Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the 0 Street Building. I ask that all members of the committee present themselves in Room 20 1 Hundred, so we can establish a quorum. So far, we're only lacking 10. Before presentations today, what I wanna do is I'm gonna announce the ground rules. I'm also gonna announce the bills that are on the consent calendar. There are five on the consent calendar today. File number three, SB 870 by Senator Cortesi. File number six, SB 902 by Senator Grayson.

File number 13, SB 1129 by Senator Caballero with amendments. File number 17 SB 1264 by Senator Valladares. And finally, file number 21 SB 883 by Senator Umberg. Today, one one one moment. One other administrative announcement. Senator Laird is not able to participate in today's hearing, and he has been replaced by Senator McNerney. So for those of you who have been to Senate Judiciary before, I think you know the process. The procedure is as follows. So for each bill, we will have two primary witnesses in support and if there are two primary witnesses in opposition, they may testify as well. Each witness in support will be allocated two minutes.

Two minutes for witness one, two minutes for witness two. After the witness witnesses in support testify, then if you wish to provide what we call me too testimony, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. In other words, my name is Tom Umberg. I'm affiliated with the state senate.

My position is I support, I oppose. Exact same process for opponents. Two minutes each and then those who oppose come up and present themselves with their name, their position, their affiliation. We do not have, as you know, we do not have a quorum, but we do have authors here. And so what we'll do is we're gonna proceed with the consent of the authors with a subcommittee.

And first, I see Senator Alvarado-Gil who's here. And I also who else do we see here? Is there any other authors hiding in the audience? No. I don't see them? Alright. Just for administrative purposes, we expect to go fairly late today. Senator Alvarado Gil, congratulations on having your last name begin with a.

Love it thank you.

And so those of you who are here for folks who are on the committee, for example, Senator Weiner, this is gonna be a little while before we get to those bills. Alright. Senator Alvarado-Gil, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Umberg, members of the committee who will be joining us shortly, and members of the public for joining us today. Today, I'm presenting on Senate Bill one two three four, which ensures that when a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to undergo drug testing in a dependency case, the testing panel includes fentanyl. This bill honors the memory of children who have tragically lost their lives due to fentanyl poisoning and recognizes the profound impact these losses have on families.

We know these as these families as angel families and the lives lost, angel babies. Under current law, courts already have the authority to order drug testing and dependency cases. However, there is no requirement that fentanyl be included in those tests. Senate Bill 1234 addresses the gap in a simple and targeted way. It does not expand when drug drug testing can be ordered and it does not create new requirements for families. Instead, it ensures that when testing is already deemed necessary, Fentanyl, one of the dead deadliest and most prevalent substances in today's drug addiction crisis, is included in that drug panel.

Fentanyl has has become an increasing threat to children and between 2015 and 2023, fentanyl poisonings in The US rose by more than nine hundred percent. This was among children 12 and over fifteen hundred percent among teenagers. In a recent study by the University of Davis, in 2023, we studied the deaths of fifteen children under the age of five that lost their lives due to fentanyl exposure. And thanks to my colleagues in the Senate, like Senator Cortese from San Jose area, we've seen monumental legislation come through this body. So today, I'm asking you to continue to protect the lives of angel babies.

Senate Bill one-two-three-four is a narrow practical step that strengthens an existing process without adding new family centered structural burdens. It's a measure that's focused on child safety during one of the most critical stages in the dependency system, family reunification. This measure has received broad bipartisan support including from the Chair and the Vice Chair of this Committee. Thank you for your co authorship, as well as law enforcement and public safety organizations across the state, county sheriffs, probation departments, and district attorneys. I respectfully ask for you to support this bill and continue in our fight to take on the fentanyl crisis here in our great state of California.

Thank you, Senator Alvarado. Gil, witness is in support.

Not today.

Okay. You're you're the witness in support.

I am the witness in support.

If anyone here in the audience is in support of SB 1234 and wish to be heard, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1234, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee for questions. Senator McNerney, do you have any questions?

No. I I certainly appreciate the author for bringing this bill forward. And, just to clarify, the testing would apply to the, guardians not to the not to the, child. Right?

That's correct. So we currently, in juvenile court, if there is a family reunification plan where there's a known addiction of one of the guardians or parents, we are already testing. Unfortunately, fentanyl is not part of that panel. So yes, the testing would be on the, guardian or caregiver.

Thank you. I will support the bill.

Alrighty. Thank you. At the appropriate time, well, would you like to close?

Yes. I just kindly ask for your aye vote and, understand that we are in subcommittee now and look forward to being able to move this bill to the next committee.

Thank you. At the proper time, I assume there will be a motion and then we'll take it up for a vote.

Thank you both.

Alright. I see Senator Alvarado-Gil. I mean, I'm sorry. Aragine. I see both of you here.

I see Senator Aragine as well. Thank you. Go ahead. The floor is yours.

Well, thank you, mister chair. Members, the opportunity to present Senate Bill twelve fifty seven. I will be accepting the committee amendments. This bill requires the attorney general to publish annually a publicly available report that summarizes immigration enforcement incidents and activities that occur in California, as as well as to submit that report to the governor and the legislature. S B 1257 authorizes the attorney general to request information directly from designated safe locations of immigration enforcement incidents at locations like schools, hospitals, and courthouses, and places of worship in order to prepare such a report.

And the attorney general will also be empowered to take enforcement action to assure compliance with this bill. Put this in context, California is home to 11,000,000 immigrants. And from January to October 2025 alone, 18,000 arrests were recorded in our state. These enforcement actions have produced fear across communities, causing people to miss medical care, avoid school, and withdraw from public life. The attorney general already collects immigration enforcement, misconduct information online through an online portal, as well as information that is shared with his office directly.

This bill will build on that practice by making that information publicly accessible on an annual basis. This builds on legislation we passed last year, such as SB 81, SB 98, and SB 49 to ensure effective enforcement oversight of these laws. Transparent reporting restores trust and helps the state build, hold entities responsible for adherence to the laws meant to protect patients, students, workers, and, providers accountable at designated state locations. This bill is proudly sponsored by the Latino Coalition for Healthy California and TOTEC Legal Center. We thank them for unwavering commitment to immigrant health and justice.

And with me to testify today is Mar Velez, the policy director with the Latino Coalition for Healthy California and Luz Gallegos, executive director at the TOTEC Legal Center. The appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, chairs and members. My name is Mar Velez. I am the policy director for the Latino Coalition for Healthy California. Our organization advances and protects Latino health through policy and advocacy with a vision of ending Latino health inequities in our state, and we are proud co sponsors of s p 1257. SB 1257 represents a significant step in guaranteeing the effective enforcement of protections for immigrant communities that were signed into law last year.

Additionally, it provides essential accountability to the public regarding violations of these laws and the circumstances surrounding immigration enforcement within our state. SB 1257 requires the California attorney general to publish an annual report on immigration enforcement incidents at designated safe locations, including at schools and health care facilities. Last year, SB 81, which protects health spaces from unlawful immigration enforcement, was made state law.

However, the truth is is that although laws like SB 81 were passed, sensitive locations like hospitals and clinics continue to deal with the impacts of violent, fear inducing, and disruptive activities by immigration enforcement. Health care providers and health care workers continue to be the front lines between ICE and immigrant patients.

Therefore, providing and reporting data of when these incidents take place is one of the strongest accountability tools we have. Without accurate public data, unlawful actions go undetected, and fear continues to spread. The gathering and reporting of data will assist the state in ensuring that entities comply with regulations designed to safeguard patients, students, workers, and providers at specified safe locations. For these reasons, I ask for you I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support.

Hello, Chair. My name is, Luz Gallegos. I am the executive director for Todec Legal Center. We are a lifeline for immigrants and their families in California's inland empire and Coachella Valley. For over forty years, Todec has been a hub for healing, organizing, community transformation led by people who live and work in rural and inland communities.

In Todec, we firmly believe that those closest to the pain should be closest to the power. We are here to to today as a proud cosponsor of SB 1257, authored by Senator Areguin, because as as an organization on the front lines, we need stronger transparency and accountability by our state to protect immigrant communities. We are guided by our community struggle, and it is our responsibility to uplift community stories to inform and educate systems to find solutions that reflect the pain of community.

Enforcement activities in what we used to be considered safe public spaces is is cornering vulnerable families and children not to seek medical care, education, attend mass, or leisure. On 01/15/2026, an immigration operation by federal authorities was reported within boundaries of the Coachella Valley Unified School District.

The presence of this operation affected multiple families as several parents and students traveling to work on their way to school were stopped by immigration officers. The incident generated concern and confusion among district administrators, educators, and community members. Several parents were detained in this operation. This operation impacted their several families. These types of operations continue to cause chilling effects amongst community, including kids that are going through trauma and do not want to leave the safety of their home.

Recently, a parent showed how when taking their children to a doctor's appointment, saw immigration agents outside the clinic, turned around, and never rescheduled. They never went back. Families continue to share the that once they see enforcement near service sites, it changes everything. Whether they see care, go to school, or even attend church. We have had we have had some of our regions, churches, and communities Thank you

very much. If you could go ahead and wrap it up. You urge an aye vote, I assume. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you. Aye vote, please.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Others in support, their Me Too testimony.

