.

Thank you. And if you'll have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. We began using this remote technology during the pandemic and found that it saved money, both due to reduced travel costs and reduce facility rentals.

In order to see if that experience was replicated in other agencies, we surveyed other Bagley Keen boards and commissions in 2021 and found that more than 90% of responding agencies reported saving money through the use of remote technology, most commonly in the range of 10 to $50,000 per year per board and Commission.

We believe there are other advantages to remote technology, but we have saved money to focus on the fiscal issues. Accordingly, we've recommended the kinds of changes embodied in this Bill and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, name, organization and position.

Good morning. Patrick Smith, California Commission on Aging in support.

Morning. Tony Anderson, the Association of Regional Center Agencies in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room in opposition? We will bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments? Mr. Tangipa?

Actually just wanted to really thank the Senator for bringing this forward. I think this is something that we should look at into modernization and the ability, especially when I have a district that is pretty close to 25,000 square miles the same size as North Carolina.

It's very hard to get to a border Commission from one end if the county office is in another one. When they were stuck during what they refer to as Snowmageddon in 2023 and 2024, there's no ability for them. Either they couldn't show up and they couldn't even get quorum done, or they couldn't make the efforts.

And so these changes really helped a lot of my rural counties. I look forward to working together on what we can do to really help a lot of these areas, our senior communities.

I have one of the oldest districts as well, very large retired population that live in the High Sierras, that live on the Eastern Sierras, that this just benefits them so much.

So if there's any pilots or anything in the future that we can help out some of these rural counties to participate more in their government to provide them the Internet access so they can get there to try to do that. That's a big portion of ours. And I just wanted to make sure.

I was thanking the Senator for doing that.

Thank you very much. Thank you. And Mr. Gonzalez. The other Gonzalez, Mr. Jeff Gonzalez.

I'm glad to see Regional Centers are here. And as someone who has a family Member in Regional Center support, and I appreciate your leadership in this. This is.

This is vital for families like mine, communities like mine, and any way that we can help special needs communities or communities that are not in reach, you can count me in. So thank you for your support.

Thank you.

Okay. Oh, we have a motion and a second. Great. Any other questions from Committee Members? Great. Would you like to close?

I really appreciate the comments and I respectfully ask for an envelope.

Okay. Did you want to opine on who has better hair of the Mr. Gonzalez's?

Yeah, believe me, I've made my own statement on hair for a long time.

I won't make you—make you decide that here on the hot seat, both Mr. Jeff Gonzalez and Mr. Mark Gonzalez have great hair. So, that is out on AB roll call, with Mr. Tonga not voting. Sorry—Mr. Tonga voting aye, and Mr. Jeff Gonzalez not voting. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, now we will move on to SB697.

Thank you. This modernizes stream system adjudication to State Water Board now requires personal visits everywhere that hasn't caught up with technology. Now with drones and stream gauges, they can gather the information they need remotely. It doesn't cost money. This Bill would allow that flexibility. It's expected at least to be cost neutral. Probably will result in cost savings.

The Bill has no opposition, has received bipartisan support. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? We need a motion. We've got a motion. A second.

Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. That is sorry. Out on an A roll call with Mr. Tangipa and Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. Okay, we will miss. Move on to Durazzo and I believe you are presenting SB513. If you could turn your mic on too.

Thank you, chair Members. SB513 cost wise has minimal absorbable cost. It ensures that qualified employee training records are comprehensive of of all training, useful in demonstrating skills and accessible when employees search for a new job. When workers are laid off, they must respond quickly to try to find a new job.

In some cases, training records are being withheld from employees until the end of their employment. It's unfair because workers need to prepare, verify their training certificates and search for their next job opportunity in advance not until the last minute. They have families to feed and communities to care for. And they are experts in their specialties.

They just need to prove through their training certifications to future employers and prepare for that future. It's especially important during our state climate to meet our state climate goals. But how will they find a job if they can't get Access to the records.

It's like if someone was withholding your bachelor's degree, and then you need it for a job opportunity, but you can't get your degree verified because. Because it's being withheld from you. An example. Many examples of this happened in 2020 when the marathon refinery in the Bay Area was closed and it affected 350 workers.

