Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Assembly Judiciary Committee. For the record, item 35, AB2690 Davies has been pulled from the consent calendar, but will still be heard today. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each.

Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support over opposition to the bill. Everyone else had the opportunity to line up and and state their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill. We'll go ahead and start as a subcommittee with with file item one AB1544, Assemblymember Krell. And you, may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for having me today. First of all, I'll be accepting the amend. Hello again.

Assembly Member, Maggy Krell is just saying good morning. Thanks for the amendments. We'll be taking those. Appreciate the committee's work on this. Also appreciate the work of Acacia Justice Center.

Their letter just came in yesterday, but I appreciate all of their work on this issue and with me on this bill. AB1544 underscores the importance of transparency and access to courthouses at a time when our democratic institutions are under attack, and we need now more than ever, eyes on the courts. Early this year, I filed a lawsuit to push for basic transparency in the wake of reporters, attorneys, and members of the public being shut out of an immigration court here in Sacramento.

Fundamental freedoms like this are essential for our democracy, and AB1544 strengthens existing California laws and court rulings just to ensure that we never backslide on our commitment to a free press and open and accessible courts. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB1544?

They're all just trying to get into court.

Yeah. Trying to get in the building. Anyone opposed to AB 1544? Alright. Well, we'll have to take this up when we have a quorum, but thank you so much for bringing this bill forward.

Thanks for having me.

Do you wanna We have item three with Assemblymember Stephanie AB164. Okay.

Alright.

Thank you, chair and colleagues who are not yet here. I appreciate the feedback from the committee, and I remain committed to working with the opposition to address their concerns. AB 1604 would prohibit the use of, oh, good. My witnesses. Right? Thank you. Great.

AB 1604 would prohibit the use of bisphenol a, BPA, in paper receipts by 01/01/2027, and all bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts Additionally, this bill would allow the Department of Toxic Substances and Control to develop regulations and enforce violations. Receipts are known to generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and they are harmful to human health, can't be recycled, and end up contaminating our recycling systems.

Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and BTS. People who handle receipts every day, especially our cashiers, are exposed to these chemicals over and over again. Studies have linked this exposure to breast cancer and other serious health risk.

And by removing bisphenols from receipts, this bill will cut daily exposure to harmful chemicals, protect workers and consumers, and keep our recycling systems clean. And with me today are Nancy Beurmeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste.

Thanks so much. Is this on? Is this good? Okay. Good morning, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, Assemblymember Stefani, for your leadership on sixteen o four to ban bisphenols and thermal receipt paper. I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. Bisphenol A or BPA is one of the best known toxic chemicals, and many products are now labeled BPA free.

But BPA is often replaced with similar similar chemicals like BPS and BPF, and that that have similar structures and raise many of the same health concerns.

That's exactly what happened with receipt papers. A 2023 study showed that while BPA was found in only 1% of receipts, nearly 80% contained BPS, an example of regrettable substitution. Growing evidence shows that the entire class of bisphenols can disrupt hormones and harm health with links to conditions like asthma, reproductive harm, metabolic disease, and cancer, including breast cancer. These chemicals are absorbed through the skin when handling receipts. While this affects all consumers, the greatest risk is for cashiers who have significantly higher levels of exposure.

Cashiers are disproportionately women of childbearing age, making this exposure especially concerning during critical windows like pregnancy. The good news is that safer alternatives already exist. About 20% of receipts are already bisphenol free. It's time to eliminate this entire class of chemicals from receipt paper. I also wanna note that the cosponsors share the author's commitment to work with the opposition to address their concerns while maintaining the intent and integrity of the bill.

I respectfully urge your aye vote on sixteen o four. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is David Hackett with Californians Against Waste, and we are a proud cosponsor of AB 164. This bill addresses a significant source of toxic chemical exposure and waste stream contamination, which is intentionally added bisphenol in thermal receipt. Which is intentionally added bisphenols in thermal receipt paper. Approximately 98,000,000 thermal receipts are handled by millions of Californians every day, particularly retail workers who are facing chronic exposure.

Receipt samples show that approximately 80% are coated in toxic bisphenol developers, which have historically been BPA and are now increasingly BPS that are dermally absorbed, Imperil Human Health, and contaminate our recycling streams. And this hazard is anything but hypothetical, and the math is honestly really scary. Every day, Californians are exposed to 85,000,000 toxic receipts, which reflects a carcinogenic exposure pathway that can't be understated, especially for women and children. And the bisphenols don't just harm people.