Good afternoon, chair members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos US. We shared the, support's concerns and are in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair. Johnny Pineda on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California cosponsor, Latino Health Access and in support. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Sandra Poole with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members. Erica Cervantes on behalf of Alliance for Better Community in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee from Cal State Long Beach. I am Kelly Carrasco, and I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Obinu Larebe from Center Family Health Initiative in support.

Sierra Koss as a parent in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee. I'm from Cal State Dominguez College, and I support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 1257, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1257, please approach. Going once, going twice. Alright. Not seeing anyone in opposition approaching the microphone. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions or comments by committee members? Seeing none.

Oh, do I see one? Okay. Senator Niello.

How will the data be collected?

Well, right now, there's an online portal the attorney general's office has where individuals are able to submit information on incidents that happen. In addition, information is already provided to the attendant attorney general's office as well through complaints that are made or just through information that's shared with the attorney general staff. So this will be the information that's received from the AG's office. I'll be, it's not gonna be complete because it's contingent on that information that is publicly reported or is reported to the attorney general. That would be the the way that the information would be collected.

And Is the attorney general expected to solicit input from whomever?

Well, once again, this will be based on information that is directly reported to the AG. And I would imagine that the AG's office would also be contacting those designated locations, whether it's healthcare providers or schools as well. So, essentially the information comes from voluntary reporting Yes.

For the most part.

Yeah. Or or information that they become aware of through lawsuits or or other other complaints that are fault.

So we probably won't be able to rely upon this as being fully comprehensive.

Yeah. It's it's it's based on the information that they receive or the information that is publicly available.

I've And I would point out

I'll just note there's a lot of fear on the part of individuals who may be the subject of immigration enforcement, or who work in a hospital or work in a school who see an incident happening from coming forward and reporting that information as well. And we want people to be comfortable doing so.

I would point out that sanctuary jurisdictions create issues of enforcement. If ICE is going after people who have committed crimes and going after criminal activity for potential deportees and the sanctuary jurisdiction refuses to cooperate. That makes it much more difficult. And because of that, they end up having to cast a wider net. And, that ends up in the appearance of, ICE going after people who are not guilty of criminal activity.

But which would not be the case if the, subject jurisdiction were to cooperate with, with ICE relative to enforcement of people who have been guilty of of criminal activity.

Alrighty. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, Senator Agim, would you like to close?

Yeah. Just on that last point. I mean, this is something that came up in discussion of other legislation, including a bill by Senator Jones, and I'm gonna stick sticks to the merits of this bill. But this idea that collateral rests are the only way that we're gonna be able to get the worst offenders off our streets.

And I'll just note that the data shows that the vast majority of people who've been the subject of immigration enforcement, those 18,000 arrests that have happened in California, the vast majority of them have no prior criminal record.

And we do have laws in California that are specifically focused on ensuring that people that commit serious violent felonies, that law enforcement, local law enforcement and CDCR can collaborate to have those people go into the custody of ICE because we want to protect our communities from serious violent felons.

But the vast majority of people are being swept up into this dragnet that is resulting in innocent people who just are going to school, going to an appointment to get their green card renewed, going to a medical appointment, and are being arrested and deported and are being separated from their families. That's wrong. That's synthetical to the state of California. That's why we passed s p 81 and all the laws we passed last year.

But we need information that we can understand what is happening in California, so we can fine tune these laws to make them more effective, and so we can also protect Californians of all backgrounds. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote on the bill.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum, but the appropriate time, I expect to be a motion, and we'll take it up for vote. Alright. I see Senator Choi and Senator Gonzalez here.

Senator Choi.

Thank you, committee chair and members. I'm so pleased to present Senate Bill 1176, which would prohibit foreign entities identified as adversaries by The US Director of National Intelligence from purchasing agricultural land in California. Specifically, this bill would prohibit nonmarket, economies, adversarial governments, and the business controlled by governments that pose a national security risk from purchasing, acquiring, leasing, or holding any controlling interest in California agricultural land.

The United States Department of Agriculture released a report in January 2025 detailing how many acres of US farmland is owned by foreign entities. The report indicated over 46,000,000 acres of US agricultural land are owned by foreign entities with 18% of this land being held by countries on the Federal Government's list of nations that pose a threat to national security.

This report also revealed that approximately 1,400,000 acres of California agricultural land are owned by foreign entities. Agricultural land often surrounds critical infrastructure, military bases, and water systems in California. This is especially concerning as just last month, the FBI warned the policy departments across our state that Iran might launch its drone strikes in California. While many states such as Virginia, Hawaii, and Oregon have passed laws to better protect their agricultural land from being controlled by your foreign enemies, California lags behind.

SB 1176 establishes common sense protections for California's agricultural land, ensuring that the state is protected no matter when geopolitical tensions arrive arise.

SB 1176 establishes a process for the California attorney general to order, prohibited foreign actors found in violation of the bills of provisions, to, divest itself and their land within ninety days. The bill does not apply to The US allies, federally recognized tribes, or agricultural land that is dedicated to research and development. With me today in support is Shanti Linden from the Placer County Board of Supervisors. I would like to invite Shanti to the front or either that place.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Shanti Landon. I serve on the Placer County Board of Supervisors, and I'm here today in support of SB 1176. I wanna focus my comments on why this bill matters from a local government and implementation perspective.

In counties like Placer, agricultural land is not just an economic asset, it's directly tied to public safety, land use planning, and long term resource management. Much of our ag land sits adjacent to or intertwined with critical infrastructure, including water conveyance systems, energy corridors, and transportation routes. These aren't abstract concerns for us. They are part of our day to day responsibilities. What SB 1176 does importantly is give the state a clear and enforceable framework moving forward.

It establishes a defined process led by the attorney general to review potential violations and if necessary, require divestment with appropriate due process. That clarity is critical for local governments. We're not left guessing how these situations would be handled or who has authority. I also wanna highlight that this bill is per perspective and targeted. It doesn't disrupt existing ownership, and it includes important exemptions for research activities and federally recognized tribes.

That balance really matters. It ensures that we're addressing the risk without creating unnecessary instability. I know the committee had raised some important illegal and policy questions, and so I wanna really briefly speak to those first on the issue of foreign policy. While that is primarily a federal role, this bill this bill is grounded in federal determinations, specifically the annual threat assessment and non market economy designations. It aligns state policy and existing federal frameworks rather than creating a separate or conflicting standard.

Secondly, on equal protection concerns, this bill is focused on foreign governments and business entities tied to identified national security risks, not individuals, based on national origin. At the end of the day, this is about responsible, forward looking governance. Local governments are tasked with protecting land use, infrastructure, and community safety over the long term. SB 1176 provides a narrowly tailored tool to help you back. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Alright. Thank you. Others in support of SB 1176.

You know what? I'm sorry. One second. Most important thing we're gonna do today, if you hold for just one moment, committee system porter, could you call the roll for a purpose of establishing a quorum?

Thank you, Chair Umberg, members of the committee, Joseph Stefano, and each

Umberg?

Here.

Umberg here. Nilo? Here. Nilo here. Alan, Ashby, Caballero?

Here. Caballero here. Duraso here. McNerney. McNerney here.

Reyes?

Here.

Reyes here. Stern?

Here. Here.

Stern here. Valadares. Wahab. Webber Pearson. Weiner.

You have quorum.

Thank you very much. Alright, sir. Sorry to interrupt. Floor is yours.

No worries, mister chairman. Joseph Stefanoni, California State Grange in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please approach SB 1176. If you're opposed to SB 1176, now is the time to approach. Seeing no one approaching, let me bring it back to committee for questions. Questions by committee members?

Seeing none, I I have a few. And and maybe, Senator Choi, either you or your witnesses might, respond. In terms of, issues, supervisor just wondering if if there's a particular issue in Placer County.

We do not currently see a major issue in Placer County. It's really looking at the broader community and just foreseeing potential problems in the future.

Yeah. Have have you seen any evidence of foreign governments buying property in Placer County?

We so it's hard to determine, but from what we've seen, there there is a small percentage. It's not a large, majority by any means.

Right. And and as you say, it's hard to determine. So how would a seller make a determination as to whether or not it's a foreign government or an agent of a foreign government or even a straw buyer?

It would have to be a process with the assessor's office and, working with our agricultural commissioner to determine where that purchase is coming from and whether those agricultural lands are covered under the Williamson Act and what kind of, impacts we might see from that.

So if I were selling a piece of agricultural property, is it my burden to make sure that that the purchaser is not one of the prohibited purchasers?

I don't believe so, and maybe Senator Choi can speak to that. But my understanding is that that would not be on the burden of the seller. It would be on, the burden of the assessor and the state to determine whether that's a foreign government coming in.

Once this bill is implemented, it'll be widely known and the land brokers will will have to inform the buyer whether the person is identified as a foreign government agency or individual living in legitimately living in this country. So I don't think that there will be any confusion who the purchaser is.