Madam Chair, I had witnesses here today, but unfortunately, due to freeway closures, they're not going to make it. So that's the end of my presentation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Comments from Members? Would you like to close? Mrs. Durazo

Respectfully asked for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great. That is out on an a roll call with Mr. Ta not voting. Thank you. Mr. Cortese, step up to the plate and provide that. I wish this was the final run, but we have more votes. But the other night, you did help us score our final run where the north beat the south in the softball game.

Mr. Cortese, I object. I object. These comments. You can begin when you're ready. And you are presenting SB30.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'm pleased to be here with the opportunity to do this present. This bill, SB 30, prevents California public entities from selling, donating or transferring ownership of decommissioned diesel locomotives and railroad equipment with a Tier one or older engine unless the engine is removed. These are the oldest and most polluting engines.

So this bill permits the sale or transfer of tier 2 and newer engines if the transferring agency approves the transfer by voting at a public hearing. This bill has no anticipated cost to the state. The impact on agencies to sell their tier 0 and 1 equipment has been characterized as foregone revenue.

However, that revenue is likely to come at even greater cost. Air quality and health outcomes wherever the engines continue to operate. Diesel emissions cause cancer, harm vegetation and contribute to climate change.

We're all fighting to decarbonize the same air, and we should not worsen air quality in our communities and in other communities as we strive to improve our own. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And any primary witnesses in support? No. No. Okay. Any additional folks in the room, wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. And we've got a motion and a second. Would you like to close I respectfully.

Ask for your aye vote that is.

Out on AB roll call. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Rubio, you are up next and you are presenting SB841.

You can begin when you're ready.

That's correct. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of this Committee, today I'm proud to present SB841, the Keep Safe Spaces Safe Act. This is a very simple Bill.

It just intends to protect those vulnerable, victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, those that are homeless shelters, and making sure that those that seek family justice services are protected. Simply put, these locations are meant for people that are struggling, that are vulnerable. And again, these are places where people intend to heal.

So what this Bill intends to do is just simply make sure that we stand with victims and not perpetrators or criminals. This will say that if any ICE agent wants to go into these facilities, they have to have proper documentation, a warrant, and go back to the basics. The basics is having, again, doing proper documentation.

What's happening these days is they're going into these facilities. So I ask you to consider the victims who are getting beat, assaulted, murdered. Now they have to think about, do I go to a facility and get care and then risk my children being torn away from me?

So I ask you once again to stand with victims and not perpetrators. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in support? Any additional witnesses in support?

Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA, proud co sponsor, strong support. Thank you.

Griselda Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group, on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? And the Department of Finance, would you like to add in?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Finance is neutral on this Bill. The Department of Justice anticipates minimal fiscal impact and it's unknown if any cost pressures to the judicial branch would result from this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, any questions from Committee Members? Mr. Mark Gonzalez.

Just to thank the author for bringing this forward, both goddess and trailer are both in my district. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And with that, I don't know if it's been moved, but I'd like to move the Bill.

Great. We have a motion. A second. Any other comments from Committee Members? Yeah, Mr. Solaches. Great. Okay. Would you like to close?

Just want to thank you for. For taking this into consideration. But I do want to highlight that this has passed through the Senate and Assembly committees with zero no votes. And at this point, there is no state cost associated with this Bill. And I thank you for standing with victims.

Thank you, Ms. Rubio. SB841 is out of Committee with Republicans not voting. With Mr. Jeff Gonzalez voting aye.

Thank you.

And I think Next we have Mr. Arreguin, my Senator, and you are presenting SB 81. You can begin when you're ready.

Okay. Madam Chair, Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 81. Recent amendments based on Administration input will streamline implementation to help reduce costs. SB81 will ensure that health spaces remain safe spaces.

It requires that healthcare providers create non public areas in their facilities and prohibits immigration enforcement from entering those non public areas unless they have a valid judicial warrant or court order. This bill builds on the foundation of the California Values Act, a landmark victory for immigrant rights.

By codifying guidance from our Attorney General into state law, SB 81 will strengthen patient privacy protections by recognizing that their immigration status, past and present, along with the place of birth, are part of confidential medical records. We know the facts. Nearly one in four Californians are immigrants.

