Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right. Once Again, we have 50% of the Republicans here, not so many of the Democrats. The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to Senate Judiciary 2026. We're holding this Committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street Building.

I ask that all Members of the Committee be present room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We're actually going to begin as a Subcommitee before the President. If we don't have a quorum before the presentation of today's bills, I am going to announce that we have nothing on the consent calendar. All right.

There are 10 bills on today's agenda. So here are the ground rules that we will follow in 2026. You're going to recognize them because they're very similar to the rules that we follow in 2025.

So unless there's been sort of prior accommodation or modification, we'll have two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition on each bill. Each primary witness will have two minutes to speak. After the primary support, I'll invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation and their position. Let me underline that.

After we do the primary witnesses, we'll have what we call #MeToo. Witnesses who will simply give us their name, their affiliation, their position. We'll do the exact same thing for the opposition. Two primary witnesses in opposition, followed by me too witnesses. After that, we'll turn to the Committee for Comments and questions.

If you wish to provide further information or further commentary on any bill, please submit a letter to the Committee using one of the methods described on Judiciary Committee's website. With that, we will start as a Subcommitee. I do note the presence of Dr. Weber Pierson. Thank you very much.

We should give awards for folks that are first here to appear in Committee. All right, Senator Arreguín, what do I get? What do you get? You get to sit next to me. So. All right. File item number one. SB479.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present SB479, which allows three cities which are designated as local health jurisdictions, which are the cities of Berkeley, Long Beach and Pasadena, to implement homeless response multidisciplinary teams and to share specified information across different teams and departments.

In 2020, the Legislature authorized counties to form multidisciplinary response teams to address homelessness with the goal of aligning housing, treatment and services. These teams have been deployed in many jurisdictions and are a proven, effective way to provide services and housing to our unsheltered community.

The statute authorized the Ability to communicate specified information about unsheltered residents between housing, behavioral health and other service team to enhance continuity of care and to facilitate better outcomes. Currently, the city of Berkeley is the only city that's a local public health jurisdiction which is in my Senate district.

I was the mayor of Berkeley for eight years and on the city council for 16 years that operates its own multidisciplinary response team through its local health jurisdiction. But we hope that other cities will take advantage if this bill were to pass.

This bill builds on existing law to allow those cities, in addition to counties, to work across different departments and disciplines to ensure that we're not working in silos so that we can address the individual mental health and housing needs of people who are experiencing homelessness.

As our witness will testify about the experience in the city of Berkeley, this will, I think, will ensure better outreach, better delivery of services and better outcomes in terms of addressing homelessness throughout the state of California.

This is a targeted bill that will allow city based local health jurisdiction, multidisciplinary teams to have the same ability to share information across departments as counties. This small change in the code will go a long way to facilitate targeted interventions and better outcomes for unsheltered residents.

And I'll just note that already within existing law, there are strong confidentiality requirements and privacy protections. This builds on that existing framework of law. With me to testify and support the bill, Scott Gimmon, the Director of the Department of Health, housing and community services in the city of Berkeley.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator. My name is Scott Gilman. I am the Director of Health, Housing and Public Services for the City of Berkeley and that includes public health. I oversee multidisciplinary teams, specialized mental health programs in all of the city's below market rate programs.

The problem that we're having currently is current state law prevents those teams from really being effective. We have one hand tied behind our back. Current confidentiality laws prohibit mental health staff from sharing any information at all whatsoever.

With my public health staff going off script a little bit this morning, we had a public health emergency that we were responding to in an encampment. We have an outbreak. Public health officer was there, we were there. We're trying to control the spread of a contagion in an encampment.

The individuals that are in the encampments are very, very seriously ill, mentally ill, have very serious substance abuse problems, are very suspicious of any professionals that come in. If we would have had an opportunity to coordinate with mental health, we could have Brought them in. We could have worked on crisis planning.

They could have coached us on how to deal with the behaviors that we might have had. We could also have our public health nurses work with the mental health staff to help us with contact tracing, trying to get these individuals tested to determine if they've contracted the contagion.

But again, at this point, because of the current state law, this is not. This is already allowed by federal law, but state law prohibits this. They can't exchange any of that information. As Senator said, there's very, very strong protections for privacy already.

This only allows us to share the right information with the right people at the right time. It's not a free for all. It's very specific in terms of the information that we would have. Senate Bill 479, simply put, closes a loophole that does not allow cities to perform the same function that counties provide.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, next witness, please. That's the only witness. That's it. All right. All right. Anyone else wishing to provide me, too, testimony in support of SB479, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one. Approach the microphone. Let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB479, please approach. Seeing no one.

Approaching microphone. Going once, going twice. Let's bring it back to Committee for questions and comments. Questions or comments. Seeing no questions or comments. Senator Arreguin, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote at the appropriate time.

All right, thank you very much. All right. You set the standard for 2026. All right. Thank you. And we have no other authors here. Don't. Do me. I'll do. I'll do SB46. If. Senator Niello, you want to Chair here for a minute?

All right, Mr. Chair. Senator Umberg, Zonen Fortfaden.

All right. Well, thank you. This is a departure from our normal procedure, but I appreciate the committee's indulgence. Since we have no other authors here, I thought I would take an opportunity to go ahead and present SB46. I appreciate your indulgence here, Mr. Chair.

So SB46, what it does is simply says that if you've been a President for two terms, you cannot serve a third term, or at least you can't appear on the California ballot to serve a third term. This wouldn't be necessary.

I don't think if the catalyst for this bill hadn't been the President of the United States, along with people like Professor Alan Dershowitz, saying that it is possible, notwithstanding the United States Constitution to serve a third term in office.

What this bill does is it simply says in its present form, as the Secretary of State can make that determination if you're disqualified by virtue of the fact of having serving having served two terms as President of the United States. This bill is a work in progress.

The vision is to preclude someone from serving a third term because that is consistent with the Constitution. The exact mechanism may well change, but that's the vision. I'm very fortunate to have two scholars and individuals here to provide testimony.

The first is Ms. Deborah Perlin with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and then secondarily, Professor Matthew Coles, a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco College of the law.

Thank you Members of the Committee for having me here with you today to appear at this hearing in support of pending legislation to make a technical change to the California Elections Code to give the California Secretary of State authority to remove constitutionally ineligible candidates from the ballot.

Ms. Perlin.

This removal would only occur following an investigation and in accordance with due process, similar to how the process works in other states like Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin and Rhode Island, among others.

My name is Deborah Perlin and I'm the Vice President for Policy at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or cru, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to ethics, transparency and accountability in government. Secretaries of State are integral to our electoral system, administering both state and federal elections.

This can include certifying election results, testing elections equipment, and overseeing campaign finance reporting requirements. In addition, Secretaries of State play a crucial role regulating ballot access to maintain the integrity of the electoral system by barring individuals who are not constitutionally eligible to run for or hold office.

In every state plus the District of Columbia, the Secretary of State or relevant elections official has exercised this responsibility by removing ineligible candidates from the ballot, including presidential candidates who do not meet constitutional qualifications.

However, in California, this authority is in question because of a 2010 California Court of Appeal decision in Keyes v. Bowen, where the Court held that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the U.S. constitution.

This conclusion is inconsistent with the California Secretary of State's oath to support and defend the Constitution and could lead to absurd results.

For instance, a major party candidate for President could be an 18 year old or an individual who is not a natural born citizen like former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, could leave voters without a meaningful electoral choice because their party's candidate could never constitutionally take office. In closing, this doesn't have to be the case in California.

This body, through a technical change to the state's electoral laws, can overturn Keyes v. Bowen and guarantee that the Secretary of State has the power to ensure that the state's presidential ballot is consistent with the law and the Constitution. This way, when California voters cast their ballots, they can be confident their votes will count.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next witness. To the Committee. And Senator Umberg, thank you for asking me here today to give you my views on the constitutionality of SB46. I'm Matt Coles. I'm a professor of constitutional law at UC Law, San Francisco. In my view, SB 46 is unquestionably constitutional. Constitutional. It's pretty straightforward, actually.

Article 2 of the Constitution sets out the base qualifications to be President. The 14th Amendment disqualifies somebody who's engaged in insurrection, and the 22nd Amendment disqualifies somebody who's been elected to the presidency twice before.

The Constitution also says that the Federal Government will set the date for the presidential election, will set the date on which the Electoral College votes, and can enforce that insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment. But that's it.

Every other aspect of the presidential elections is to be conducted by states under rules adopted by state legislatures and enforced by state law. States run our presidential elections. It goes against a lot of people's sense of how it works, but that is how it works.

The constitution in Article 2 and in the 12th amendment is quite clear about that. And so the states have the power, indeed the obligation to enforce the qualifications for the office of President, partly because no one else does, and largely because that's what the Constitution says.

Presidential elections will be conducted by the state and by the state Legislature. Now, it's true. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Colorado could not keep Donald Trump off the ballot on the grounds that he had engaged in insurrection against the United States.

But the Supreme Court narrowly rested that on the fact that the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment and in fact, to enforce the specific provisions of Section 3.