They contaminate our recycling system, and they've been found in trace and non trace amounts throughout, recycled paper products like tissues and napkins.

The smartest, most cost effective solution isn't better sorting or better recycling. It's stopping that contamination at the source. And this bill is with immense precedent. Policy momentum has been moving in this direction for several years now given the European Union shift and states like Washington adopting class based approaches for bisphenols and eliminating them, via evidence based policy making.

Given that those safer alternatives are already widely available and on the market scaling rapidly, We see this as a a really common sense measure that given its unanimous and bipartisan support, should seem like a clear choice. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1604?

Good morning, committee chair, members. Thank you for, your time today. I have a few, so bear with me. The last plastic straw, plastic pollution coalition. My name is Kai Clausen, by the way.

I completely forgot to introduce myself. Zero Waste San Diego, Zero Waste Ithaca, three fifty Sacramento, three fifty Bay Area Action, three fifty Contra Costa Action, Climate Reality Project Orange County, active San Gabriel Valley, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Friends Committee on the Legislation of California, and the Sunrise Movement Bay Area. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Mandi Strela on behalf of another list of folks, but I'll try to get through it quickly.

Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Healthy Children Project, the American Sustainable Business Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action, California Health Coalition Advocacy, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Families Advocating for Chemicals and Toxic Safety, Community Environmental Council, the California Black Health Network, San Francisco Baykeeper, California Public Interest Research Group, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Courage California, The Story of Stuff, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Endangered Habitat Sleep, and Clean Earth for Kids. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 164? Alright. I'll be glad to meet you. I I I know that there was some registered opposition, but I think there was already been acknowledged that there's gonna be continued work with them, on their outstanding concerns.

I don't think they have an issue with the underlying purpose of the bill. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, chair. And and the opposition is my sponsor on my bill that's on consent in this committee. So trust me that we will be working together very closely. So no worries there. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when it's time.

Thank you. Thank you. Next file item 10, AB 1859, Assemblymember Ortega.

Alright. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and Members, for the, or Chair for the opportunity to present AB1859 today. California today faces a severe enforcement gap when enforcing our public works labor laws. The division of labor standards enforcement or DLSE has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims. AB1859 would allow joint labor management committee representatives to physically visit public work job sites to ensure contractors are complying with wage and safety laws.

If they find violations, they can gather information and report it to the to the DLSC or file a civil suit on behalf of the affected worker.

It would also balance access with protections for contractors by ensuring that the site visits do not disrupt work. AB1859 would enhance the DLSC's enforcement capabilities without straining taxpayer resources. This bill helps ensure that public works projects are built safely, efficiently, and to the highest standards. With me today testifying is Matthew Cremins with the International Union of Operating Engineers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are sponsors of AB1859, which would strengthen enforcement of public works labor laws and assist the labor commissioner by granting joint labor management committee representatives job site access on public works projects. Joint labor management committees or JLMCs as they are otherwise called, are federally approved formal bodies consisting of equal representation of both labor and management.

And these groups are traditionally designed to improve workplace conditions, safety, productivity, and simply put, these entities are the gold standard of joint labor management collaboration.

In the construction industry, JLMCs already play a critical role as they currently serve in many ways as the eyes and ears for the state's labor commissioner, and they work day in and day out to ensure level playing field for contractors by promoting equitable contracting, a public works project and ensuring compliance with all applicable state and federal laws.

JLNC is also currently work hand in hand with the division of labor standards enforcement, and they turn over their finalized investigations to the labor commissioner, which can have the effect of significantly streamlining state investigations while costing the state no additional resources. So with that being said, AB 1859 seeks to provide additional resources to DLSC, by providing JLMC's reasonable access. And in closing, if I could say really quickly, I think it's important to note that this bill does provide critical protections for contractors.

It makes it clear that JLMC shall not impede the performance of work.

I mean, it further specifies that contractors should not be liable for safety violations caused by JLMCs. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and respect any question, I vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the District Council of Ironworkers. Apologize for being a little late. Got Aligned. Stuck talking, in the hallway.

But I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I mean, mister Crimmins outlined the bill very well. I would just add that, you know, JMLCC members access construction sites every day. Construction sites are not an isolated facility. They're routinely visited by project managers, engineers, city staff.