In my district, our shared district, more than half of the patients served by hospitals and community health providers are immigrants or refugees. These individuals are the backbone of our economy and our communities.

And to put this in perspective as well, last month in Los Angeles, we witnessed immigration enforcement camp out at Glendale Hospital for six days waiting to reapprehend a patient. Milagros Solis was detained by immigration enforcement on July 3. Despite clearly displaying medical needs.

She was left handcuffed and covered in vomit for over 8 hours without proper medical care. Patients like Milagro deserve medical care in a safe and dignified manner and free from fear of having Ayes agents sitting outside of their hospital room.

This legislation is urgent and necessary, and I believe that health care is a human right and no one should have to choose between seeking medical care and and Fearing detention or deportation.

This bill is proudly supported by a broad coalition, including industry, including the California Hospital Association, SEIU, the California Immigrant Policy center, the Latino Coalition for Healthy California. We thank this broad coalition. I think there's no formal registered opposition to support this critical bill. And this is part of a package of bills.

We're working to move the Legislature on a fast track given what's happening in our state at the appropriate time. I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support, please name organization and position on the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association, strong co sponsor in support.

Matt Lajay. With SEIU California Sponsor&Co sponsor and support.

Monica Madrid with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, strong support.

Amy Hindscheik representing UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and their 200,000 Members and Unite Here Local 11 and their 32,000 Members in strong support. Thank you.

Johnny Pineda on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California co sponsor in support. Thank you.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. On behalf of our 29,000 Members and support.

Good morning. Twido with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support.

Griselda Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Carson in support.

Hi, good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Hispanics organized for political equality and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions? Mr. Solache.

Just wanted to thank the author for bringing this. I know he was an early supporter of speaking up against what's going on in our country, in our nation, in our state.

I just want to obviously as a, as a, as a proud co author of this, just happy to rule this Bill and making sure that gets to the finish line.

Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Any other additional comments or questions from Members? Okay. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Great, thank you. That is out on AB roll call with Mr. Jeff Gonzalez not voting. Thank you. And up Next we have Mr. Becker is signed up. And Mr. Becker, you are presenting SB358. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Chair Members here to present SB358. This amends the Mitigation Fee act to require that any deviation from lower traffic impact fees be supported by substantial evidence promoting transparency and accountability and local decision making. We've a lot of efforts to build near transit.

This is actually around making it a very, I think practical bill making it easier to do so. The Bill removes vague convenience retail requirement and existing law replaces with a clear measurable standard proximity to three or more destinations, for example pharmacy or restaurant.

It complements state goals at no cost to state by promoting housing where residents are more likely to walk, bike or use public transit. I swearfully answer for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in support? Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? We have someone from the bleacher seats coming up.

Good morning. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition. Any additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. We have a motion and a second. Any questions, comments from Members? Would you like to close?

Mr. Becker, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. That is out on AB roll call with. With Mr. Tangipa and Mr. T not voting. Thank you. Thank you. And now.

Mr. Allen, you are up next and you are presenting SB 630?

That's correct. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. So the Department of Parks and Recreation has the potential to do a lot more to protect communities and the environment, including helping our state reach our 30 by 30 goals. There are limited funds available to purchase critical lands needed to increase outdoor access, protect habitat.

And it's my I've done a bit of a deep dive into this issue, and we need to do the work we need to do to remove some of the bureaucratic barriers that are currently impinging upon their ability to stretch every dollar.

Simple acquisitions have been now costing very many years due to onerous and often duplicative requirements in review. Department of General Services, DGS and the Public Works Board both face significant backlogs many months to years in some cases in processing acquisition packages from any state departments.

And they can impose an outsized burden on simpler transactions, including the incurring of additional DGS staff costs that sometimes can reach $100,000 per transaction. There have been cases where the review process is more costly than the actual land purchase. So we've got this massive backlog at state parks. Simple, straightforward acquisitions.

There are 52 projects, for example, that total about 33,000 acres. Nearly all are just donations to the state parks. And yet we now have this onerous process that we're trying to streamline through SB630. So this seeks to remove duplicative reviews.

These are where you have several agencies that are engaging in the exact same review for simple acquisitions, allowing our state parks to be more responsive in working with local partners to address pressing needs for park access and infrastructure and operations.