Just to be clear, so the broker then would have to do the investigation to make sure that whatever that, you know, one two three LLC is not the agent of a foreign government. Is that your understanding?

Okay. Details can be worked out later. However, at this time, once the bill is established, it should be widely publicized, and the broker will inform the purchaser. They will usually know who the purchaser is when when they approach the end of their client, who who they are, whether the person is living in this country or agents are from foreign other other countries. So if they are question questionable and that's the first stage.

But after that that person has passed the initial stage, you're being informed by the broker. And the next stage will be through registration in the title registration process. The who do who whom the name will be under for the ownership of the land, the property. So Right. So at that time, clearly, all all all be known.

Okay. So if the broker makes a mistake, fails to investigate. So, for example, let's say it's a straw buyer. Straw buyer meaning somebody that uses an innocuous LLC to purchase the land, and the broker doesn't investigate, would the broker become liable then in terms of damages to the to the seller?

I I didn't intend to to give liability to to to the broker, but eventually, the purchaser will will know that. And the third layer of the protection will be attorney general. Later, if that becomes identified as a foreign entity and the that's the time, as I stated, they they need to divest within ninety ninety days.

Okay. And so it's the right now, the director of national intelligence is Tulsi Gabbard. So if Tulsi Gabbard says, you know what, we're in a beef with Canada, we're gonna put Canada on the list, that would fall under the purview of the law.

Yeah. That adversary list is is under the Department of of Federal Intelligence. So that's beyond our control. Whatever reason, at this time, you know, not only targeting North Korea, China, and Iran, obvious adversarial countries toward toward our country's interest.

So Right now, we're in a beef with the Vatican. So if Tulsi Gabbard put the Vatican

on I I don't know. I don't know if I go into specific criteria that since I'm not the evaluator Right. Which country you should be listed in the adversarial

Right.

In Okay. List

in the country of Alright. I have a Other yes.

Just a just a Just a comment.

I I I I think I understand, you know, where you're coming from, Senator Choi. I just unfortunately feel that there's too many risks as far as including people who are not adversarial, but who fall into the the category of being foreign foreign born or a foreign actor. And we just have a a history of applying it, discriminatory. And, that's my biggest concern, is how this would be applied. And it's been applied in small ways and big ways in a very discriminatory manner.

So I I I that's my

It's not it's not a measure. This measure is not to discriminate any legitimate residence in this country. We are talking about the foreign governments agencies on the individual or or company formed or their department, whichever forms may be. They are non US citizens or permanent residents. When I buy a house here, you know, just because I come from foreign country, that doesn't really deter me.

So anyone legitimately who are living in this country would not be subject to this law measure.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Other questions or comments? Senator Niello.

Just, as I understand it, the our current list is Belarus, China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. And I I just like to point out that allowing land sales to any of those countries is a severe risk, particularly with China and particularly if it is close to a sensitive facility otherwise like a military base as an example. And I think to deny that risk and not support this bill for the concerns stated such as the dispute with the Vatican. There really isn't any dispute with the Vatican.

But I understand those concerns where they're coming from currently.

But I don't think that we can deny the serious security risk of allowing land again particularly close to sensitive locations is a significant security risk for the country and for the state.

Alrighty. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, just to to complete the list, Senator Yalu, includes Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Georgia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Moldova, North Korea, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and and Vietnam. Is it your view, Senator Choi, that well, let me let me ask it in a little bit different way.

Do you agree with me that if a foreign government were seeking to gain some sort of advantage that rather than having, for example, Putin himself buy the land that they would probably use a straw buyer? In other words, another they would disguise the purchase of the property. Does that sound right?

They could.

Right.

So we need to identify who they are and through the investigation, it can be identified eventually.

And that's the question, is that at the point in time of sale, as I understand it, would be the broker's responsibility to investigate. Is that what your understanding is?

No. I I didn't say that to investigate the initial identification who the buyer is so that they can properly inform the purchaser of what the California law is. And then also, this similar measure is not just for for the first time in California. To my knowledge, it's about 20 other states already implemented this major similar law and have been practicing and with no problem.

Okay. Senator Reyes. I

I I do want to sort of reiterate the the concerns of the chair because I share them. I I think that when we are introducing legislation, we want a law signed by the governor, then we need to know who is going who has the legal responsibility to to disclose, to to investigate, to determine whether or not this piece of property, this agricultural piece of property is being sold to a foreign government on this list or a straw buyer representing that foreign government on the list.

And so I do want to ask the question again, who has the responsibility? Who is legally responsible for investigating and determining who it's being sold to?

Yeah. At at this time, my intent was that eventually the purchaser has to have have the ultimate responsibility.

But the purchaser would have no interest in following our laws. They're already on the list.

Yeah. Initially, they may cheat without revealing their identity correctly even they may lie, but eventually, it can be revealed.

But the question then is how would it be revealed and whose responsibility is it to make sure that it is revealed and discovered?

I think, as I stated, the three stages, along the way, initial information, by the broker, and, secondly, the, title company, and thirdly, attorney general.

But the title company would be more interested in the seller and the seller's identification as opposed to the buyer's identification.

Yeah. Buyers eventually, buyer will become the property owner and which form which name it is listed under that suspicion can raise and that attorney general can start investigation into it.

I think the concept that you that you raise here, I think is good. They're making sure that that our agricultural property is not falling into the hands of our enemies. Right? I think that that that idea is good. I think that the enforcement aspect of this Is this double referred?

It is double referred? Agriculture. Okay. So I I I would hope that if should it come out of committee today, I would hope that before it gets to agriculture that there is a clear designation of who has the responsibility. Someone needs to be told you are responsible to determine, whether this particular buyer is on this list.

Yeah. And if

it's the broker, then it has to be noted that the broker is responsible so that the broker knows that they have this responsibility. They then have to do their due diligence. If it falls on the seller, the seller needs to know whoever it is it falls on. I and I heard, I think, testimony or perhaps from you that the the the, the auditor or or the the the the, whoever it is that's in charge of the assessor. Thank you.

The assessor eventually, hopefully, will discover it. But we can't hold the assessor responsible for an action that happened that they had no responsible responsibility for. So somebody has to be held responsible. Somebody has to have that duty to to do due diligence, to discover whether or not the buyer is on that list. And I I would hope that before it gets to agriculture, should it come out of committee, that that is something that that is worked on before it gets to the floor.

I I the concept is understandable. As our colleague has said, there are concerns about discriminatory application about who's put on the list and depending on who is in the administration and who their their their enemies, their personal enemies are that make their way onto the list. The concept I understand but I I and I I will vote for it today.

But coming to the floor, I do want to be sure that there are protections so that we don't have that discriminatory application to the to to this process and that we do have the I we we have identified who it is that's responsible for determining who it's being sold to and that it's not being sold to someone who is on the list.

Your points are very well taken and I did not get into that detailed level. But before that next committee meeting, it reviews this bill. I will work on that, and my intent is not penalizing internal process like a broker or assessor or a title company. It it should be more of natural reveal.

But you're asking the enemy to reveal, and I don't I I I think

that's the place. Process, it should become so evident that the entity is suspicious, then our AG can take an investigation. So I

will put my thinking cap and to consult with people and to come up with the the the process we need to identify where the burden will be Yes. Placed for identifying who the purchaser is.

Because this is judiciary and we're looking at the legal process and that part is missing. Thank you.

Okay. Alrighty. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, is there a motion?

I see.

Oh, that's right. We established a quorum.

We did.

Yes. Thank you for reminding me. I move the bill.

Alright. Senator Niello moves the bill. Would you like to close?

I hear your points well taken. And since another committee will have to go through if this passes out of this committee, I will work on that specific areas of concern. Right now, you identify two different areas, nondiscrimination and responsibility of identifying who the purchaser is.

I'll work on that, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote that this is a very serious matter for the not certain group, not to discriminate anybody for the sake of our country, for the security of our country Since we are living in a, unfortunately, fighting over hegemony who's gonna take over and control the world, and enemies come many different forms. So agricultural land is the phenomenal number of 40 something million acres have been already purchased. This is a very serious matter for national security and then even agricultural, you know, production. So I ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number four, SB 1176. The motion is do passed to the Senate Agriculture Committee. Umberg? No. Umberg, no. Nilo?

Aye.

Nilo, Aye. Ashby, Caballero. Caballero, no. Durazo? No.

Durazo, no. McNerney. Reyes, Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern.

That's right. Valadares, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner. No. Weiner, no. 2 to 4.

2 to 4? We'll put that on call. Alright. I see Senator Gonzales here. Senator Gonzales, you have a quorum in the floor.

Alright.

We're already doing well so far. Okay. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. I wanna begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their excellent work. Thank you as always.

I'm here to present SB 1146, which will protect Californians from deceptive AI generated health advertisements. The rapid advancement of AI and generative AI technology has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and fake content. One investigation found that in a single month, there were, nearly 100 videos that appeared across social media sites in which fictitious doctors gave health advice or attempted to sell health related products.