Many of you have been out on construction sites. These are professionals who know how to interact safely on sites. I'd also say that that eighteen fifty nine doesn't regulate competition between contractors. It tries to make sure that they're doing the right thing. If you're doing the right thing, there's nothing to fear here.

With that, I'm happy to give back some time and answer any questions that you may have. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB1859? Good morning. Shane Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Elmer Lazari, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Is there any anyone here in opposition to AB 859?

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members of the Committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. We're a statewide association with over with just under a thousand contractors and associates both open union and merit shop contractors. We oppose this bill because it shifts enforcement of public works labor law from state agencies to private union affiliated committees.

It does this by requiring awarding bodies to grant representatives of joint labor management committees irrespective of whether that union has work on that job site, access to pub, public works job sites and authorizes those committees to bring legal action against contractors and subcontractors.

Our biggest concerns are that this bill would create new legal and financial exposure by authorizing private lawsuits, mandatory penalties, and attorney's fees based on vague reasonable access standards. It also duplicates existing enforcement under DIR and the labor commissioner by creating a hybrid public private enforcement model, which is unprecedented in public works. It introduces job site safety and liability risks by requiring access for third parties that are not accountable to the project under Cal OSHA.

And it disrupts project operations and labor balance, allowing one union affiliated entity to monitor others and interfere with the established relationships between the contractors and those union affiliated partners. Ultimately, we believe that this increased cost and insert and uncertainty.

It discourages contractor participation in public works projects. And our bottom line here is that it expands litigation and private enforcement while undermining safety, neutrality, and project delivery. And for those reasons, we're opposed to the measure.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB1859?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Mark Neuberger of the California State Association of Counties. We have an opposed unless amended position on this bill, also registering the same position for Cal Cities, the California Special District Association, and the Community College Fill Facility Coalition.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments for committee? I would like to yeah. As some member of Pappan.

So a couple concerns with the bill. And I know we my office talked to Assemblymember Ortiz office. But as far as putting some parameters on coming in every day to audit or something like that, so I don't know how that would work. But what do you say to the conflict of interest of having, like, either a third party that you've hired you know, unions have hired instead of somebody that's more neutral? Is there something that we can do about that part of it?

I mean by the way, I recognize that the Department of Labor standards has it it has been very difficult to get enforcement from them. So I I should have started with, I see the need for the bill.

Like, I got you there.

Okay. But I I do hear the concerns as well. So I'm just wondering, is there some way we can take it that we overcome the conflict and we're we're doing it in a reasonable fashion, not banging on the door every day. Let me see the books. You know?

I can Yeah.

Yeah. No. Definitely open to that conversation in terms of daily or the time frame for sure. You know, as you mentioned, the need for the bill is because I mean, I just talked about the 47,000 wage theft claims. Something has to change, and this is a step in that direction.

But I'll ask. Yeah.

And I I would just note that we have made very clear to any opposition that has come up on this bill that we are willing to talk about definitions, anything related to that in the bill, especially with reasonable access. We are open to that. We have not received a single amendment yet from the opposition.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I I think the definition of reasonable access is reasonable as it is currently stated in the bill as well as removing any liability for any actions of the J L M S JLMC on the job site that causes injury.

And so I think those protections are adequate, but I appreciate the author and sponsors are really willing to listen to any other ideas that might be coming from opposition or from members that have suggestions as to how the definitions could be better. But I think the definitions are are pretty clear in in terms of what reasonable means. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Zbur. Are you ready?

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. I'm proud to present AB 1930, which is sponsored by our Attorney General Rob Bonta and by Equality California. And this is a bill which will defend health care access and enforce California's protected health activities laws for all who provide and receive care in the state of California.

You know, California has long been... Excuse me, a place where people can access the health care that they need and live authentically, safely, and with dignity. But across the country, we're seeing a coordinated effort to roll that back.

Efforts to intimidate patients, to target providers, and to attack reproductive health care and gender affirming care, which is simply health care that allows people to live who they truly are. And we've already seen consequences of that right here in California.

Last year, the United States Department of Justice issued a subpoena to Children's Hospital Los Angeles seeking information that could identify thousands of transgender youth receiving care, care that they receive with the support of their families and their doctors. That action didn't just raise alarms. It had real consequences.

It put privacy and safety at risk, and it contributed to the closure of the hospital center for trans youth health and development, cutting off access to care for young people who need it most in the state of California. That's just simply unacceptable. No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk.