And the court said because the Federal Government has the power to enforce the anti insurrection qualification, that's a job for the Federal Government, not for the states. There is nothing comparable having to do with the qualifications in Article 2 or having to do with the 22nd Amendment.

And no third term, there is no federal power to enforce those qualifications. So without the state acting to do it, no one has the power, which would turn those qualifications in completely meaningless. So it seems quite Clear to me if you could conclude that the Constitution gives the power to the state, this law is constitutional.

Do we have any other. Any others here that would provide me too, testimony in favor and do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to SB46 seeing none. Are there any others who would just wish to provide me too, opposition to SB46 seeing none come forward? We'll bring it back to bring it back to the Committee.

Questions or comments? Senator Durazo moves the bill. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm premature on that. We're only lacking one Member for quorum. Yeah, but with no comments or questions, it would seem that. Well, first of all, as I read the analysis anyway, it doesn't talk about the limit of terms.

It just talks about the constitutional requirement of a candidate and that the Secretary of State would be prohibited putting a name on the ballot unless the candidate were to affirm that they are constitutionally qualified. Now, it's under oath.

And whether that is not true under oath, presumably it could be perjury unless it was just a question of whether it was true or not. And that's probably what you're concerned about.

So beyond that, if Secretary of State had a suspicion, now, it would seem to be that the legislation is implying that if the Secretary of State had a suspicion that a candidate was not qualified constitutionally, that the Secretary of State would not pursue that line of investigation.

If the Secretary of State had a suspicion. Well, in this case, the qualifications are finite and well defined. At least I think they're well defined. Apparently, the. The current President doesn't think it's as well defined as I think it is.

But in any event, 35 years old, natural born citizen of the United States, and having not served more than two terms as President of the United States, so, yes, the Secretary of State would make that termination.

But to have legislation that requires that implies that the legislation believes that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would not pursue that suspicion that the candidate is not qualified constitutionally.

I'm not sure I understand your question. If the Secretary of State believed that someone. I suppose if there was some ambiguity as to whether someone was President of the United States or not would require further inquiry. But yes, it would empower the Secretary of State to make that inquiry.

But the Secretary of State, currently, under current law, if the Secretary of State suspects that a candidate is not qualified under the Constitution, the Secretary is certainly well within the powers of the Secretary of State to investigate that and disqualify the candidate for that, I think that's.

An interesting question as to whether the Secretary of State right now, the Secretary of State does not have investigatory powers. So I don't think the Secretary of State right now has investigatory powers.

I think the Secretary of State can sort of make that determination, just as Secretary of State could make a determination as to any one of our candidacies. But this Bill makes it crystal clear that at least as far as California goes, you can't appear on the ballot if you serve more than two terms.

If you serve two terms as President of the United States.

With regard to that particular qualification, one wouldn't need to pursue too much investigation to conclude that a particular candidate was elected twice previously. I realize the insurrection issue is one of judgment, but the rest of the qualifications, age 2 times elected wouldn't require any investigation at all.

I would suspect that it would not really require certainly much of an investigation. The challenge is that the current President thinks that there's some loophole. I don't believe there is a loophole.

But, you know, God forbid the United States Supreme Court or some other court should determine that the Constitution is not as clear, at least as I think it is.

And then there would be another hurdle, at least a hurdle in California to appear on the ballot, because we will have a state law that says you can appear on the ballot.

And elections are, while they may be called in terms of the date for federal elections by the Congress, elections are actually run by the states, individual states.

Well, with regard to your initial point, I think it's important to point out, number one, that the current President has indeed made a statement that he would not be qualified to run, but he's also made other statements to the contrary. And as a reporter famously said in his first term, take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally.

And he's. There are constant examples of that. And whether he indeed believes that or not is up to question relative to various statements that he's been made that he's made.

But nonetheless, the Secretary of State has the ability to qualify or disqualify a candidate on the ballot and could e. There would be no investigation required relative to how many times that individual has been elected and could just merely disqualify the candidate from the ballot.

Perhaps. So in which this is a belt and suspenders approach.

So, yes. In which case the legislation likely is just not needed. Well, just to respond, we have a quorum. Oh, we do have a motion. Right? We do have a motion. One of your witnesses is at the microphone. Would you like to call? Ask her. Well, let's do the quorum first. Okay. oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

We need to call the quorum. Secretary, please call for the quorum.

Umberg.

Umberg. Here. Niello.

Here.

Here.

Niello. Here. Alan. Ashby. Here. Ashby. Here. Caballero Durazo. Here. Durazo. Here. Laird. Laird. Here. Reyes. Stern. Stern. Here. Valaderas. Wahab. Weber. Pearson. Weber. Pearson. Here. Wiener. You have a quorum?

We have a quorum. Okay.

So to respond at least to part of your comment, in terms of whether the President is serious or should be taken seriously or literally, one of the things that I think all of us have discovered is that whatever thing the President says, no matter how crazy it may seem at the outset, may actually come true.

Whether the President says, look it, we're not looking for regime change in Venezuela may come true. President says, hey, look it, you know what? I don't think people born in the United States should be automatically characterized as citizens. Apparently he believes that those born in the United States should. May not be citizens.

I think that's absurd, but that's what he has said and I think he believes. So when the President says, I think I can serve a third term, and I've got Professor Dershowitz here that says I can as well, then I think we do have to take him seriously.

And I think that that has dramatic repercussions if we simply ignore the Constitution. And yes, I think that this legislation, but for the catalyst of the President of the United States having these my view, delusions may not be necessary. But given the fact that he believes and others seem to believe that that's possible.

That's why we have this Bill before us. That's.

I made that point with regard to whether he indeed or comments he's made specifically about that. But my primary point is the constitutional qualification for being elected twice for President disqualifies a person for running again after that. That is a fact.

The Secretary of State would know that and the Secretary of State would have the ability to not qualify the name for the ballot. And for that reason, as I said before, the legislation would appear to be not needed.

Well, I understand your point of view, Senator Niello. Obviously I disagree. So. Okay. All right.

Mr. Chair, if I can, yes, I would move the bill.

Senator Durazo already did. So. No, we're going to. I think we've had plenty of testimony and we will move on to the vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

What is that? oh, yes, I'm sorry. My colloquy with Senator Niello. I think suffice to be the close. So all right.

You know, we've been off. We're not back in session shape, and I've already messed up a couple of procedural issues. But I'll get back in session shape quickly. Thank you for that. Close. Please call the roll.

This is File item number 8, SB46. The motion is due pass the Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call] 6 to 1.

6 to 1. We will hold that open for absent Members.

Thank you, Senator Niello. No, I think you did an excellent job. As a matter of fact, the bill got out, so. All right, I see Senator Blakespear here. Senator Blakespear, I think you are next up. File item number two, SB 99. The floor is yours.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to author SB 99, which is sponsored by the US Department of Defense, and gladly accept the committee's amendments. SB 99 would improve coordination between military and civilian law enforcement agencies to expand protections for those who may be the victims of interpersonal violence.

Military protective orders, or MPOs, are similar to civil restraining orders and provide protection on and off of base. But presently, there are gaps in coverage and understanding between civil and military authorities. This bill bridges the gap between military and civilian systems in four key ways.

First, existing law already requires courts to search for existing warrants, whether the person has firearms or has prior restraining orders before issuing or denying a restraining order. SB 99 adds to that list, requiring a court to search the National Crime Information Center System to determine whether the subject has a current military protective order.

Second, the bill also explicitly allows military protective orders involving the same parties to be admissible evidence for obtaining a restraining order. Third, it requires civilian law enforcement officers to notify military law enforcement if they have reason to believe that an NPO has been violated.

And finally, it allows law enforcement agencies to enter an MOU with the military, outlining roles and responsibilities regarding communicating and responding to potential violations of civil restraining orders on base and NPOs off base. One example of when this would be needed and useful is after a military spouse with an MPO moved off base.

The spouse was stalked by their abuser. They repeatedly called 911, but local police declined to act, believing the MPO was only enforceable on base. Under SB 99, the local police would have been required to notify the military that the MPO was likely violated, and the military would then be able to take appropriate actions to intervene.

A second example. Sometimes judges do not understand the full complexities of the military legal system. So some judges may believe that an NPO is inadmissible. But this bill makes it clear that the judge is allowed to use the judge's discretion to consider the full context of the alleged abuse.

The existence of an NPO can also help a judge who would be concerned about a restraining order impacting a person's military career. With me today, I have in support Kelli Douglas on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Thank you. Ms. Douglas.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair Umberg, Vice Chair Niello, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelli May Douglas and I am the Pacific Southwest Region Liaison under the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

On behalf of military families stationed in California, I'm grateful for the opportunity to provide comments in strong support of the policy changes reflected within SB 99. Currently, nine states have enacted legislation to implement similar policy, and five states, including California, are currently considering related legislation this session.

Instances of harmful behavior often involve personnel who interact within both civilian and military jurisdictions, and without coordinated communications, violations may go unreported and unaddressed, risking further harm to victims.

The Department and Congress have established and implemented policies and programs to prevent and eliminate domestic abuse, protect victims, hold abusers appropriately accountable for their behavior, and coordinate the response to domestic abuse with the local community. However, we have identified several critical gaps that can only be resolved through state actions.