This deception carries serious, consequences, including consumers foregoing proven treatments, ingesting unsafe supplements, or spending money on products with no proven medical benefit, all based on the advice of a health care provider who does not exist. SB 1146 will address this issue by requiring advertisements for health products or services that use AI generated or altered images, audio, or video of a health care provider to clearly disclose that the content is AI generated and that the depicted person is not actually a health care provider.

SB 1130, 46, excuse me, is, going to help with the integrity of our health care system. Testifying in support today, I have George Soares from the California Medical Association and Lawrence, Gaiden from the California Dental Association. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Floorships.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. George Soares of the California Medical Association. We're the proud sponsor of SB 1146 by Senator Gonzales, and I would like to thank the Senator for authoring this important measure and the work the committee and the staff have done on this bill thus far. SB 1146 seeks to crack down on the growing use of artificial intelligence to create fraudulent advertisements for health related products that uses physicians' images without their consent or knowledge.

Deep fake doctors on digital platforms are garnering millions of views while endorsing non FDA approved weight loss supplements and questionable medical treatments and devices.

These scams frequently target elderly and those with chronic conditions, leading patients to waste money on ineffective products or delay seeking necessary medical care. Bad actors are exploiting the credibility of the medical profession and weaponizing the trust between doctors and patients. The bill establishes simple, common sense transparency requirements for the advertisements of health related consumer products and services. If the ad uses AI, the generator significantly alter a physician's likeness, including their physical appearance and their voice.

They must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing consumers, and that the content was created using AI.

This bill empowers the attorney general to take enforcement action against fraudulent actors and gives individual physicians a narrowly tailored mechanism to legally defend themselves against scammers who have used their image without consent. Lastly, this bill does not prohibit the use of AI in legitimate health care settings. It builds on previous CMA sponsored legislation, which prevents AI from misrepresenting itself as a licensed health care professional. These bills focus specifically on transparency and consumer protection. The physician and patient relationship is built on trust.

When scammers use AI to steal a doctor's identity, they're not just committing fraud, they're putting lives at risk. SB 1146 is a common sense measure to restore integrity to the health information online and hold scammers accountable. For these reasons, we ask that you support this measure today. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Lawrence Gaiden. I'm here on behalf of the California Dental Association representing 27,000 dental professionals across state, urging your support on SB 1146. CDA fully supports the intent to maintain patient protection as the use of AI in dentistry and healthcare at large continues to grow. AI systems, when used properly, help create more administrative efficiencies and streamline processes that providers review and approve.

However, with the rise of hyper realistic AI deep fakes that depict dentists endorsing products and services, the goodwill and faith of our providers are being exploited to sell services and products that often rely on false or deceptive health claims. It is important that there are guardrails for the these emerging technologies that can guarantee protection for consumers from misleading sales pitches and maintain integrity and credibility within our health care systems.

SB 1146 assures that what consumers see and hear from our dental professionals remains just that, and allows consumers to gauge the credibility of health advice when AI is used to impersonate a dental professional. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of eleven forty six, please approach microphone.

Mister Chair and Senators, MJ Dias on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support.

Thank you. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1146, please approach microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions and comments. Questions and comments by committee members seeing. Yes.

Senator Durazo has moved the bill. Senator Caballero, did you have a question? Alright. Seeing no other questions or comments.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, mister chair.

Thank you. Senator Gonzales. Okay. It's, it's been moved by Senator Durazo. Ms. Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number five, SB 1146. The motion is do pass as amended to Senate appropriations. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Niello. Aye. Niello, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby.

Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Aye.

Durazo, aye. McNerney. McNerney, aye, Reyes. Reyes, aye. Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener. Seven to zero.

I see Senator Grayson. Senator Grayson. Senator Grayson, floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair and esteemed members of the committee. Good afternoon. I would like to first thank the committee for their great work and collaboration with my office, and I will be accepting the committee's suggested amendments. I am pleased to present to you SB 988. It's a bill that would provide a series of reforms to the auto glass industry governing insurance assignments, repair disclosures, billing practices, and claims solicitation.

Across The United States, windshield glass related losses and comprehensive auto insurance are frequent with an average of 12 to 14,000,000 claims being filed per year. From twenty fifteen to twenty nineteen, California alone accounted for roughly 2,160,000 auto glass claims. Motor vehicle glass has become so increasingly sophisticated incorporating advanced technologies such as heads up displays, embedded antennas, rain sensors, and advanced driver assistance systems we know as ADAS components such as cameras and lane departure sensors.

These technological features make glass replacement more complex requiring special installation and precise calibration to ensure proper functionality. Along with the rise of claims and the greater cost of repairs, the number of motor vehicle glass repair replacement services has grown rapidly in recent years.

Many shops actively seek new customers through induce, through inducements such as gift cards, cash, or even discounts. These businesses often rely on a business structure that allows for assignment of benefits, AOB arrangements, allowing the repair shops, to bill insurers directly while the consumer has very little visibility into the cost or the services performed. While convenient, this model can lead to poor outcomes for consumers, including inflated claims or overbilling, failure to properly calibrate advanced driver assistance systems, and reduce safety.

Moreover, this practice also lessens consumer choice and transparency with some insured being led to specific repair shops or being misled about the need for calibration resulting in vulnerable consumers. Furthermore, increasing overbuild claims can be denied and or litigated by insurers contributing to rising premiums.

The combination of aggressive marketing, AOB use, and limited oversight increases financial and safety risk, underscoring the need for stronger consumer protections. The California Motor Vehicle Glass Act responds to this need for consumer protection by restricting a person from assigning policy benefits to repair shops preventing AOB abuse. The bill also requires shops to provide upfront estimates and itemized invoices reflecting reasonable charges. Ultimately, SB 988 will help to reduce fraudulent claims, ensure safety, protect consumer choice, and stabilize the insurance cost.

I acknowledge that there is opposition, and it is not my intent to weaken or harm independent shop flexibility, but simply to create best practices and follow model legislation that has been adopted across many, many states. With that, through the chair, I would like to introduce my witness, Tom Tucker, vice president of legislative affairs for Safelite.

Thank you very much. Please approach microphone.

Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Tom Tucker, vice president of legislative affairs for Safelite. As our distinguished sponsor said, this is model legislation. It is nothing more than best practices to help stabilize the insurance market, reduce insurance fraud, reduce auto glass litigation, and if we keep our eyes and and as we think about this bill on the consumer, there's nothing in this bill that favors one party or another. It really is about the consumer.

I've I've read some of the testimony and comments from some of the opponents and some of the things that they're asking for or they're asking the committee to repeal or amend doesn't make a lot of sense. One of the issues is they don't want a a claim number before you begin work. It takes two minutes two minutes to get a claim number from an insurer. That's it. A claim number ensures that the consumer, the glass shop, and the insurer all aligned on payment, cost, and all services aligned.

Without a claim number, the insure the insured, the customer, can be left with outstanding cost at the end. That's why this is a important piece of, of of the legislation. Assignment of benefits. Prohibiting the assignment of benefits is something that many states across the country are trying to do because assignment of benefits allows the third party, the the glass shop to negotiate with the insurer on behalf of the consumer. And if there's dispute, the glass shop can then sue the insurer on behalf of the consumer, and the consumer is not even aware.

And it leads to higher premiums. These are really simple best practices. That's all there is. And we'd be more than happy to answer any questions. This bill has been passed in six states.

It was signed by the governor of Virginia last night and just one hour ago passed the Illinois House one fourteen to zero. Its best practice has been passed in Florida, New York, Iowa. Alrighty. Thank you, sir.

I assume you urge an aye vote. Yeah. Alright. Thank you.

Not a problem. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Next witness, please. If there are no other witnesses in support of SB 988, if there are, please approach. Saying no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 988, please approach it.

Me too. Oh, no one okay. Opposed or me too?

It's just me too.

Okay. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, churn members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies. We're pleased to support the bill.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else wish to testify in support? Seeing no one else coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to s p nine eight eight, now's your opportunity.

Now's your time. No one approaching. Alright. Bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members.

Yeah. Okay. Senator Reyes first, then we'll go to Senator Niemos.

Thank you so much, Senator, for for bringing this forward. I think safety is something that everybody is going to that part everyone is going to agree on. I have heard from many of the independent glass owners, and their opposition goes beyond just a claim number. I think eventually every every repair is going to have a claim number. And I think that their opposition has more to do with the bias that this creates.

They argue that it gives more control as noted in in the in the analysis that gives more control to insurance companies and their preferred networks. And I I will tell you honestly that that the only commercial I ever hear about is safe light. And so if Safelite becomes the preferred network for a protect for insurance companies, then the independent glass companies are not going to get their share of work assigned to them by the insurance companies who are going to have total control.

It they also argue as noted that it benefits the larger players and it hurts independent repair shops. Now specifically on the assignment of benefits, they do argue as noted that consumers must navigate claims themselves and repairs may be slower or more confusing.

I I appreciate that if there is a problem that the the the glass company can then, sue on behalf of the of the consumer because of the assignment of benefits. But independent glass owners, we're talking about the smaller ones, quite frankly. They feel that they are not going to receive and have not received in the past the same referrals from insurance companies because they are not the preferred in the preferred network.