The the Bill would also raise the threshold at which DGS is authorized to waive its review and approval of state real estate transactions, though at a lower amount than we have for parks. This will reduce backlog and staff costs and allow DGs to focus on larger and more complex acquisitions that require additional review.

I'm happy to note that there's actually the DOF and appropriations analysis actually shows a cost savings associated with this Bill because it reduces all this duplicative, onerous review.

So here testifying in support of the Bill, we have Reid Addis, who's associate Director at the Nature Conservancy, and Ben Friedman, who's Director of government affairs and public funding at Save the Redwoods League.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Hi. Good afternoon or good morning. My name is Ben Friedman. I'm the government affairs Director for Save the Redwoods League. We've worked alongside state parks for more than 100 years to protect redwoods across the California coastline, including the beautiful redwoods of the 14th district.

This Bill streamlines the process for acquiring certain properties by exempting them from DGs and the public Works Board, effectively reducing costs and time. Conservation groups like Save the Redwoods League are essential partners to the state. We acquire properties where there is opportunity.

We can be nimble and flexible to acquire lands that the state parks would love to have, but are often lack the speed and flexibility to acquire quickly. As the Committee analysis correctly states, this Bill will save money and time and has the essential guardrails in place to limit any further state risk.

Within this sort of regime of exempting properties, this Bill provides an important solution for NGOs and state parks while allowing the state to continue to pursue its 30 by 30 and outdoor equity goals. I respectfully request your aye vote and I'm happy to answer questions.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Reed Addis, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation in strong support today, very enthusiastic about this policy. For decades we've had this challenge. Our colleagues throughout the state have been. Having issues doing very simple land transactions that support the state park system.

Not only is this good policy, it's supported by both houses and the Administration, which also makes us feel really good. That hopefully they'll get a signature if. This body allows a Bill out. We'd also like to give a shout. Out to one of your members, Assemblymember Pellerin, that's working on a companion piece of legislation. Very supportive.

Thank you very much. Cost savings, one of the. One of the great win wins here. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Madam Chair, Members, Doug Houston representing Save Mount Diablo, we're in support. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Jake Schultz, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, California Association of Local Conservation Cores, Sempervirens Fund and John Muir Land Trust in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition or any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? No opposition. Okay, great. Mrs. Pellerin.

I just want to thank the author for your leadership on this Bill. We certainly need this for a statewide solution to this problem. As you know, I've got a Bill that's district specific and it's my third time out with this Bill. And I'm hoping both these bills get.

To the Governor and get that signature because as an ex officio Member of the State park and Recreation Commission as well, this is incredibly necessary to give Parks the tools to. To plan their parks, to do their trails, do the wildfire mitigation measures that they're doing. So just want to thank you for your leadership.

And I didn't see. I was a CO on this, so I'd love to be added as a CO if it's appropriate. Thank you.

And I'd love to. If I'm not on for years, I'd love to co author yours as well.

You got it.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bicameral cooperation right there. We love to see it. Any other questions? I believe that was the motion. Right, Ms. Pellerin? Yes. Okay, great. And a second. Ms. Caloza. Would you like to close, Mr. Allen?

No. I appreciate the comments. This is a cost savings and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. That is out on AB roll call, so thank you. Ms. Menjivar, you are up next.

Who had a great catch at the game by. I think, the MVP for the south.

But it wasn't quite enough for stop the north, was it? They could not pull it off, but. That catch was epic. Great. You, Ms. Menjivar, you are presenting two bills today. SB 62 and SB 68.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 62. You've heard it. It's a companion bill. Both health chairs are carrying this bill. We have put in a request CMS Federal Government to add additional benefits to the essential health. To the essential health benefits.

We're looking to have covered durable medical equipment, fertility coverage, along with hearing aids for everyone, particularly kids who are hard of hearing or deaf. The Department is. We have worked in alignment with the Department, which. Which is why you'll see in the analysis that this would be minor in absorbable cost to them respectively.

Asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? No. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room in opposition? Okay. We will bring it back to Committee. We have a motion. And a second. Any questions? Comments? Would you like to close, Ms. Menjivar?

It would provide millions of Californians with additional coverage which is necessary right now. Once again, asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. That is out on an A roll call.