Through enactment of interpersonal violence policies such as SB 99 that complement federal efforts, California can empower victims, deter offenders, and create an environment for military families that ensures their well being and enhances their resilience and readiness. We believe SB 99 will enhance protections for victims in the following ways.

First, although MPOs offer unique benefits for victims seeking immediate relief, we understand the concerns about their limitations. We are not asking that the courts be required to issue a TRO or a temporary restraining order solely based on the existence of an MPO.

However, we believe that giving that knowledge of the existence of an MPO can provide judges valuable information regarding a potential pattern of abuse to inform their decision making on a case by case basis.

Secondly, we have heard of several instances in which victims, as the Senator mentioned, believe that they were protected from violence when an MPO is issued on their behalf, even if they are not on base. While this bill would not provide automatic protection...

Alrighty. Thank you very much. If you could wrap it up please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and appreciate the Senator from for sponsoring this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. All right, other witnesses in support of SB 99? Seeing no one else approaching. Witnesses who wish to provide me too testimony, please approach the microphone. Testing. All right. Seeing no one approaching, let's now turn the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 99, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action. I'd like to thank the author, her staff, and the committee for their work on the most recent set of amendments. We definitely believe they moved the bill in the right direction.

However, we remain opposed unless amended due to fundamental due process concerns around military protective orders. As acknowledged by the Battered Women's Justice Project, this committee's analysis, and the Senate Public Safety Analysis, military protective orders are issued with little to no due process for the subject of the order.

The decision to impose an MPO is made by a commanding officer, not a judge. And this decision may be made without notice to the subject and without any opportunity for the subject to present evidence against the MPO.

Furthermore, as noted in the Senate Public Safety Analysis, MPOs do not satisfy the requirements under federal law to enjoy full faith and credit in our courts. Likewise, as noted in this committee's analysis, MPOs do not satisfy their requirements under state law to enjoy recognition in our courts. This is due to the lack of due process.

We should not compound these concerns by telling courts to weigh MPOs in state proceedings. We recognize the need to continue finding ways to address domestic violence, but we must do so in balance with due process. For these reasons, we remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Others opposed to SB 99, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back committee for questions by Committee Members. Questions by Committee Members. Yes, Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill, for it is extremely important that we do all that we can to protect those who have been victims of violence. I do completely agree that we need to improve our sharing between our civilian and military law enforcement.

And so I am very, very happy to see that part in the bill. Do have some concerns, though, about the issue around due process. So I am not familiar with the military, so maybe your witness from the Department of Defense can come up. So is it true that a military protective order can be produced without notice to the subject?

Yes. So Senator, thank you for the question. So the way that... So there's some similarities between military protective orders and civilian protective orders or temporary restraining orders, but there are a lot of differences.

One of them is the obvious key difference is that it that when commanders issue protective orders, they are looking at it's a matter of national security, right? So they're making sure that the person that is perhaps has a gun in their hand, you know, as a part of their job, is able to do so and make decisions that don't threaten the mission.

So with that said, when they issue, when they find out that there is an issue that is happening at home, domestic violence, they're trying to provide immediate relief, temporary immediate relief, to stop, to create distance between the perpetrator and the victim.

And so really the way you can look at it is the way that temporary restraining orders are issued. And so as I think the Senator mentioned, when a military protective order is issued, that victim is also encouraged to go to seek a civilian or temporary restraining order. But there's. Yes, there's, it is correct that there's no due process or notice required.

And there's also no opportunity for that particular individual to present evidence against the claims?

So the difference, one key difference too with the military protective order is it's not, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's not a, you know, it's not a criminal or even a civil procedure. It's really just creating distance. It's not even...

They don't go to jail, for example, just because they have a temporary or a military protective order issued against them. So it just doesn't follow the same judicial proceedings. It really is a commanding officer making a decision for the safety of that, that victim.

Are there particular standards, a certain level of evidence that has to be...

There's... So Department of Defense has the department level guidance that is disseminated to the military branches and then the military branches, each of the services develop their own policy. So there are, and we can pull those up and share that with you, what's called a Department of Defense instruction. And then each service has their own instruction. So there are guidance. There is guidance that's put forth to the commanding officer.

That the commanding officers must follow or can follow?

Must follow.

Okay. So I couldn't just arbitrarily go and make a claim that, you know, and get one of these orders without there actually being some type of proof there?

Right there. There is a different... And again, each service is given a little bit of flexibility on how they implement the Department of Defense level guidance. But there is a procedure and there's certain stipulations for each.

Yeah, okay. So happy about the fact that the committee has taken out the ability to actually use this as evidence because of issues of bias, conscious or subconscious. I do have some concerns about the fact that now this would be a part of an actual legal proceeding when there was no due process in the first place.

You're trying to mirror two things together that really don't go together. As you stated yourself, they're two completely separate processes. Like I said, I really like the second part, but I do have some concerns about bringing that into...

And Senator, I completely understand. I think it's just for us just, it's a safety reason, a safety issue for the victim. Right. So it's just a piece of information. We definitely didn't intend on the courts using, you know, using one for one, right. They have a military protective order equals temporary restraining order. But we definitely didn't want to withhold information from the ability for the courts to consider previous patterns of abuse. And so if one thing that we...

I'm just kind of thinking about is for military spouses, especially, let's say they're moving from out of state, that might be the only proof or the only information that they're able to provide that shows that previous level of abuse. And so to just completely disallow, right, the consideration of the MPO just seems like it's really putting those victims at jeopardy, especially if they are not familiar with the community.

Yeah, completely understand that. But at the same time, if it's not true, especially since, one, that particular individual may not have been informed of an allegation. And two, that particular individual was not able to be present or provide any evidence to say that that's not true, and then now you're using that in an actual court proceeding.

Yeah, it's a little concerning. But I mean, we definitely want, you know, our people, whether they're male or female, to be, you know, protected. So I do have some concerns. I'm going to support it today. Cannot guarantee that I would do it on the floor because of that issue.

Thank you.

Can I do a follow up? Just maybe the author can talk a little bit about that process of what was just being discussed, the back and forth of the MPO and how the civil liberties part of it, you know, plays into it. Because I know you care about civil liberties.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the question. And we did discuss this a little bit with Senator Niello this morning in the Public Safety Committee. And I think there are some similar themes where the restraining order is essentially keeping the perpetrator away from the alleged victim and saying there needs to be distance and you cannot get close to that person.

And so having a more coordinated system where, for example, if there is a civil process that is happening that the judge would be able to recognize explicitly that there is a military protective order in effect, which means there has been some type of a problem that has been recognized on base from the military commander, that seems like it would be highly relevant information for the judge to be considering.

And the judge can always decide not to issue the restraining order. And also, the restraining order doesn't last always forever. It's an initial period, and then it needs to be reviewed by the judge to see if it's still in effect.

In my district, I have Camp Pendleton, and this bill is coming out of the Camp Pendleton base as a request. And when I was asking about how many MPOs do we have across all the branches of the military, there's, I think it's, if my memory serves me, it's about 5,000 across the different branches and all throughout the country.

So the idea that a military protective order would be the type of information that should be passed into the civil realm, but then also would be passed back. So the civil authorities would pass it back to the military authorities to say, hey, this is happening. Something's happening on this side of the line. To me, those are, it should be more porous than it is.

And so this, I don't think undermines the discretion or authority that our civil justice system has, but it allows for there to be a greater information sharing and also for the military protective orders for those who are putting those in place to be able to understand what's happening outside of a military context as well.

Other questions, comments? So just to provide some context, when someone enters the military, they basically agree that if issued a legal order, they will obey that legal order. And that commanders, unfortunately routinely do issue orders where there's been an allegation of domestic violence.

And as you point out, Senator Blakespear, there is some process eventually, but initially the commander's first concern is the protection of the alleged victim of that domestic violence. And then secondly, the unit morale. And so as a consequence, there is, I suppose, less due process. But that is part of the consequence of being in the military.

So because there are two considerations, one consideration is the consideration of the victim. The second is the unit morale. And for all those reasons, I'm supporting the bill. Other questions or comments? All right, is there a motion? Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right, Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB 99. The motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Six to zero.

Six/zero. All right. We're going to put that bill on call. Next, Senator Cabaldon is here for File Number Three: SB 719. If we're continuing to go in file order, next would be Senator Cortese. I know he's chairing Senate Transportation, followed by Senator Padilla, followed by Senator Wahab. All right. Senator Cabaldon.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present SB 719, which is a simple extension of a sunset. Back in 2023, the Legislature passed a requirement for the Department of Technology to report on state agency use of high-risk automated decision systems beginning into 2024.

The 2024 Inaugural Report indicated that no one, no state agencies, have deployed any high-risk automated decision systems. That assertion might have to be interrogated at some point, but it also means that we're not learning, because the deployment, the study that's supposed to be submitted each time for five years up until 2029 is intended for state agencies but also for the Legislature and for the Executive Branch to understand what's happening, are we getting the benefits, and also what are the risks and the challenges?