How do you respond or is this something that you can work on specifically with the independent glass association to make sure that that they there is a way to to to be sure that they are included, that they there isn't a bias against them.

Absolutely. And thank you, Senator, for that, observation and question. Being a small business owner myself, very, very protective of small businesses here in California that make up the backbone of California's economy. So to address that, the bill aims to at upholding best practices for all auto glass, in the businesses. It's not focused on regulating independent shops, but rather aimed at protecting.

So the the lens that we're looking at this bill is through the lens of consumer protection, not trying to determine what glass company is more appropriate over another. The committee amendments, as a matter of fact, they they took they went further to define this aim towards upholding best practices. So by indicating that all persons should benefit from this bill, not not just the insured itself.

So we have further addressed some of the concerns surrounding the bill by specifying that this bill is referring to person or business primarily engaged in automotive glass replacement. And further, we have also addressed the concerns on what reasonable price is to specify that a reasonable price for repair replacement or installation of automotive glass charged by a motor vehicle glass repair shop within a specific geographical area.

So what we're trying to do is spread it out to make sure that everybody has access. Everybody is a part of the network. Everybody, is in consideration. Whatever the insurance companies have as far as their protocol, That's not what this bill actually does. Now I do wanna also when it comes to the assignment of of benefit, which is also another very important the pro the prohibition of the assignment of, of benefits is actually considered a consumer protection.

And I also sit on, the, NCOIL. So, that's the National Conference of Insurance, legislators. And this was a model legislation that came out from that, and that very discussion was very thorough. However, the assignment of benefits is that contract in which the policyholder transfers their rights as you already know under the insurance policy of a third party. Through the chair, I would ask that my, sponsor go a little more legal or in-depth on that.

But it's just simply saying this, the consumer should not be cut out at any given point in time. Now whether or not the, glass company needs to take legal action against an insurer, I think the consumers should always be at least aware of what's happening and not completely cut out because an assignment was made.

Did did you mean to say your sponsor?

I did.

Oh, they are the sponsor?

I'm sorry. My witness.

Okay. I'm sorry.

Because that would have been another one of my questions. Yes. To because I wanted to be sure.

So to clarify, my witness.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Mister witness. Sure. Alright.

Senator, it's it's a great question. To your to your question specifically about hurting small businesses, this strengthens the anti steering laws. That's what this bill does. And so every insurer requires consumer choice. And so, the first question that's asked of every consumer, no matter if you're a large shop or small shop, do you have a preference for a glass shop?

And if you have a preference, you are sent to that shop of preference. So this does not hurt small businesses. This does not discriminate at all. It allows best practices, period.

Now it it and forgive me for pushing back if I may through the through the chair. One of the complaints from our our small, independent glass association members is that oftentimes when there is a need for the glass repair that consumers receive phone calls from the bigger, not the independent glass companies, but the bigger ones, without naming names. And they then are are in the ear of the consumer. So when they are asked, do you have a preference?

The only one who has called them is the big the big glass company, and then that's the name that they give.

I can I can assure you that every every carrier has specific scripting that they give for for glass providers or TPAs where we we manage the glass programs that you have to follow? The first line of every script from very large insurers to the to the small ones, Do you have a preference of a glass shop? We honor preference period. It's it's it's against the law.

It's a best practice and if there's any specific allegation, and I'll just use Safelite because I can only speak for my company.

If there's a specific allegation of steering or large companies in the ear, we keep records for seven years of every transaction digitally, on the phone, email. And we pull those records all the time. And oftentimes, what we hear, we come to these type hearings and you've heard these complaints, but when you pull the record, it's a different story.

I understand what you're saying, but what record would there be about a phone call that might might have been made?

Any any phone call from Safelite, I can only speak for Safelite, is recorded. Any interaction with the consumer is recorded. It's we have a data retention policy of seven years. We keep every interaction with the consumer. And so we don't call, consumers.

The calls come to us.

Now and, logistically speaking, the insurance company receives a request for the the the the the windshield to be repaired. Would they say, here are five local windshield repair companies, a glass repair companies or after if they if if I were to be asked, do I do I have a preference? I have no idea unless I do research. And so if I'm asked, I'm going to say I don't know. So are they given then maybe five local glass companies that might be able to do the repair?

What's the next step if they say I have no preference?

Go ahead.

Sure. Each carrier has a different process. Every carrier has a different process. I will tell you I'll just use one of the larger ones, State Farm. They have a rotation.

Good for them. To your point, whatever's in the geographic area, they pull all of those glass shops in the area. And and then if if if you wouldn't mind, I'll just use you all as glass shops. The distinguished gentleman We

are highest and best used today.

You get the first one, then you would get the second one, you get the next and it it rotates so that everyone is in the pool getting the work whether you're a network shop or a non network shop. That's how it works.

Alright. And for the other insurance companies?

Everyone has a different process.

Alright. So it it it it the the the purpose of the bill is good and I I understand it. I think because I had so many phone calls from our independent glass companies, I I was seriously because I am seriously concerned.

I I I do want and and you as a small business owner recognize how important it is to make sure that when we put in especially if this is a law we are passing that is going to be implemented, that we're we make sure that that the the the smaller independent companies also receive their fair share of this business. If they don't have the capacity, then they don't have the capacity.

But if they do and they are in this rotation, then I personally want to make sure that they are going to be included. If we're doing this for the benefit of the consumer, the consumer should have available to them their options. Because I I I don't know if any of my other colleagues say, if they were to be asked, if they would say, my preference for to replace my windshield is this company.

Because unless we've done some research or we call somebody, we're not gonna know what to answer.

And then the next step should be here are five or whatever it is. I I that that is my concern is these independent glass company companies. I want to make sure that they are protected.

Right.

Thank you, Senator.

Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing

Thank you.

Senator Neal.

Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Niello.

A comment. Okay. In my other life, I'm an automobile dealer and we perform this kind of work, a lot of it. So I feel it's a bit of a conflict that I will be abstaining.

I understand.

Alright. Thank you. Is there a motion? Oh, did you accept amendments?

Okay.

Yes, I did.

Very beginning.

Okay. Senator Caballero, you have a comment or No. Moving the bill. Alright. Senator Caballero has moved the bill.

I would like to close.

Yes. Mister chair, thank you very much, and I appreciate the concerns of my colleague, committee member, and, am fully committed that if this bill would pass out a committee here today, I will continue to have an open door, open ear, especially to the small independent operators, and make sure that we can get to a landing spot to where everybody benefits from this, but primarily the focus is on the benefit of the consumer. Thank you.

Alright. I

respectfully ask for no vote.

Thank you very much. Committee assist reporter, please call the roll.

This is file item number seven s B988. The motion is to pass as amended to Senate appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, Aye.

Nilo? Not

Allen? Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye.

really.

Turasso? Aye. Turasso, Aye. McNerney? Aye.

McNerney, Aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, Aye. Stern.

Valadares. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye.

Weiner. Weiner, Aye. 7 to zero.

70. We're gonna put that on call. And I also understand, Senator Grayson, unfortunately, our colleague, Senator Laird, could not be here, but you're gonna present his bill. Is that right?

Yes.

Alright. So that would be file number 16 SB 1288. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister chair. I am presenting Senate bill 1288 on behalf of Senator Laird. SB 1288 ensures that non probate assets make it into the hands of the individuals and nonprofits as intended by establishing a clear framework for notification and verification of beneficiaries and eliminate barriers to access funds. Non probate transfers are intended to avoid lengthy court processes, reduce costs, and ensure timely distribution. But in practice, beneficiaries, particularly nonprofit organizations, often face significant obstacles in accessing funds.

Financial institutions are the only entities that know who beneficiaries are and how to contact them. However, there is no requirement for any party to notify beneficiaries when an account holder passes away. Often leaving beneficiaries in the dark about their status. When beneficiaries come forward to claim funds, they face barriers to access.

Nonprofits can be required to open new accounts, provide personal information about Board Members, or the descendant that they are like that they likely do not have and simultaneously submit claims with other co beneficiaries that they may not even know or even exist.

This can delay the delay access for years. For these reasons, SB 1288 modernizes Californians, California's non probate laws by requiring financial institutions to make a good faith effort to notify beneficiaries within 60 days of receiving proof of death, establishing clear and manageable verification requirements for beneficiaries, allowing independent beneficiary claims, prohibiting mandatory opening of accounts, and providing liability protection for institutions acting in good faith.

The author is committed to continuing conversations with opposition to address concerns while being mindful to ensure that the heart of the bill is maintained. Administrative convenience should not override the rights of beneficiaries to be notified it notified of and access gifts left to them. With me to speak through the chair is Melanie Sadek, president and CEO of Valley Humane Society, and Julianna Tetlow, representing Cal Nonprofits.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Hello. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Melanie Sadik. I am the, President and CEO of Valley Humane Society in Pleasanton, California. In 2021, our organization was named as a beneficiary of a donor's Ira, along with eight other non profits, including KQED, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Best Friends Animal Society.