Thank you. And if you want to do now. SB 68.

Perfect.

Yeah. Phenomenal. Thank you so much. I myself, with close to 4 million. 4 million people in California live with life ending allergies. And unfortunately, in California, our restaurants do not let us know what is in the food that we eat.

You go to the EU, every single restaurant on the menus will have all the allergens available to you. So you can make a really great decision if you want to eat that meal or not. So a nine year old girl who has all these allergies brought this idea to me.

Don't know why I didn't think of it myself, as I've been to the ER endless amount of times from restaurants who forgot to disclose that the horchata was made with almond milk. And I had to spend New Year's Eve in an ER because I drank that horchata.

So this is looking to ensure that restaurants put that disclose that. And because we've embedded some flexibility for small, medium, independent and large restaurants, there is a minor cost to this that the local health Department will be able to absorb into their daily activities.

There is a flexibility to ensure that restaurants do their menu with a QR code. It could be digitally. You could do an allergen booklet. You can put it on the actual menu. We just want to make sure we have an added layer of, of protection to consumers in California with that. Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

And no witnesses. No witnesses. Okay. No. No primary witnesses. Any additional folks wish to express support in the room? Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We are opposed unless amended and appreciate the Senator's work on this issue all year. We take this issue seriously. We've been in this building very productive over the last decade putting mandates on ourselves as it relates to allergens in restaurants.

So what this bill is about is about the disclosure of the top nine allergens. We don't have an issue with disclosing the top nine allergens. Where we are having an issue is we are opposed unless amended because of the communication channels that we are allowed to communicate that to our guests.

And what I'm getting at is the national model food code provides a list of options for you to communicate with your guests on the top line allergens. That is the gold standard for public health in this country.

And so that is also something the model food code that the Health Committees in both houses of this Legislature spend a lot of time attempting to align with. So let me cut to the chase.

The flexibility in the model food code for ways to communicate with guests are exactly as the Senator said, allergy charts, allergy specific menus and a number of other options, including QR codes. That flexibility is allowed in this bill for restaurants with five or fewer locations.

Everybody else must put the information on the menu digitally or the physical menu that is the cost driver. That's the cost driver for enforcement. That's the cost driver for restaurants for us to constantly be switching out menus when ingredients change. That's the big issue for us.

And so if we can have the first part of the bill align with that national gold standard, the model food code, if that could apply to the rest of the restaurant community, then we'd get to a place where we can get behind this. So I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition. Okay, we will bring it Back to Committee. Ms. Pacheco, thank you.

And thank you, Senator, for bringing this important bill forward. I know when I've traveled, I constantly get asked by servers if I have any allergies or if the people I'm with have any allergies. And so I think it is important. But I believe the opposition hasn't opposed unless amended.

So I wonder if there's a way to work it out with the opposition so that they can go neutral. And so I want to hear from the Senator to see if there's a path forward.

We amended this bill drastically in the Assembly. Health worked really closely with the chair, and I think there was a lot more sympathy for the smaller restaurants, giving them even more flexibility. But I thought about other things. I thought about. Let's think about digital menus. In particular, it is respectfully adding another typed word to a digital menu.

I'm struggling to find the difficulty in doing that for printed menus, their menu, restaurants menus change so seasonally. We added a new dish, it gets dirty. You have to reprint new ones. And we want to make it as easy as possible for the consumer.

All the bills that we pass colleagues, it's always really hard to ensure that the consumers know that this exists. If it's not going to be on the menu you've been accustomed to, maybe think that it's never going to be on the menu.

Now you're putting the burden on the consumer to ask hey restaurant to do you by any chance have a booklet or allergen? Booklet.

We wanted to make sure it was as easy as possible for the consumer because what we've seen, even when you're asked a family Member if you have an allergy, there are still upwards of 50% allergy cases still occurring. Even when a waitress or waiter asks you if you have an allergy.

Because even when I'm asked and I'm noted to the server, the dessert always comes with peanuts on top. Because by the time the course of the dessert Hits they. They have forgotten that I told them that I'm allergic to peanuts.