And so, this bill simply extends that report sunset date from 2029 to 2032, given that the first report and maybe the second will not have any examples that will allow the policy learning process to proceed. It has no opposition. There's no California association of sunset extension-- of executives here to testify in support as well, but I would respectfully request an aye vote.

All right. Any witnesses that you have? Primary witnesses in support? It's you.

Alone and afraid.

It's just me.

Alone--

All right.

--and very afraid.

All right. Unafraid. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, unafraid. Yes. There we go. All right. In opposition, if you're in opposition to SB 719, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's come back to committee for questions, comments by committee members. Seeing no questions or comments by committee members, is there a motion? Senator Laird has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Committee Supporter, would you please call the roll?

This is File Item Number Three: SB 719. The motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll call]. Six to zero.

Six/zero. We're going to put that on call. All right. I see Senator Padilla. I don't see Senator Cortese here, but I do see Senator Padilla. Senator Padilla, the standard has been set thus far today.

Thus far today. You're up.

As always, a tough act to follow, Mr. Chairman.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm happy to present SB 300. Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 243, the first of its kind in the nation to set safety standards for artificial intelligence companion chatbots.

This is vital first step towards regulating this technology, which has the capacity to cause irreversible harm to users and particularly children. Since the introduction of my bill, we have learned more and more about the ways in which this emerging technology can impact children and families.

The number of families coming forward to share their tragic stories about how they've been adversely impacted continue to mount. A growing body of more contemporary research has examined the risks of this technology, providing further context and evidence about what makes AI chatbots so dangerous for minor users.

One of the most shocking findings recently of this research is how often bots do engage and initiate, even, sexually explicit content and conversations with minor users. Using this sensitive subject matter to increase engagement, chatbot deployers can create unhealthy dependencies with minor users that can lead to devastating outcomes.

Instead of protecting against and preventing this kind of manipulation, operators often lean into it in an attempt to maximize exposure and usage. Most recently, leaked internal documents from Meta confirmed that their own risk standards say it was permissible for their bots to engage in sensual conversations with minors.

Recently, OpenAI has announced the impending rollout of ChatGPT's new erotica feature. Elon Musk's Grok most recently was noted as a bot for generating sexualized versions and images of X users without their consent or notice.

As we learn more about the possible harms caused by this evolving technology, it's imperative that we continue to build on existing regulations and strengthen these protections we have in place. This bill would further strengthen the regulations of SB 243 by broadening existing law.

Under this bill, operators would be required to prevent a chatbot from exposing a minor user to sexually explicit material of any kind or encouraging the facilitation of such content. Last year, we took collectively an incredibly important step towards ensuring the safety for the users of AI chatbots.

We must continue in this direction and build on existing regulations to ensure that this innovation doesn't continue to cost or wreak havoc in people's lives. Here with me today to testify is John Bennett, the director of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy.

Thank you. Mr. Bennett, the floor is yours.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Umberg, Vice Chair Niello, and members of the committee. My name is John Bennett, and I am the director of CITED, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of Common Cause California, speaking in support of SB 300.

I would like to thank Senator Padilla and his staff for their openness and willingness to engage in dialogue with us regarding ways to strengthen SB 243. With the passage of AB 1043 last year, which established age verification requirements, it has become clear that standards for protecting children must be elevated to a knowledge-based standard.

Further, recent announcements by major AI developers that they intend to offer erotic content for adults through their chatbots demonstrates that these systems are capable of distinguishing between users seeking sexual material and those who are not. If these models can make that distinction, they should be able to prevent children from being exposed to erotic content.

These concerns have been compounded by recent incidents in which a chatbot integrated into a major social media platform was shown to generate erotic content, including child sexual abuse material, which can be rapidly disseminated to hundreds of millions of users.

We must ensure that chatbots prevent children from being exposed to sexual explicit material, not simply make reasonable efforts to prevent such exposure. And the provisions in this bill do just that. We therefore appreciate Senator Padilla's leadership in bringing forward SB 300.

Based off our conversations with the senator and his staff, we believe that SB 300, like SB 243, is an important step in the right direction, but certainly not the final step. Much more still need to be done to protect our children, and frankly, all of us from the harms of AI.

We look forward to continuing to work with the senator and members of the Legislature to develop the strongest possible guardrails for this rapidly evolving technology. For these reasons, I respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 300. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support? Other witnesses in support of SB 300? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, #MeToo testimony if you wish to provide so called #MeToo testimony, please approach.

Maclean Rozansky with the Alameda County Office of Education, in support.

Thank you.

Jorge Cruz, on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 300, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet, testifying in respectful opposition to SB 300. We actively engaged with the author's office last year on SB 243, a significant bill that created a novel framework governing chatbots. We understand the Legislature's desire to act early on developing issues.

However, opposition today is regarding how and when the law is expanded matters. SB 243 only just took effect 13 days ago. There, of course, has not yet been enforcement, regulatory guidance, or judicial interpretation. SB 300 will materially revise 243's framework before anyone has had the chance to see whether it works as intended.

This bill replaces a reasonableness-based standard with an absolute requirement to prevent certain outcomes. When paired with an existing private right of action, this change risks creating a de facto strict liability regimen where a single alleged failure could trigger liability, regardless of goods-based standards.

The bill also expands prohibited conduct to include facilitating the exchange of sexually explicit material. That phrase is undefined and could sweep in routine, non-culpable conduct, creating uncertainty for courts and inconsistent outcomes through private litigation. Ambiguous standards are especially concerning when enforced through APRA.

Expanding statutory duties before the first enforcement action under existing law can deprive the Legislature of real-world feedback. Allowing 243 to operate first would give this committee and the Legislature a clear record to evaluate what is working and what may need adjustment.

TechNet, being consistent with our position from last year, remains committed to working with the author and stakeholders to protect children while ensuring the law is workable, fair, and durable. For these reasons, we respectfully urge caution and oppose SB 300 at this time.

All righty. Thank you sir.

Thank you.

Others in opposition, SB 300, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon Chair and Members, Naomi Pedro. And on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry association, we would echo the. Concerns outlined by TECNA in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber. f Commerce and respectful opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed SB300? Seeing no one else. All right, let's bring it back. Committee for questions, comments by Committee Members. Yes. All right. Senator Weber Pearson.

Thank you. Chair. I want to thank the author for once again bringing a significant issue to light. If. Well, let's talk about SB243 because that, as the opposition has stated, just went into effect 13 days ago with the provisions in SB214,243. Would that cover the inability for these chat boxes to allow children to see sexually explicit material?

Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you for the question. I think that the empirical evidence that we now have and a number of cases and that underlies it's referenced in the analysis, I would argue clearly indicate. No.

That there's an insufficiency here that in fact, if we leave the standard as simply a protocol standard that's reasonable and ignore circumstances wherein you have a deployer and developer who has actual knowledge of actual harm and has that knowledge of the status of the user, that doesn't obliterate existing burdens of proof.

It doesn't obliterate our standards for liability. It simply aligns and says, you know, we have information that this still continues.

And so to your question, clearly here with the new information we continue to get in real time, I would argue that it's not sufficient and that's why we need to strengthen the statute to be very specific when these instances continue to occur.

Thank you. Do you. Do you mind if I could have opposition come and answer this?

Sure. Go. Yes.

Sorry. Do you want to answer the exact same question? Okay. We agree that the goal of preventing harm. The challenge is that absolutely prevent standards. That's a perfection requirement. That does not reflect how a systems function. These systems are probabilistic by nature, not deterministic.

243 wisely adopted a reasonable nance based standard that focuses on whether operators have appropriate safeguards in place, replacing that with an absolute prevention mandate, especially with private enforcement risk punishing companies that take extensive good faith measure measures that the same as those that do nothing and treat them the same as they do nothing.

Our ask here is that whether or not protections are needed or asking whether or not it's prudent to rewrite a brand new enforcement regimen before we see how it works.

Right. So my question is very Specific, very specific. With SB243, the Bill that we just passed and now law, would the provisions in that Bill prevent a developer or deployer from exposing a child to sexually explicit material?

I would say we believe so because we're trying, they're trying to do their best to prevent that stuff from happening, from happening. And there is a age requirement inside the Bill currently there. I think the new standard is redefining it, but there is an age requirement inside the Bill.

So if you think that the developers, deployers or clients are already going to be doing this and what is the harm in passing this Bill that would make it a little bit more explicit.

Once again, we're asking that whether or not the protections are needed, we're saying, does it make sense to that to rewrite a brand new law that just took effect?

Senator Padilla, Is this rewriting SB243?

Mr. Chairman, Senator, I would argue, no, I would argue with respect to the arguments we're hearing from opposition about standards. This is more of an alignment than it is a new standard. There's already liability here in these circumstances where you have actual knowledge. This is just making sure that we strengthen it in the statute.

It doesn't change any of the burdens that would be on a plaintiff to demonstrate actual harm and to demonstrate and prove that the deployer had actual knowledge of the minor status of the user or, you know, and clearly in those circumstances, we want to be careful that we're being consistent about what those standards in the law are and that we're being strong about them.

And I think, particularly in light of the fact that we're having more and more evolving evidence every day about ongoing harms.