We were lucky that the donor sister found paperwork identifying the account and notified us. We reached out to the bank to begin the process, which required beneficiary paperwork and opening an account. Opening an account created barriers. It triggered the federal know your customer requirements, which included personal information, including social security numbers and home addresses for our Board Members and me, a request that's not easily met when volunteer Board Members have privacy concerns. We provided everything requested, but our our application was rejected again and again.

This went on for two years with no clear explanation why until we finally learned that all nine nonprofits were required to submit paperwork within the same 90 day window, starting when the first nonprofit submitted. But none of us knew each other or how to get in touch. Thankfully, the donor sister stayed committed to honoring her sister's wishes. With her help, I connected the nonprofits, coordinated a joint submission, and after two years and four months, we were finally funded.

This delay meant a delay in impact for the communities we serve.

Years of stress for a family member trying to ensure her sister's wishes were honored, and significant nonprofit resources spent just to ask or access our funding. Our experience is not unique. Nonprofits across California are facing similar challenges. These accounts sit outside of trusts and probate, so beneficiaries rely on financial institutions to carry out donor intent. Today, that process can be inconsistent and difficult to navigate.

SB 1288 creates a clearer, more reliable framework that is reasonable, fair, and honors donor intent.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The urgent aye vote.

Yes. Aye vote.

Alright.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Julianna Tetlow here on behalf of Cal NonProfits, a 10,000 member organization statewide policy alliance. As the proud cosponsor of SB 1288, this bill addresses a quiet but significant gap in our system of transferring assets after someone passes away. Today, many Californians are advised by financial advisers and tax professionals to keep certain assets like brokerage accounts and securities outside of a trust. These are called non probate assets, and they transfer directly to named beneficiaries without court involvement.

That structure can be efficient, but unlike assets held in trust, there is no trustee or fiduciary responsible for ensuring beneficiaries are notified or connected to the asset. As a result, beneficiaries may have no idea they've been left a gift because there is a responsibility gap where nobody is in charge of moving assets. This means intended gifts go delayed or unclaimed. SB 1288 simply creates that missing connection and removes unnecessary barriers to receiving assets.

Under the bill, when a financial institution receives proof of death, it must make a reasonable good faith effort to notify beneficiaries within a defined time frame, a standard that is well established in law.

Beyond notification, SB 1288 also removes several practical barriers that routinely prevent beneficiaries, especially non beneficiaries, and by limiting documentation to what is reasonably needed to verify an entitlement. It also standardizes what nonprofits need to provide, such as an employer identification number and basic contact information. Taken together, these changes mean that once a beneficiary is identified, the process of actually receiving the asset is efficient, predictable, and aligned with original intent.

At its core, SB 1288 is about honoring donor intent, reducing inefficiencies, and bringing transparency and consistency to a system that currently lacks both. I'm happy to answer any technical questions, and we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Perfect timing. Others in support of SB 1288, please give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Thank you, Mister chair. Jennifer Fearing here in support of SB 1288 on behalf of a number of nonprofits who asked me to convey their support. Tuliomi, Creative Alternatives, Meals on Wheels Orange County, SPCALA, Union Station Homeless Services, Starting Over Strong, Starting Over, Pathpoint, Joybound People & Pets, and California Academy of Sciences. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, also known as Cal Animals. Thank you.

Anyone else in support of SB 1288?

Mister chair and members, Michael Gunning, Lighthouse Public Affairs here in support on behalf of Habitat California.

Thank you.

Karla Garibay Garcia on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, if you're opposed to SB 1288, please come to the floor.

Mister chair, I believe I'm the only member in opposition. May I take a couple of questions? Thank you. Sure. Good afternoon, mister Chair and members. Joanne Bettencourt representing CIFMA.

Excuse me. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. CIFMA is a national trade association of broker dealers, investment banks, and asset managers, many of whom call California home. CIFMA members play an important role in helping clients plan, achieve lifetime goals, including legacy plan planning. They take their registered entity responsibilities very seriously.

This includes ensuring that the right individual or entities gets the money, safeguards against fraud, complying with all federal, state, and SRO law laws, excuse me, rules and obligations. The transfer process can be cumbersome. We understand that the frustration when the process takes a little bit longer and is more complicated than anyone would like. We do have significant concerns with the legislation and oppose it in its current form. The author and the author's staff and sponsors have reached out to us, and we're very appreciative of that.

The bill sponsor has expressed willingness to discuss several of our concerns. Number one, exemption language for conflicts with federal, state, and SRO obligations. Number two, additional instances beyond court orders, lit liens, levies, and may delay transfer. Three, language clarifying beneficial the beneficiary's obligation to return the funds in certain circumstances, and clarity on what constitutes a credible source. We have submitted draft amendment language to the sponsor and the author, and look forward to working productively on these issues.

I did wanna highlight a couple of issues, though. The industry is subject to a wide range of due diligence, tracking, and recording record keeping requirements designed to protect against securities fraud, market manipulate manipulation, and money laundering. There are x x there are also tax compliance and reporting issues that need to be addressed. Exemption lane language similar to Indiana law where there is a conflict

Thank you.

If you could wrap it up. I Urge, a no vote unless it's amended. Thank you.

No, unless amended. Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. Go ahead.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. We align our comments with our friends at SIFMA. This these sponsors have identified a challenging issue. I think there is an opportunity to work through it. I did wanna highlight two things.

The bill applies not only to nonprofit beneficiaries, but to every beneficiary. And second of all, when the information was collected from beneficiaries, financial institutions did not know they have the obligation to go find that beneficiary. So the bill applies retroactively. So once the bill goes into effect, if somebody wrote down Chris's gorilla sanctuary twenty years ago on a beneficiary designation form, the burden is now on the financial institution to try to go find that, non profit beneficiary.

They didn't know they were gonna need find them when they collected that information.

Prior to this, it had been the obligation of the decedent right to do their own estate planning to notify their beneficiaries of their assets. It flips the burden out to the financial institution. Just want the committee to be aware of that. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others opposed, SB 1288, please approach. Seeing no one approaching. And, Senator Grayson, if you'd like to respond, that's great.

But otherwise, you know, Senator Grayson is filling in for Senator Laird. My guess is that Senator Laird's staff is probably watching, and so they've heard your your comments and concerns. Bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Yes, Senator Reyes.

Just a comment. I I think, do thank the Senator for bringing this forward. My my aunt was a member of a religious order. They were named in a in a as a beneficiary, and it wasn't until so many years later that they finally found out and about it, and, this bill would have alleviated that long long delay. So I thank him for presenting this.

Thank you, Senetor Niello.

In addition to that, there's the risk of what could be law called lost legacies via the unclaimed property function of the state of California. And if in particular it is a security or interest bearing type of asset. It is immediately liquidated and so the beneficiaries don't would not have the ability to participate in how that might be handled. And that's an issue here because the escheat period that is the period of time in between supposed contacts by the account holder is only three years.

When unclaimed property was started, it was, I think, initially at least seven years, maybe nine, it has been gradually reduced so that the state gets more money to use in its general fund.

It's an insidious process. I have a bill that's gonna cure that though, and that will that will increase the escheat period from the minimum of three years, which is unreasonably short along with a couple of other issues. And, so I just want to alert everybody to that opportunity to cure that particular problem here.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Niello. I I can't wait. Alright. Other questions or comments?

Seeing none, is there a motion? Senator Caballero moves the bill. Alright. Senator Grayson, would you like to close on behalf of Senator Laird?

On behalf of Senator Laird, respectfully ask for an aye vote

Thank you. Alright. Committee's supporter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 16, SB 1288. The motion is to pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, Aye.

Niello?

Aye.

Milo, Aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, Aye. Ashby.

Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye. Turosso? Aye.

Aye. Macnerny. Reyes. Reyes, Aye. Stern.

Valadares. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye.

Weiner. Aye. Weiner, Aye. 8-0.

8-0. Put that on call. Thank you, Senator Grayson. I see Senator Padilla here, and I see Senator Smallwood Cuevas here. Senator Padilla, you're up.

Senator Padilla, SB 941, file number nine.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. Thanks. I'm pleased to present. SB 941 would prohibit the sale of commissary items in private detention facilities at prices that exceed 35% markup above vendor costs. As you may know, in California, every ICE detainee is held in a private detention facility operated by a private corporation on private property and under contract with the Federal Government.

There are seven such facilities in our state, two of which are located in my district. In these facilities, detention authority, of course, rests with the Federal Government, but day to day conditions of confinement, commercial practices are controlled by the contracted enter entities and operate within our state. Private commissaries typically operate these, within these centers and sell essential items such as food, drinking water, hygiene products, and clothing. They're often as well operated by third party vendors and set prices without any meaningful oversight.

There were interviews with individuals who are currently or previously detained in these facilities.

The 2023 UCLA report found that costs in these facilities were significantly higher than in our own state prisons. One individual reported spending approximately a $100 per week at a private detention facility commissary compared to about the same amount per month in a while incarcerated in a state prison. Markups in this regard can typically range from 75 to over 300%.

Within private detention facilities, detained individuals have limited access at times to clean water and are often given inadequate meals forcing many to rely on these commissaries to obtain basic needs. When the pricing markup are exploitive, the costs, of these necessities and are often the burden is shifted to the incarcerated individuals' families.