AB 1930 will protect patients and providers by requiring business entities in California to notify the Office of the California Attorney General if they intend to respond to a subpoena or inquiry regarding legally protected health care activity. Before an entity responds, they must first notify the Attorney General of the inquiry within seven days of receiving it.

They must make reasonable attempts to notify any individuals who the inquiry pertains to within thirty days of receiving the notification. And they was must wait a minimum of thirty days since they notified the Attorney General to respond.

This bill also gives the Attorney General authority to both intervene and enforce the provisions of the bill, including through civil action and civil penalties. Let's be clear. California will not buckle under to threats meant to intimidate our communities. We're going to stand firmly on the side of patient privacy, dignity, and access to care.

We're gonna protect our providers, and we're going to make sure that California remains a safe haven for those who need it. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill are Craig Pulsipher, the Legislative Director at Equality California.

Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs. And also Hayley Penan, Deputy Attorney General in the Health Care Rights and Access Section is available here to answer technical questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher behalf of Equality California, proud co-sponsor of AB 1930. Appreciate Assembly Member Zbur's leadership on this issue as well as our partnership with Attorney General Bonta as well. AB 1930 is an important measure to build on California's existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them.

Over the past several years, we've seen efforts by out of state actors to use subpoenas and investigations to target people seeking or providing lawful health care in California, including reproductive health care and gender affirming care. These requests are often used to intimidate, create fear, and discourage people from accessing or providing care that is fully legal and protected in our state.

And importantly, these requests are often directed not just to health care providers, but also at businesses that hold sensitive personal information. Without clear safeguards, those entities may be pressured to respond quickly even when requests are overly broad or in conflict with California law.

That's exactly why AB 1930 is needed. It puts in place clear guardrails before that information is disclosed, ensuring the Attorney General is notified, creating time to evaluate whether a request is lawful, and requiring that patients be notified as well.

These are reasonable protections to make sure that patients and providers are not exposed to politically motivated investigations targeting lawful health care. It's also worth noting that other states, including New York, have already adopted similar protections. AB 1930 helps ensure that California remains a place where people can access lawful health care safely and without fear, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Tiffany Brokaw here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is a proud co-sponsor of this bill. And he thanks Assembly Member Zbur for authoring this. AB 1930 strengthens protections for patients receiving reproductive health care and gender affirming care and the providers who serve them.

It requires certain business entities to notify the California Attorney General when they receive an information request related to a legally protected health care activity and also authorizes the Attorney General to intervene to prevent disclosures from happening.

Recent actions by federal and out of state officials have raised concerns about attempts to access private medical data and also has concerns about prosecuting individuals involved in legally protected health care. Without strong safeguards, subpoenas, investigations, and other legal demands may be used to circumvent California law and undermine the rights of patients and providers.

I wanna emphasize that the notification requirements don't kick in unless an entity plans to respond. This provides our office prevent these disclosures from happening in order to protect the privacy of patients and providers. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1930? Yeah. When the time comes.

Sorry about that. Traffic. Good morning, Chair and Members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support of the bill.

Good morning, chair and members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All and our over 400,000 California members in strong support and appreciation.

Thank you. Is there anyone here? Anyone else here to support? If not, we'll go anyone here in opposition to AB 1930? I have to make a space for one more seat if we could. Thank you.

My name is Romy Mancini. I'm a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, a member of Women Are Real. I'm a lesbian. AB 1930 is the latest brick in a wall California has Been building since 2022 through SB 107, SB 497, and now this bill to insulate providers who perform sex rejecting interventions on minors from any outside scrutiny whatsoever. Courts, parents, federal investigators, all of them blocked.

SB 107 led a noncustodial parent abscond California with a child in violation of a custody order. SB 497 blocked courts from accessing medical records. AB 1930 adds the enforcement mechanism. When a parent, a detransitioner, or a federal investigator seeks records through entirely lawful processes, the California attorney general can intervene and kill that effort.

When the DOJ or HHS issues a subpoena to investigate potential Medicaid fraud, this bill requires the provider to tip-off the AG first and authorizes the AG to block disclosure.

That is a textbook supremacy clause violation. You cannot interpose state machinery between a regulated entity and a lawful federal demand. The bill applies equally to family court subpoenas. A mother with a valid custody order in another state trying to find out what irreversible procedure was performed on her child without her consent will have the California AG standing between her and those records. This legislature would be making her legally helpless.