We just had leaked data, data I think at the end of last year, or maybe even as recently as early this year as I referenced in my presentation from OpenAI, their own internal leak documents and standards admitting amongst themselves that their own internal controls were insufficient and that their own technology deployed was still very capable of engaging in this dangerous interaction with minors.

Thank you. I want to thank the opposition. I want to thank the Senator for answering the questions. I completely understand the opposition's concerns about the fact that this is just a brand new bill and still trying to figure out how to make that work.

And normally I would agree and say let's wait and see how our current bill is working. However, technology has moved so quickly and we are talking about the health and well being of our most vulnerable citizens in this world. And for that reason, I don't think that we can wait we know that there is a problem.

We need to fix it and not wait to see if something that we've done can fix it. And I agree with Senator Padilla as one of the co authors of SB243.

I don't think that what we did in those provisions went far enough to prevent something like this and would love to move the Bill and be a co author. Thank you.

Alrighty. Other questions or comments?

Yes, Senator Drosso, I want to complete your I was thinking the same thing, but you said it very articulately. This is too big of an issue, too important of an issue to take further and further time.

And I would suggest to the industry to be ahead of the game and don't make us go through this process of trying to catch up when we know that there is a problem. So we would all be better off if people were proactive and not waiting for a problem to exist. So I support your Bill.

Thank you.

All right. Yes.

Senator Stern, just to follow on this productive conversation. I did want to get clarity, maybe in your close but this, you believe this clarifies how the existing statute ought to function. But to the question about strict liability, maybe you can comment on that. Do you think that's misplaced?

Do you think this wouldn't really be akin to a strict liability framework or as it, as it relates to the 243 overlay with the private right of action? Is that, is that a misplaced criticism there or is that actually the intent?

Mr. Chairman, Senator, thanks for the question. Here we go down the nerd rabbit hole. I love. Sorry. Yeah. I would argue that I understand the spirit of which the opposition makes the argument.

I would take issue with the terminology utilized because those of us that, you know, spend a lot of time in law school know that that's a different standard and utilizing that term.

So I wouldn't I think there is an existing schematic both at common law and statute that clearly point when somebody has a direct correlation between their product or their action and the level of their knowledge of the potential plaintiff or victim. There's already an existing strong legal framework that talks about their liability there.

So we're not creating new statutory categories of liability. We're not obliterating burdens of proof. We're simply sort of saying that in these scenarios because of the new data, there's an obligation here.

I mean, I think, you know, I guess to put it another way is if we didn't look at strengthening the statutory framework, then what we're looking at is sort of an absurd result.

Because if you want to get at the problem at all, the only other option you're left with, if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, is just outright bans. Right.

And I think that we're trying, at least I'm trying as an author, and I know that a lot of my collaborators, including Senator Weber Pearson and others, is find a workable solution, get at the problem, have sufficient deterrence, sufficient results, but we don't have to, you know, throw the whole technology out.

But we have to try to find a way to make sure that there's responsible actors here, particularly when you have clear data that shows that these circumstances are happening and continue to happen.

All right, other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Was there a motion? Senator Weber Pearson moved the Bill. All right. Would you like close Senator Padilla?

At the risk of being a little corny, I would just say the irony, and I'll be brief.

You know, we celebrate and observe the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, who, when he was talking about the damage that the dark hearts and hatred intolerance, either intentional around bigotry and racism or just turning a blind eye to the damage it does to society and the most vulnerable among us.

He talked about the fierce urgency of now, something I think, the Senator indirectly. Tomorrow is today, and there is a fierce urgency to this. We're looking at damage to society's most vulnerable future by a powerful and pervasive technology. And we have to act now. We can't wait. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Committee supporter, would you call the roll?

This is File item number five, SB300. The motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations.

[Roll call]

Nine to zero. We'll put that on call.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Senator Padilla. And I do not see Senator Cortese. I believe he's still Chairing Transportation. But Senator Wahab is here. Senator Wahab, would you like to go forward on filing number six, SB381?

Mr. Chair? Yes. While she's walking to the dais, I'm willing to move item number one, which we heard and did not vote on. If you'd like to.

Why don't we do that then? All right, so Senator Laird has moved file number one. SB479. Community Assistant Porter, please call the roll on File item number one.

This is file item number one, SB 479. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] 9 to 0.

All right. 9, 0 We're going to put that on call as well. All right. Senator Wahab. File number six, SB381. Floor is yours.

Thank you. So I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this bill and I would like to accept the suggested amendments. This bill is a very personal bill to so many that I know.

And in California, adoptees do not have access to their own original birth certificate because the certificate is sealed at adoption, making it inaccessible to the adoptee. Sealing original birth certificates for adoptees dates back nearly a century, 1935. To protect adoptees and adoptive families from social and societal stigma surrounding their status and not necessarily to protect birth parents.

Preventing access to an original birth certificate has potential negative health implications as an adoptee does not have access to information related to their birth family health history. It can also lead to identity issues as it potentially prevents an adoptee from knowing their heritage and cultural affiliation.

To ensure adopted adults are treated equally under the law, SB381 authorizes the disclosure of an original birth certificate to an adopted person or a descendant of an adopted person. This bill also establishes a process to request an original birth certificate for from the county or state registrar.

That requires the state registrar to create a non binding contact preference from form available to birth parents to ensure all pertinent information is included on an original birth certificate. This bill also removes the ability to request an amended original birth certificate that omits the city and county of birth or color and race of the parents.

Today I have two witnesses. Wendy Turk with the California alliance for Adoptee Rights and Susan Lysander, an adoptee, a birth mother, a licensed therapist and the Executive Director of an adoption nonprofit.

Thank you. First witness, please.

Okay. Good afternoon. Chair Umberg, Vice Chair Niello and Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Turk for the California Alliance for Adoptee Rights. I just found out seven years ago that I was adopted. And it was devastating to learn that at age 56, I wasn't allowed to access my own identity.

I'm bound for life by decisions made for me and about me. When I was born, my rights were stripped from me. And even as an adult are part of no equation. Adoptees are simply asking for their own birth record. A vital record issued for all live births that everyone but adoptees has access to.

Lacking access, I turned to DNA testing. Learning my true identity might literally have saved my life. I learned of a pattern of family cancers and thus had genetic testing. Learning I had mutations that put me at significant risk and underwent potentially life saving surgeries.

Not everyone can learn their true identity through DNA testing or they don't want to submit their DNA to a database, nor should they have to. We simply want the piece of paper that shows not only our birth parents names, but the name we were given at birth. What could belong to us more uniquely than our own name?

Birth mothers support access and corroborate. They were never promised confidentiality from their own child, nor did they want it. Historically, relinquishment documents have never promised confidentiality nor could it be promised as relinquishment does not guarantee adoption.

Birth parents can't know when they relinquish if their child will be adopted and thus cannot rely that their child's original birth certificate or OBC will be sealed. Sealing only takes place at adoption, not at relinquishment because the intent is to protect adoptees and their families, not to protect birth parents. Even at adoption, there is no guarantee.

An adoptive parent can request there be no amended birth certificate and courts retain discretion to grant access. Courts have found under similar circumstances that there is no guarantee of and not even a reasonable expectation of anonymity. It is significant that current law does not prevent adoptees from learning their birth parents identity or from contacting them.

The only change our bill will enable is access to our OBCs and it's way less restrictive. It's not a whole family in DNA whispering about who gave up the child. It's only the adoptee, one person finding out their true identity, making it more private for everyone.

And I know I'm probably out of time, but 16 states allow it. There have been no negative consequences. Court challenges were upheld. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, next witness please.

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Dushage Alexander. She/Her. I'm a proud Mexican American woman, a transracial adoptee, a licensed marriage and family therapist and a birth mother who relinquished my first child in 2001. I serve BIPOC Adopted Youth and their families as the Executive Director of PACT and Adoption Alliance.

I'm co founder of reproductive justice and adoption and former board President of Empower Alliance, a California nonprofit exclusively serving birth mothers. Today I testify as a birth mother and as a professional who has served hundreds of birth parents and adoptees for over 20 years. California birth parents do not need protection from our children.

Our children deserve the same access to their birth certificates as non adopted people. The vast majority of birth parents I serve truly want what is best for our children and do not want confidentiality from our children.

For the small percentage of birth parents who say because of societal stigma and guilt that they prefer confidentiality, I say that good parenting means putting our children's needs for above our own. If the intention is to protect vulnerable people, that is the adoptee who did not get to consent to the decisions made about them.

Sealed birth certificates are based on lies that our lives and our children's lives would be better if we pretended that we did not carry and birth our children and that our familiar connections are worthless and meaningless. California birth parents say, stop treating our children as second class citizens. Stop infantilizing our adult children.

Stop pretending that sealed records are for us. Start promoting human rights. Start listening to adoptees and first parents. Start empowering adult adoptees with dignity and self determination. You have the power to dismantle the lie that it is dangerous for adoptees to access their own vital information.

This lie was perpetuated by those with the most power in the adoption world, the adoption industry and adoptive parents. California birth parents are telling you we don't need or want your government imposed secrecy, shame and stigma any longer. In 1935, California passed a law.