This Bill mirrors the framework of SB 474, which ensured the same protections in state facilities. It does not alter any federal immigration enforcement priorities, detention decisions, or custodial authority. Here with me today is Regina Garza, special assistant attorney general.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Members. My name is Regina Garza. I'm the special assistant attorney general for the California Department of Justice. On behalf of the attorney general, Rob Bonta, who is a proud co cosponsor of this bill, I would like to thank Senator Padilla, for bringing forward this important bill, to end excessive pricing practices at the commissaries and private detention centers, that adversely affect both the detainees and their families.

The seven civil immigration detention facilities in the state are privately operated and have a bed capacity of over 8,100. These are civil detention detainees held only for civil immigration related reasons. To address the growing concerns for health and safety of the people in the civil detention facilities, the legislature enacted AB 103 in 2017 to require the California Department of Justice to review and report on conditions of confinement at these immigration detention facilities.

During these reviews, we have found individuals needing to purchase the most basic hygiene items from the commissary, including instant ramen, water, salt, soap, shampoo, and over the counter medications, just to compensate for the items that are not provided by the facilities themselves. In November, our inspection at the California City Detention Center found detainees held in extremely cold conditions without weather appropriate clothing or sufficient blankets.

Detainees reported that they were issued only t-shirts and had to purchase sweaters. One group reported making makeshift sleeves and scarves out of socks. Many detainees have interview that we've interviewed over the years have reported issues with the quality and the quantity of food provided at these fill facilities, and that they must resort to buying food from the commissary to supplement their diets. Detainees who are vegetarian or have other dietary restrictions have reported particularly difficult difficulty meeting-

Thank you very much. You urgent an aye vote.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright.

Thank you.

Others in support of SB 941, please approach.

Jackie Gonzales, co executive director of Immigrant Defense Advocates, proud co sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Cal Westlow with the California Community Foundation in support.

Thank you. Oh, this is support.

Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn it over to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 941, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward. Alright. Bringing back to committee.

Questions by committee members? There are no. Senator Reyes moves the bill. Senator Niello has a question.

Question of enforcement. These are entities that contract with the Federal Government.

Do we have jurisdiction to enforce? Mister Chairman, Senator, thank you for the question. Of course, we are yes. The answer is yes. We do not have jurisdiction, obviously, over enforcement related or immigration enforcement related operations at the facility or obviously to interfere with the contractual relationship between the vendor and the Federal Government.

As you know, that would present other legal issues. But in terms of the commercial transactions that are occurring within the state, the answer is yes.

Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? It's been moved by Senator Reyes, community assistant supporter. Please call the roll.

Oh, I'm sorry. We'd like to close.

Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you.

This is file item number nine, SB 941. The motion is do pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Niello. Aye.

Niello, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby.

Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Aye.

Durazo, aye. McNerney. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye.

Stern. Valladares. Wahab. Weber Pierson. Aye.

Weber Pierson, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 8 to 0.

8-0. We'll put that on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

Floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. I am proud to present SB 909. This bill strengthens enforcement of California's public works laws by updating contractor registration fees and penalties, indexing them to inflation, and reinvesting penalty revenue into the State spends public dollars on construction, workers should be paid the wages they earn. Responsible contractors should be able to compete fairly, and taxpayers should know their money is supporting lawful, high quality work.

And behind these numbers are real people. In one California case, we had a construction worker, Javier Gonzalez, who described wage theft as a robbery in broad daylight. Another worker shared that missing payment, he could not buy enough food for his four children or keep up with the rent on his family's mobile home in Anaheim. This is why this bill matters. When workers are underpaid on public projects, the harm is immediate.

Missing wages will mean missed rent, groceries, childcare, and gas money to get to the next job. Wage theft and labor violations remain a serious problem on public works projects, and penalties have not been meaningful updated in over a decade. As a result, enforcement has fallen behind in real ways. Penalties have lost deterrent value over time. Staffing shortages have delayed investigations and recovery, and too many bad actors have been able to treat violations as just the cost of doing business, skirting the law.

Laws that we have worked very hard to pass in this house. Between 2017 and 2023, workers received the full amount owed in only 12% of wage cases. A 02/24 state auditor report also highlighted severe staffing shortages and major backlogs at the Labor Commissioner's Office. SB 909 addresses that problem by updating outdated contractor registration fees and penalties, tying them to inflation, and generating dedicated revenue to support enforcement. And we know in our time of structural deficits, having the resources to truly enforce is critical.

The revenue that is deposited into the State Public Works Enforcement Fund to help support staffing and investigations ensures the enforcement system is already is working and that we are enforcing laws and that the system functions as intended. Importantly, this does not create a general fund cost. It is a practical way to strengthen enforcement using revenue generated within the existing public works system. And with me to testify today is Matt Crimmins with the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Keith Dunn with the state building trades.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of SB 909, which would modernize public works contractor registration fees, update prevailing wage penalties, and take a critical step to ensure that our state's public works enforcement capabilities are as robust as the current laws that we have in statute.

I'm actually gonna abbreviate my testimony here as I know we have Mike West from the state building trades in attendance today, who's gonna share some real life experiences with wage theft. But simply put, senators, this bill is about prioritizing enforcement and, again, ensuring that our state policy is set in a way where it prioritizes the enforcement of our state labor laws.

As I'm sure this committee knows well, wage theft and wage theft and misclassification in the construction industry remains rampant. A recent UC Berkeley study found that one in five construction workers will experience wage theft throughout their career their careers, And the growing frequency of wage theft can also can be seen at the Labor Commissioner's Office, which a recent state audit found had 47,000 backlog wage theft cases that were taking an average of eight hundred and fifty four days to issue decisions on.

So with that being said, SB 909 seeks to take a small but important step to ensure that we are better prioritizing enforcement of our public works laws, and it's gonna do so in three ways. First and foremost, it's gonna update contractor registration fees for the first time in almost a decade. And it's important to note this is the sole dedicated source of public works enforcement funding.

It's also going to update prevailing wage penalties for the first time since 2012, and that's supposed to be a a set of penalties that are supposed to deter contractors from cheating. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this bill is going to ensure more steady streams of funding for public works enforcement by mandating that when the labor commissioner is able to collect a penalty, a minimum of 50% of those penalties must go back into the public works enforcement fund to further protect workers. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, mister chair and senators. My name is Mike West, and I represent the State Building And Construction Trades Council Of California. Wage theft takes on many forms, some more familiar than others like misclassification and failure to pay prevailing wages. However, there are many tactics and schemes used by bad actors to steal wages of construction workers, and here are a couple of examples.

A bad employer may bring workers in one at a time and ask if they'd rather get laid off or receive a $1 an hour raise in pay.

If they choose the raise, they're asked to sign off that re they received prevailing wages on public works projects, which they did not. Then the prod process repeats itself until they have enough signatures on certified payroll, and there's nothing that keeps them from being laid off soon afterwards. This next scenario is a completely made up name, but let's say a company is called Acme Painting.

Sometimes workers would receive Acme Bucks instead of real money, to buy high visibility vests and other personal protective equipment normally provided by an employer at no charge to keep them safe on the job. Another tactic would be to lay off even for one day a worker just short of three months of employment and then rehire them as a new hire to avoid paying for health care benefits.

Another, sometimes money is collected with the understanding it's going into a 401k when no such plan actually exists for that worker. And the final story comes from a colleague that was approached as social event. It was actually a wedding reception. And a contractor that was found liable for wage and hour violations came up to him and recognized him and said, no hard feelings for each one of these. I have to pay wages and penalties.

I get away with a dozen more, and that becomes part of their business model. So for these reasons and more, we request your aye vote on SB 909 to update registration fees and penalties for wage and hour violations. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Others in support, SB 909.

Mister chairman and member Scott Wetsch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union in proud support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon, chair members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.

I'm Mike Greenlee, internationally independent, Arizona of trades, district council sixteen, urgent nine vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions, PRED cosponsors in support.

Good afternoon. Erica Valentine, UA Local three nine three, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Aureliano Choa with the Insulators Local sixteen, on support.

Thanks, Ash. Eddie Alvarez, LAOC Building Trades, full support.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support? Please approach seeing no one. Let's turn the opposition.

If you're opposed to SB 909, now's your time.

Good afternoon, mister chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. We respectfully oppose SB 909. Let me start by saying that AGC supports strong and fair enforcement of public works laws. Responsible contractors want a level playing field, and we support efforts to ensure workers are paid correctly and projects comply with the law.

Our concern with SB 909 is not the goal, it's the structure. The bill removes the statutory cap on the contractor registration fees and allows the Department of Industrial Relations to set and adjust those fees annually without a transparent public process. That creates uncapped and unpredictable cost exposure for contractors, particularly small and mid sized firms. At the same time, the bill significantly increases penalties across multiple areas. Prevailing wage, payroll records, apprenticeship compliance, and ties those increases to inflation going forward.