So we wanted to bring some flexibility, as on my Member, and we thought we got to a compromise. But like every single other, like a lot of our bill, a lot of our bills, we don't always get 100% or we don't always include 100% of what the opposition is asking for.

I gave a lot, and I feel comfortable with where the bill is now.

And I just want to hear what the opposition has to say.

Thank you. I appreciate the question. I appreciate the issue. You know, we find ourselves asking for the model food code, the gold standard on this topic. And so we don't really. We've given a lot of concessions on the bill in terms of providing the disclosure and putting our Members through that, and we're willing to do that.

I guess I find myself fighting for this national standard of good public policy, and I don't see it as a concession from either of us. This is just good, smart, sound communication between the guest and the restaurant. So that's what we're after. That's what the other states are looking at doing should they go down this road.

But so far, restaurants, other states have not gone down this exact road. A lot of what we grapple with is the dynamic nature of the supply chain constantly changing. We are not swapping menus out on a regular basis generally. So that's the need for getting to this standard.

And that will create consistency for people that go to those restaurants that, under this bill, are allowed that flexibility. So it would create parity between restaurants, and I think that would help guests.

Thank you.

Well, thank you and thank you both. I think conversations still need to be held. I will be supporting the bill today, but I will Reserve my vote when we get to the floor. But I still think conversations can be held, especially if we're going to be protecting consumers.

And I think it's important for our waiters and our waitresses to ask if anybody has allergens so that they can go back to the kitchen and ask. And I've seen that multiple times where they do do it. So I'm hoping that both of you can talk, because I think further discussions can actually make this built better.

Thank you, Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm struck by another mandate on our small businesses, especially our restaurants. I've been dealing with this. There's so many issues, but I'll just focus on food.

I have an adult daughter who has been allergic to shellfish most of her life, gets violently ill so her method of operation when she eats in a restaurant is to say to the server, to tell the server, to advise the server, I have a shellfish allergy. She has little cards printed up. I have a shellfish allergy.

Please separate the foods, tell the kitchen. And it happens. She also has a sense of humor about it. She said, if I get sick at 2:00 in the morning, who can I call? So she makes it. The responsibility is on the person who is dining and who has a food allergy that can cause serious health consequences.

My daughter has had serious problems and been in an emergency because of her shellfish allergy. I'm just wondering, do we. If there is going to be a national, global standard, fine. But to impose another regulation on small business on our restaurants.

Just one more area for someone to come in and say, your type isn't large enough, I'm going to sue you for $50,000, which is really what I hear all the time, for some administrative or Ada perceived infraction. I am going to vote no.

But if you can work out something that can support that, I would be supportive of that amended bill. It's just one more reason why restaurants in my district continue to close. One more mandate from the State of California, one more potential lawsuit that's driving businesses large and small out of California or just to shutter themselves.

So I can't vote for it. I just wish we could work out a situation that would work for the restaurant owners of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other additional comments from Members? Would you like to close?

I would say I get the concerns of the restaurants, but a mistake causes a person's. Their person, their life. There's no coming back from that. And I recognize that everyone's going to be supportive of this, but for people who have lived with allergies their whole life, like that's. It's.

Yes, it's your responsibility, but why would we do any other bills that we do in California? Because we want to help consumers. You just heard my previous bill on adding hearing aids for children.

Maybe I shouldn't do that bill because it's a responsibility of the parent to pay for their hearing aids for their kid who is hard of hearing. I mean, if we had that mentality for all their bills, we wouldn't do any of our bills.

It's also upon us as legislators to further help our consumers in California be better prepared to be safe and thrive in California. And there is additional flexibility for medium and large restaurants.

If a restaurant has a QR code for a digital menu they can choose the Allergen grid, the Allergen booklet as their written material to provide to their consumer. So there is still flexibility for their large restaurants and, and we've seen a lot of restaurants move towards the QR digital code.

So it's not prescriptive at all, just for the large and medium and restaurants. I've been saying from the beginning and CRA knows this, that I want this bill to be, to be successful and feasible. And we've had ongoing conversations and we'll continue to have ongoing conversations.

Hasn't been a closed door and we'll continue to do that because I want them to be successful. But I know Levy will not tip it. PF Changs, when they changed their menu to include foods that were gluten free, saw 140% increase in consumers going to their restaurants.