Thank you, Artie. If you'd wrap up.

It is well past time to rectify that and pass this law that promotes transparency, truth, dignity and equal rights for adopted people in California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Go ahead. And. This is a legislative applause. You go like this, that's legislative applause. So. All right. If you wish to testify in support of SB381, please approach the microphone and give us your name, your affiliation and your position. Just for avoidance of doubt.

This is not the time to further provide information on the merits of the bill.

I'm Baxter Culver. I'm a retired legislative advocate. I live in Sacramento. #MeToo. Thank you.

Kathleen Molly McLeod, adoptive parent through foster adoption. #MeToo.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Wallig from Concord. I am here to urge you to pass SB318. Thank you.

Thank you.

Megan Leaney, San Jose, California. Please pass SB381.

Thank you.

Geneva Anderson, Adoptee, Petaluma, California. Please pass this bill.

Thank you.

I am Terry Lambert. I am a first mother and I strongly recommend this gets passed. Thank you.

I'm Laura Callen. I am an adopted person. I still do not have access to my own original birth certificate. I'm 56 years old. Please pass this bill. And the person you just heard from is my birth mother who we had to overcome closed adoption in order to be in connection with each other. All right. Thank you.

Please change the way this works.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Audrey who became Tina. I'm a California born adoptee and I support this bill. Thank you. Hello, my name is Tasha Robinson. I'm an adult adoptee of California and I would. I am in support of SB381.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Karla Molattea. I am an adopted person and a first mother. Please. I support SB381.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Michelle Rapkin from Oakland, California. I'm the adopted mother of Karla's daughter. And I urge you to pass SB381.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Roger Tillerson. I'm an adoptee and I urge you to pass SB 381. Totally support it. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jeff Turk. My wife, Wendy Turk, gave testimony. She's an adoptee and I strongly support this bill.

Hi, I'm Lisa Price. I'm an adoptee and I support this bill.

Hello, I'm Neisha. I'm an adoptee, and please support this bill.

Hi, my name is Julia Jackson from San Francisco. I'm an adoptive mother and the daughter of an adopted woman who's never seen her birth certificate. I urge you to support it.

Hi, I'm Alice Taylor-Morgan. I'm a same race black adoptee, and I support this bill.

My name is Brooke Bergman. I was a minor when I became pregnant by somebody nearly 10 years my senior. And my child does not need anonymity for me from me. I support this bill. Please pass this bill.

My name is Colleen Duncan from Rocklin. I am a California adoptee. Please support this bill. Thank you.

My name is Janet Oelklaus. I was born into foster care and adopted. It took me 40 years to find my birth mother. I hope that doesn't have to happen to another adoptee. So I urge you to vote aye on this bill. Thank you.

Katie Wynen, Oakland, California. Adult adoptee. Please pass this bill.

Others, go ahead and queue up. Those who are in support.

Delrisha White, former foster youth impacted by adoption, and I support this bill. Also board member of Pact, an Adoption Alliance. And Happy Founders Day, soror.

Hi, my name is William McLeod. I'm from San Francisco. I was born in 1961. I'm still living there. I wholeheartedly support this bill. These bills have been coming up for over 20 years. It's time that we can join the other 16 states. Thank you.

My name is Ruthanna Barnett. I was born and adopted in California, and I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Hi, my name is David Bobot, and I'm the birth father of Ruthanna, and I support that bill.

Hi, my name is Susan Bobot. I'm the spouse of the birth father, and I urge you to support this bill please.

My name is Nicole Magnuson. I'm from Oakland, California. I adopted my daughter through Alameda County foster care. It was not supposed to be an open adoption, but fortunately it was and it has benefited all of us greatly.

I'm Jacob Choper. My mother is an adoptee. I support this bill.

I am Lori Schultz. I am a 1960 California adoptee and I am a co-founder of California Alliance for Adoptee Rights. Please pass SB 381.

Hi, my name is Megan Richards. Lori Schultz is my mother, so I'm a daughter of an adoptee. And I support this bill.

My name is Rebecca Santos. I'm an RN, a retired labor and delivery RN, and I support this bill.

Hello, my name is Emily Bernhardt Troper. I'm a California adoptee and I support SB 381.

My name is Austin Davidson. I'm a birth father. Me too.

Thank you.

My name is Jillian Medina. I'm the daughter of your second witness, Susan. I'm an adoptee. Please support this bill.

My name is Paul Kimball. I was originally Frank Novak, and then when I was after foster care and adopted, I became Paul Kimball. In support of SB 381.

My name is Gretchen Sisson. I'm with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California in San Francisco. I spent the last 15 years studying adoption, relinquishment, and birth motherhood. And I am in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Alrighty. Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB 381? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 381, now is your opportunity to testify. Please approach the microphone. All right, seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to the committee for questions. All right, Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward and allowing for us to have this conversation. Also really want to thank all of you who came out today to speak and support and to, you know, share your stories, to let us see your faces and to really come out and support this bill.

I also want to thank those who came to my office last night where we had a conversation. I think I saw you all out there. And shout out to my soror, wherever she is. Happy Founders Day. So in this committee, dealing with, it also deals with the issue of privacy. So I will focus on that in this committee.

I believe I'll see it again in Health, which is a different committee. We don't see anyone coming out in opposition. And I believe the reason for that is because those individuals who oppose this would like to remain anonymous.

I am so thankful that there are parents who chose to have open adoptions or chose a closed adoption and later on changed their mind so that they could create that bond with their birth child.

But I do have to recognize the fact that there are individuals, that there are women out there who chose a closed adoption and still want that confidentiality for whatever reason. And I do have to respect that. Someone mentioned that the children did not consent to be born.

As an OBGYN, I recognize that many women did not consent when they got pregnant, and for some, that is a traumatic event. And they chose to continue with the pregnancy, thank goodness. But they want to continue to remain anonymous.

And there are other women that want to remain anonymous for whatever their own individual reason is. In this bill, I appreciate the fact that it does provide the option for the parent to submit a contact preference form to the state of registrar, but a couple of issues with that.

And I mentioned I kind of sort of had a conversation with the supporters yesterday in my office. One, I don't even know if everyone would be contacted in time to turn in that form, especially if they moved out of state. And two, it's not binding.

So even if I've put in that form and state, I don't want to be contacted, that doesn't mean that that child that I had, that I unfortunately had to give up for adoption would not still contact me.

I also am not blind to the fact that this is something that would disproportionately impact women. Because as a father, you could choose to remain anonymous and not have your name on the birth certificate at all, but as a woman, we cannot do that. Our name will always be there.

So the impact that an individual or two people or whoever we're trying to potentially prevent by doing a closed adoption would ultimately not be the case for the woman with this particular bill. I don't know what the ultimate outcome of this bill would be.

I do completely understand the desire for people to find out who their birth parents are if they want to. You know, I think there are some potential other avenues.

I told you, I'm very much in favor of this being a prospective approach so that when people in the future choose to have adoption here in California, they understand that it's that, you know, it's not confidential.

I think there are some other ways that we may be able to make it easier for people who may have chosen a closed adoption and the mother has now changed their mind and want to now have a more open adoption. I think we can explore those paths.

But I think that we all, we have to weigh the considerations of everyone, and there is a silence on the opposition, but I don't think that they would ever come out because they don't want their privacy impacted in that manner. And so in this committee, when it deals with privacy, I have some significant concerns with this bill. Thank you.

Others? Yes, Senator. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I know she's been working on it for a while. And thank everyone who has advocated for it. I'm sure as it moves through the process, there will be robust discussion about it.

I think this is a, personally, a very important bill and I understand the complexities, absolutely. But fundamentally, you know, this is to me about basic dignity for people to be able to have access to their birth certificate and know where they came from. And so I support the bill. I don't know if there's been a motion yet. If not, I'll move the bill.

Alrighty. The ever patient Senator Ashby.

Yeah. So first of all, I mean, these legislative hearings sometimes on a topic like this can get really personal really fast and really vested in our own personal experiences.

And it can be challenge sometimes to make sure, at least for me, I speak for myself, make sure that I keep my mind open not just to my own personal experiences and my friends' experiences, but to what I think is best for the most people, always trying to seek out how to do the most good for the most people in these positions that we hold.

And the first thank you I want to reiterate, which has been set up here a few times, is to the author. A challenging bill and it's a personal bill. And I feel strongly that people shouldn't have to carry things alone just because they've had an experience.

And so I want to be really mindful of supporting her in her work that is based on, you know, her life experiences. So that's number one for me.

Number two is it's hard to come and testify in front of a chamber of elected officials, whether you're talking to them about speed bumps in your community or wanting more resources at your school, but standing up here through a shaking voice and sharing your stories about being adopted or giving a child up for adoption.

Kudos to every single one of you who made your way to Sacramento today, whether you live a block away or in Los Angeles, however you got here, however you convinced your spirit to arrive in this room today and share your stories with us. Thanks for doing that. You made a big difference. You made a big impact.

I want to thank the Chair because he was really gracious with all of you usually really, really strict about the me toos, just your name, but there was something very powerful about reconnected families. So I want to thank him for allowing you a little bit of extra time to share that piece with us.