So what you have is a system here where costs go up annually, penalties increase automatically, and there's no limited there is limited opportunity for public input or oversight in how those costs are set. The bill also directs 50% of penalty revenue into the enforcement fund. That raises a structural concern because it creates a dynamic where the enforcement system is partially funded by the penalties it generates. So from a judiciary perspective, that's a question of incentives and balance. We're also concerned that increasing fees and penalties does not address the underlying issue identified by the author and the state auditor, namely delays in backlogs and enforcement.

If anything, increasing penalties without improving administrative capacity risks more disputes, more appeals, and longer resolution timelines. And ultimately, these increased costs and risk will be reflected in higher bids, reduced competition, and increased costs for public agencies and taxpayers. So for those reasons, we are opposed to this bill, but again, let me reiterate that we support fair enforcement. And this bill creates a system with greater cost, greater risk, and less transparency. And for those reasons, we can't support it.

Alright. Thank you, mister Fuentes. Alright. Anyone else opposed to SB 909?

Please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, bringing back committee for questions and comments. Seeing this Senator D'Arsos has moved the bill.

And just a comment.

Senator Durazo

Yeah. I I wanna thank the, author, for raising this. There is something like a billion to $2,000,000,000 a year in wage theft. There is so much exploitation out there of workers, especially when it comes to hard earned wages that don't get paid. So, you know, as long as there's a part of industries that take advantage of that and make that part of the business plan, then we have no choice but to keep addressing what kind of penalties.

It doesn't seem to work. Let's try higher penalties. I mean, it's only on that part of the industry that needs to straighten up and and stop stealing from workers. So thank you for it and I'm proud to move your bill.

Senator Caballero, just for avoidance of doubt, if there was anyone else who was either supporting or opposing S P nine zero nine, now is the time. Going once, going twice. Okay. Thank you. Senator Senator Caballero.

Thank you, mister chair. Well, I wanna associate myself with what my colleague here just said. I think part of the challenge is that when when some people cheat, they end up hurting the whole the whole system. And the theft is is real and it's massive. So the question I have for mister Fuentes is that what's what is the mechanism?

I'm going to assume that all of all of your associates do the right thing. So in terms of turning the attention to the the people who see it as the cost of doing business, to not pay overtime, to not pay meal and rest periods, to not pay prevailing wage on public contracted work, for which they are getting compensated as if it was a public works project. What's the what's the the solution?

Because part of what I've been shown are documents that indicate that they're still showing up for public works projects in in other cities. And and then they have these judgments against them by the Department of Industrial Relations that are in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And they're not paying them. They those judgments have been there for years. And and those workers, in the meantime, are are out money that they should have had. So so so what I'm I wrote down what you said, and I understand the the the process that you're talking about. What's the solution to how do you how can we get their attention in a way?

I I mean, my it may be that our solution is you can't bid for a public works project anymore. You're off. Or you lose your license or something like that, which is much more drastic. Right? But I'm I'm wondering if you have a solution.

Well, I'll start by saying that, again, we're absolutely unified in the goal here. We we don't support scofflaws, and we wanna make sure that contractors do what they're supposed to do. And we agree with the sponsors on on that point. But I think creating a complimentary system, where there isn't as much trans transparency over doing what we should be doing, and that's properly funding the agency that's charged with the enforcement, making sure that we're using as government every effort to clear out that backlog.

I think the answer is there.

And that's gonna be more impactful from our perspective than it is to create a new system and deputize a different part of a system. Let's let's fix the system. So it really falls back on you all, I think, to to help with that.

I understand. I thank you for for that. I'm I'm gonna be be supporting your bill today, but I really do think we should we should look at licenses and, you know, restricting the ability of of those contractors to be able to continue to do what they've been doing up to this point. Because to have hundreds of thousands of dollars that you owe your workers and you have no intention of paying, You've got no payment plan. You're not doing anything.

I just at some point, we just have to say I'm sorry, but your right to do business in the state is is is gone. Hate to do that because that's pretty drastic, but I do appreciate what you're doing, which is just increasing the the the fines and the fees.

That's right.

So thank you, mister chair.

Sure. Sounds like a job for the state treasurer. Alright. Alright. Other other questions, Senator Reyes.

Yes.

Thank you. I one of the comments that was made is that the biggest problem is the backlog. Is it the backlog, or is it the fact that there are already judgments that are not being paid, and when you have workers that have not been paid? What's what's the what's the what what is the

I'd say it's it's all of the above. It's the backlog and the constant enforcement that has that's necessary to keep going after these employers who just will not pay their judgments and ensure that the workers are made whole. And I completely agree, with your your question because what ends up happening is that, you know, we have put additional monies into the labor commissioner's office. We did emergency hiring.

We've done all of the steps, but the truth of the matter is we have a significant portion of our employer community that will not follow the law, And it's across a number of sectors.

So when you say what's the problem, it is the problem of, you know, having to chase after every single employer who has been held accountable, who has judgments levied against them, in some cases, putting leans on properties and still not getting the workers paid. So this is, you know, the the the opposition talked about our investment. We have invested, in enforcement, but this problem is not getting smaller. It's continuing to grow.

And, unfortunately, you know, the majority of jobs that are created now are low wage, many of them unregulated.

And so the problem just continues to to grow and grow. This, I think, is a a solution to helping to one, generate enforcement while also, you know, the prices are going up on all of us. Right? So we wanna make sure that we are all paying our fair share to make sure that our enforcement standards are high enough to go after these bad actors so that we can level the playing field for the good ones.

Because who's paying the price is not just the workers, but it's also those contractors who are doing the right thing.

And so, you know, this is, an unfortunate situation, but this is where we are. And I absolutely agree with Senator Caballero Caballero on this. We've gotta figure out what it takes to actually make these bad actors, these outlaw employers, do the right thing and hold them accountable. And unfortunately, that means, you know, looking at steeper and steeper penalties.

I understand that there are occasions where a judgment is taken against a an employer based on the name, and they change their name and begin and bid on other jobs. Is that something that does happen?

It is. And that's part of why why our enforcement costs are so high, because, you know, you receive another claim from another set of workers under another subsidiary or an LLC that's been, created and have come to find out, you know, part owner from the firm that was found to have violated the law has now started, you know, found a a brother, a cousin, or someone else to start another entity in the same practices. So, you know, bad actors tend to multiply.

So as we get more sophisticated in our enforcement, as we are able to, you know, to win for for workers, there is always schemes. And unfortunately, we have a lot of industries and a lot of workers in California and a lot of schemes.

And that is one of the schemes that again, you know, our labor commissioner, those investigators who work day in and day out to to to, make workers whole are are having to face these challenges. And it costs us a lot of money. It costs a lot of revenue to make sure that we are ensuring this level playing field. So absolutely correct. And my final question, and going back to senators Caballero and Durazo.

Will you consider in your bill If a public works bid is made, there are licenses attached to who is going to do the job. And should there be a judgment which is not paid, will you consider including in there about the loss of a license for those who have been who've had judgments issued against them and have no payment plan that has been put together?

Yeah.

Well, I I certainly am open to looking at ways to strengthen this bill. And, you know, obviously, we we'd still continue to work with the opposition on this as well. I think there are a lot of bills that we need to bring forward in this area. I don't think this this is not the silver bullet. I think we have many more to explore.

We see at the local level in counties and cities that now have wage enforcement, offices as well where they are looking very closely at, you know, what makes a good employer and who do we wanna do business with. And if you have this track record of violating our wage and hour laws, you may not get the points and bid points you need to be successful. You may have your license revoked. You may have your contract counts cancelled.

So I think there there are definitely precedent for those kinds of strategies at the local level and certainly I think the state we do need to explore that moving forward.

I know in some sectors for example in the car wash industry we've we've looked at some of those harsher approaches because of how vicious the wage theft is and insidious the wage theft is. So, you know, I think as we are looking across this problem and as we're seeing that it is growing instead of reducing in our in our in our economy, we've got to explore. All of the options have to be on the table.

And to be clear, we have many good actors. We have many good contractors who put bids in and get the job done and That's right. Pay their workers just as, you know, they they the way they bid it. And kudos to them. And we we appreciate that the majority are there, but we do have those.

And in the end, it's the workers who who are injured the most through all of this. Absolutely. My experience comes from being a an attorney representing injured workers for over thirty years knowing that in workers comp, it's the same process. You get injured, they have no insurance, they just start the company with a different name. And there are bad actors and I appreciate you and appreciate the work that you're doing in this bill.

Thank you. Thank

you, Senator Reyes. Other comments, questions? Seeing none, I think Senator DeRozos moved the bill. I did. You did?

Alright. Okay. Would you like to close, Senator Smallwood?

Well, I just appreciate the conversation and the expertise on this, dais who've had experiences in this space. This is about California creating a level playing field, protecting workers, and strengthening our enforcement. This is a win win win in my view, and, I really appreciate an aye vote on this bill.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Miss Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number ten, SP909 the motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, Aye. Niello? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, Aye. Ashby? Caballero? Caballero, Aye. Duraso. Aye. Duraso, Aye. McNerney. McNerney, Aye. Reyes Reyes, Aye. Stern, Valadares, Wahab, Webber Pearson, Weiner. 6 to one.