There something really powerful about the fact that in spite of the rules, some of you have found your way to each other already and what that has meant to you in your life. So kudos to him for seeing the importance of bending a rule a little bit for the betterment of good information for this body.

And then lastly for me, I'm going to support the bill wholeheartedly. Actually, I think it's really important that an adult who wants to find the person or people responsible for birthing them has the ability to do so. What I appreciate about this author and this bill is it is extremely narrowly tailored.

Your spouse can't come find out for you, your best friend can't come find out for you. Your uncle and aunt and cousins, they can't submit the inquiry. Just you. Just you. And if something happens to you, your kids. That's it. That's it. That's the only people. That's the right she's creating. It only exists for you.

And I know, and not as well as the good doctor on this dais, but I think we've all been there. Those of us who've been around the sun a few times have friends who have suffered serious traumas to give birth or not give birth. And it is always deeply personal in the state of California.

We protect that right. I mean, we protect that right. So understand that what is happening in front of us here is a really big decision to give the ability for people to go back and find that individual.

I just personally believe that that's critically important to a person's existence, to how they feel on this planet and how they feel connected, and like so many of you have shared your own health journeys.

And yes, I understand it may open a trauma for a mom, but there is only one person who can ask for that inquiry, and it is that child. So for that, I will gladly support this bill and its author today.

All right, thank you. Other... Yes, Senator Valladares.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It is courageous and you continue to be a voice for the foster community, for people who have been adopted. And adoption has touched my family's lives. I have nieces and nephews and cousins that have been adopted, an aunt that has been adopted.

And time and time again, they've had wonderful lives and there's always that curiosity that exists with them to learn more. Some of them have chosen to never learn more until my aunt, who is now in her 50s, is now seeking out information about her parents.

Her biological parents, who just met her father for the first time this past year. And I've always been consistent and respecting an individual's own data, their own history. And this is what that is. It is a part of their history that I believe they have the right to know and understand.

And it is narrowly tailored and I think this is an important bill. I'd love to be a co-author in it if you would have me. And again, I want to thank you for being a leading example and for your courage on this.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Just very quickly, I want to thank the author. But I want to thank all of you who were here in your very, very short phrases, the way you identified yourself just gave me a peek into the world that you live in and you spent your lives in.

So I want to thank you all because you've made an enormous difference. This is not just voting for someone's rights. This is about people and human beings. So thank you.

All righty. Other comments or questions? Seeing none. Would you like... Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Stern. I don't mean to...

No, no, not at all. Appreciate it, Mr. Chair. I just was hoping maybe in your close, but just to follow up on Dr. Weber Pierson's point about just the mechanics of that of the parental contact form and how you actually anticipate that working given that it's non-binding.

I don't know, maybe this could be through you or your sponsor, but if it is non-binding... Yeah. Just exactly how that plays out and the impact you have, I guess, on the impact you would anticipate that having on people wanting to access adoptive practices and things like that.

Let me ask, Senator Wahab, would you like your witness to respond to that?

Yes.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you. Thank you for the question. So it is non-binding. However, that actually gives more protection than exists now. Birth parents are being contacted through DNA testing and through search angels and aren't having an opportunity to express their preference. Our bill is not about contact, it's about having that piece of paper.

But we just as in acknowledgement of the sensitive nature of this thought that's something we can provide. There could be a place on the form where they could put down some information.

Let's say they didn't want contact, they could put down some medical information or something that they want their children to know that maybe would then make the child go, okay, I'm not going to contact them. It's not something that could be enforced. But we're not looking to harass birth parents. You know, we just want the piece of paper that shows our name.

I want to know what name I was given. Was it named... Was I... Maybe I was named after my paternal grandmother. That would have such significance to me. Seeing my birth mother's signature, see where they live. They're not even alive anymore. I know that.

I know who my birth parents are. But I just want that piece of paper to put in my scrapbook to show my child who is watching from Los Angeles now and, God willing, grandchildren one day. And so it's just giving an opportunity that doesn't exist now.

But what we're proposing is far less intrusive than what exists now, where a whole family is seeing DNA results and wondering who might have given up a child.

Only one person, as was pointed out, is going to find out this information and, you know, they'll be able to see if the contact preference form is filed just to give them some more information.

But what I'm hearing from you is that there's an openness to exactly how that contact preference form was set up and the sort of terms of that adoption were laid out for the prospective birth mother or parent.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you mean.

Oh, just... You were saying that you could... You could lay out, say they were talking about place of origin. Right. Or if someone was indigenous and needed to know that. Or you were saying critical medical information.

In other words, the way that the contact preference form is laid out in the bill, that there's an openness to sort of adding more parameters and details about that and how to put that perspective adoptive parent on notice so that they really know that that form exists and how to exactly use it and engage with it.

Well, the form is something that would be created now. I was just, you know, maybe I shouldn't be doing this, talking off the top of my head. The form is just to express there would be three boxes. I don't want contact. I do want contact. And it would be...

We would have a mechanism, you know, I don't know how these things work, but a mechanism to, you know, promote it, advertise it, so that birth parents from before could fill that out now. And then it would be have to be attached to the original birth certificate.

So if someone requested the original birth certificate, it would be there. It only would... My understanding is the way it's written, it would have those three boxes. But I'm just saying perhaps there could be a space to write. I don't want to be contacted, but please know there is a family history of X.

And then maybe that would, if people are worried that all these adoptees are going to be contacting them anyway, maybe they'd say, okay, that's what I really wanted to know. I'm just talking off the top of my head, which maybe I shouldn't do.

Appreciate that. Sorry, Chair. Now, just trying to offer something potentially a constructive thought going forward to not just make it so check or not check, but, you know, something more to sort of balance these really tough issues.

So first and foremost, this particular form...

Before you answer, I have been remiss in not making sure that the record is complete. You accepted the amendments, but the amendments will be taken in Health Committee, not in Judiciary for avoidance of concern on some people's parts, right?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

All right. Did you want to clarify amendments that...

Just you've clarified the amendments you're going to take. I just wanted to clarify that they're not incorporated here, but they will be incorporated Health Committee.

Yes. So I just kind of, one, I want to appreciate all of you guys. I know you guys have heard me talk about adoption and foster care and, you know, it's a lifelong struggle, as you guys heard. It does not matter what race, what gender, what age. Everyone is affected.

And it's not just, you know, the mother who has potentially made a decision, some who have been forced to make a decision to give up their child. Right. And that is, I want to talk about the nuance a little bit.

There are mothers that, if they were, you know, God forbid, had some sexual assault, folks that have given birth under age, or a number of different other circumstances, that after 18 years of the child becoming a full adult, they may have changed their mind and the forms and the decisions that they made at that moment in time in their life may be a decision that they regret.

We also know that this particular bill allows only the individual that has been adopted to, one, be 18, and two, to request the original birth certificate. The other factor, you know, that was highlighted is that we did push the date to 2028.

So it gives a little bit more time, roughly two years, to kind of, you know, work out some of the kinks, if you will. And, you know, at the time of relinquishment, I just want to be very clear there is no guarantee of adoption and no guarantee of anonymity. And I want to highlight some of the stories.

So since this bill has become live, there have been people that were adopted that have reached out, as well as people who gave up their child that has have reached out and shared different perspectives with me personally. And some of those perspectives are very unique and very interesting.

In particular, some have shared with me that prior to some of the DNA testing that if they heard a rumor from their adoptive parent saying that, hey, I adopted you in this city, or whatever the case may be, they go online and they search all the high schools based on their age.

And when we talk about privacy, they literally go through the entire class and ask randomly, strangers, do you know anybody that was pregnant in this time period? Do you know anybody that missed school to hide a pregnancy? Do you know anybody? And that becomes more invasive.

And with the technology that's out there today, whether it's 23andMe or any other DNA service provider, people will find out their cousin, their second cousin, and they will hunt them down to see who gave up that child.

And so when we talk about privacy, I just want to say that we know that in today's society, it's very limited and it's getting more limited. And I fully respect, Dr. Weber Pierson, your opinion on this. And I share many of the same concerns. And that is why this bill was tailored very specifically to limit it.

I do believe, you know, you heard an individual say that they were transracial. And I personally lived with individuals that were my foster parents that were of completely different races, different cultures, different religions, even different languages. And my sister and I will joke that we didn't even understand race until we got a little older.

Because as a kid, you're around black, white, Latino, it did not matter. And this provides a lot of identity for a number of different reasons, not only health reasons, but also, where do you come from? Who are you?

And as much as we talk about some of the impacts historically that decimated families, broke families apart for racial reasons, change names, historically, religions, this bill corrects those wrongs that are legally in our law today.

And the concept of this may disproportionately impact women, I want to say that any imbalance in how parents appear on a birth certificate is a function of existing law today, not necessarily this bill. And a birth mother is the one who fills out those forms. And so they can add the father's name.

They could put somebody that is not even actually the father, they could put it blank. And so the honest truth is, when we're talking about personal records and history, there's a lot of hands already touching it. And these individuals that testify today, they want to respect everybody's wishes.

But I will also say that there's a right that we all have to know where we come from. And so I really also want to highlight the fact that studies have also shown that 95% of birth mothers favor access.

So, yes, there may be people in the shadows that don't want to speak, and maybe they had a traumatic incident, and maybe they don't want contact. And I will highlight that if an individual does contact them, there are other legal laws that protect them from any contact that's unwanted. And so we have protections across the board.

And I will also highlight that I've heard people talk about what if the child is rejected, the adult child. And the reality is that this is a journey that is very personal to so many for so many different reasons. Some health, some just cultural, some just identity issues, some just closure.

So I will say that this bill is probably one of the most important for this community. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote to give the dignity that is deserved for adopted kids. Thank you.

Thank you. But Senator Weber Pierson has another question.

Yeah, sorry, I thought you were going to answer Senator Stern's question when you were talking, so I'll... Sorry. I'll ask again what Senator Stern was asking concerning the form.

Are you open to maybe potentially expanding that form to help protect those particular mothers, to maybe include some of the things that your witness talked about, health information, like, I don't want to be contacted, but here's some medical health information.

We are happy to discuss the form and some information that the birth mother is willing to volunteer. But I do want to highlight, and we've heard this and had this conversation as well, there are individuals that, let's say, are teenage moms that give up their child that have no idea of what health concern they actually have. Because when you're young and healthy, you may not know that.

But if they know that information. Right.

Yes, they... For sure.

If they've made it, if they change their mind, then they're going to check I want to be contacted. Right. So this is to allow for those that don't want to be contacted the ability to say, I don't want to be contacted, but here's some more information.

Yeah, I'm fine with forms being updated.

Okay. Thank you.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Let me just... Let me thank you, Senator Wahab, for bringing this forward. This is a highly emotional issue. It's also an issue that I think that is sort of underground. It's amazing how many people have lived experience in this space.

I shared with Senator Weber Pierson my own family's lived experience in this space. And I want to also thank all of you who've come here to Sacramento to watch your government in action. You've taken it upon yourself to advance this cause, not just for yourself, but for others who are similarly situated. And that inspires all of us.

So I want to thank you. I also want to thank you for being so respectful and especially this emotional issue that all of you have been very respectful of us and the process. And with that, I'm going to ask Committee Assistant Porter to call the roll.

This is file item number six, SB 381. The motion is do pass to the Senate Health Committee. [Roll Call]13 to 0.

13 to 0. No, no, no, no. You guys, you forgot so quickly. All right, so that bill is out, right? That's complete roll. All right, first bill out. Completely out. So next we're going to turn to Senator Cortese. Senator Cortese. Senator Cortese. I've been summoned to Transportation Committee, so let me turn this over to Senator Niello. Thank you. And I'll be back.

We will allow for the shift change before you proceed. We traded chairs.

May I begin? Are we... Are we clearing the room?

Okay. Senator Cortese, you may proceed.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm pleased to present SB 33, a bill that will help permanently ensure that contractors working on public projects receive fair and timely payments, and I emphasize, permanently ensure.

Under the current statute, pub--which was enacted in 2012, if I'm not mistaken--public agencies must provide written responses to contractor claims for extra work, pay portions of claims they acknowledge as owed, and follow a structured dispute resolution process for contested amounts. Before these provisions went into effect, litigation over payment disputes drain the time and resources of government entities and contractors alike.

Contractors, on their side of it, were left struggling to stay afloat and, at times, unable to pay their hard-working employees. For nearly a decade, this process has reduced litigation, prevented project delays, and approved the vital infrastructure work of our state.

This bill would codify the claim resolution process as a permanent solution to alleviate strain on contractors and expedite the vital infrastructure work that needs to be completed across the state. So we're eliminating the sunset. That's what this bill is about. We are protecting small businesses and workers as well as ensuring accountability in California's construction industry. With us today is Eddie Bernacchi to testify in support. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Eddie Bernacchi, on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association and United Contractors, sponsors of the bill. As the senator stated very excellently in his opening, this simple bill, it's a sunset elimination for a policy that was put in place over a decade ago.

Public Contract Code Section 9204, you know, specifically requires public agencies to timely review contracts, contractor claims prompt to pay the undisputed claims, and engage in a early dispute resolution process before things escalate into litigation. The result's been reduction in lawsuits, improved project delivery, and has reduced cost to taxpayers.

Before the statute was put into place, contractors who were--and mind you, by contract, having to perform work, extra work outside of the original contract--had to wait, in many cases, months to sometimes years before they were getting paid.

You know, during that time, the contractors still had to pay all of their wages, benefits, materials, overhead in real time, which put them in real financial strain. In some cases, very responsible contractors ended up going out of business.

So I'll finally disclose in the sense of brevity that this was a careful policy that was negotiated with public agencies in its original form. All the public agencies that are impacted by this bill removed their opposition to the original legislation carried by Assembly Member Chu at that time.

And if we let this expire, we are going to lose the progress we've kind of incurred here in keeping projects moving forward in reducing litigation on public works projects throughout the state. For those reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have another primary witness in support? Are there others in support that would like to offer #MeToo testimony?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Todd Bloomstine for the Southern California Contractors Association, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair and members, Mike Monagan, on behalf of State Building Trades, in support.

And seeing no others come forward, is there a primary witness in opposition to SB 33? Seeing none come forward, are there any other people here that are in opposition to SB 33? Seeing none come forward, bring it back to the committee. Senator Ashby moves the bill. Any questions or comments? Appear to be none. Senator Cortese, you may close.

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

Please read the roll.

This is SB 33, File Item Number Four. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]. That's 10 to zero with members missing.

We'll hold the vote open--

--for absent members, and next up is Senator Wiener. You may proceed.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 747, the no Kings Act. This Bill is very straightforward.

It ensures that when a federal agent or employee violates the constitutional rights of a person, that that person actually has a pathway to recovery and there is actual accountability for that federal agent or employee, this Bill is particularly. We introduced it originally in September.

Given everything that's happening in the country right now and the activities of not particularly Ayes, but other federal agencies who are operating with apparent, or so they think, impunity. And the Bill took on added significance last week when Renee Goode was shot on the street in Minneapolis last week and killed.

And it is unclear that that Ayes agent will or that officer will face any consequences as a result. Right now, if a federal agent or employee violates the constitutional rights of a person, there is really only one viable, arguably viable pathway to sue, and that is using the Federal Tort Claims act, which is extremely hard to use.

And there are many defenses that the Federal Government can use to deny any recovery. When a state or local officer violates your constitutional rights, you can sue that officer in federal court under Section 1983. And you can receive damages. And that officer is accountable for state or local, not for federal.

There was a doctrine, the Bivens doctrine, that the Supreme Court created over 50 years ago to allow for lawsuits against federal officers who violate constitutional rights. A few years ago, the Supreme Court gutted that doctrine.

So right near today, if a local police officer shoots you with no cause, holds you in a chokehold and suffocates and kills you, violates your right and upholds you for no reason, and puts you in jail for five days for no reason, you can sue and you can be compensated.

And that officer has an incentive not to violate your rights because they can be sued. For federal agents, they have no such incentive because they cannot be sued. And that lack of accountability has always been harmful.

And it is particularly harmful now with what this federal Administration is doing in unleashing essentially secret police onto the streets of American cities to routinely violate the constitutional rights of citizens and noncitizens alike. And so SB747 will create essentially an identical version of existing Federal law, section 1983 under state law.

And so that if a federal, state, or local officer violates your constitutional rights, you will be able to file a lawsuit that is the same as Section 1983, and that those officers will be able to assert all of the defenses that they are currently able to assert to Section 1983 claims for state and local police officers.

And with all respect to some of the opposition, they are already subject to these claims in federal court under Section 1983. This doesn't change the scope of their liability or any of the defenses that they can assert. They are already able to be sued for these violations. This will add federal agents in as well.

And so, colleagues, this is, I think, not just a timely Bill, but it is long, long overdue. And I hope all 50 states pass a Bill like this until Congress actually gets it together to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law, which it is not doing right now.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify is George Reddes, a United States citizen in Iraq, combat veteran, California, raised in Ventura county, who will tell you about his horrific experience with Ayes and Cameron Kistler.

The council at a council at Protect Democracy United, a nonprofit with a mission of preventing our democracy from declining into an autocracy. Especially ask for your aye vote.

Ready? Thank you. First witness, please.

Can I start? Yeah, yeah. My name is George Reddes. I'm a United States citizen and veteran. Before I begin, I want everyone listening to understand This I did everything right. I complied. I identified myself as a US Citizen. I did not resist. I did not impede or assault any agent.

What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it. On July 102025 I was wrongfully detained during an Ayes operation at Glasshouse Farms in Camarillo, California.

Despite being a US Citizen, clearly stating my citizenship and fully complying with officers, even though they were all yelling contradictory orders and no one clearly in charge, I was detained and treated as if I had no rights. Agents engulfed my car with tear gas, smashed my window, sprayed pepper spray my face and dragged me out.

I was choking on gas, unable to breathe. And even though I wasn't resisting, one agent was kneeling on my back and another kneeling on my neck while my hand were already behind my back. I was first taken to a Navy base where the agents took my DNA. I was taken.