In January, a jury awarded $2,000,000 to a young woman whose healthy breasts were removed by a doctor when she was 16. AB 1930 would prevent the next young person harmed by these procedures from ever getting those records and getting justice. This bill does not protect patients. It protects providers from patients. Vote no.

I'm Layla, and I'm a detransitioner. The doctors who removed my breasts will never be held accountable. The doctors who made my friends clitoris grow so big to where they can't wear pants walk scot free. This so called privacy bill protects the monsters who wrecked our bodies, the healers who became butchers. It doesn't protect the thousands of detransitioners who can't even get their own medical records.

The parents fighting custody battles across state lines trying to protect their kids from what happened to me. It blocks federal investigators from prosecuting clinics that committed Medicaid fraud by manipulating insurance billing codes. This bill this bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies. It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, you are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed. There is no blanket for me.

I live with the damage done to me at the hands of these providers every day. The people responsible just cashed their checks. I was 13. I was just a child when a surgeon removed my breasts. I'm still trying to understand who knew what, when, and why no one's stopped it.

Why the people who coerced my mom into consenting still have their medical licenses. If these treatments are as safe and as necessary as their defenders claim, they should be able to withstand scrutiny, shouldn't they? They should be able to withstand investigations. Why are you covering for them? You and the American people know that there's no defense for sterilizing children, but you set aside your morals and do it anyway.

Is the money they donate to your campaigns worth my body? Is it worth my quality of life? Vote no, please. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1930?

Meg Madden on behalf of CAUSE, Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Courtney Corbello, on behalf of the Center for American Liberty, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Sophia Laurie on behalf of California Family Council in opposition.

Thank you.

Cynthia Cravens associated with Women Are Real and Diag Democrats for an informed approach to gender. Strong opposition.

Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, retired teacher, chair for Contra Costa Moms for Liberty, and informed parents in strong opposition.

Thank you. Arianne Adam Chikova, longtime San Francisco progressive Democrat and an LGB activist, mother of a formerly trans identified young man, co lead of the LGB courage coalition education team, cofounder of California Teachers Supporting Gender Nonconforming Youth, and member of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, a veteran high school Spanish teacher, and a state council representative for CTA, and I stand in strong opposition to this bill.

Thank you.

David Bolog representing SFV Alliance, LA County chapter of Moms for Liberty, and TOPS taxpayer oversight for parents and students in opposition to this bill.

Thank you.

Jenny McGrane, nurse, midwife, Lesbian, in opposition to this bill.

Thank you.

Sunil Wajaysekar, parent, grandparent, representing Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, Women Are Real, and Women's Liberation Front in opposition.

Thank you.

Amanda Covetana, Democrat, longtime Lesbian activist with Women Are Real. Women sorry. Lesbians advocating for a resilient future.

Beverly Talbot from San Francisco, longtime Democrat representing the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Courage Coalition, LGB Alliance, and Democrats for an informed approach to gender and very strong opposition to this harmful bill that is very anti child.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Johnny Skinner. I'm here representing Jen Specht. I stand in strong opposition to this bill.

Thank you

Nicole Young. Nicole Young, Placer County Moms For Liberty chapter chair, and I represent millions of California parents who have no idea what you people do every day. Strong opposition.

Barbara Walker, lifelong bleeding heart liberal from the San Francisco Bay Area, mom of three, member of Women Are Real, and strong opposition. Thank you.

Ariane Gehringer, longtime resident of Oakland, California and from LGB, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance USA, in strong opposition to this bill.

Elizabeth Cronin, lifelong Democrat, member of CTA for thirty five years, member of Women Are Real, and Democrats for an informed informed approach to gender, in strong opposition.

Thank you. I'm I'm gonna ask if our secretary can establish quorum, please.

[Roll Call]

And do are there any questions, comments, or emotions?

Oh, exactly.

Yeah. Any is there a second? And a second? Any questions, comments from anyone? Well, I thank the attorney general, as well as, Senator Zbur for bringing this forward as indicated appropriately in the staff analysis, you know, full faith and credit.

Doesn't, you know, does have exceptions and exemptions in terms of legitimate public policy. And I think that our state has made our public policy clear on this matter. Would you like to close?

Yes, mister chair, members. Thank you very much. I wanna thank the folks from Equality California and the attorney general's office for being here with us today. Just wanted to commit to continuing to work with the Cal Chamber and the Hospital Association to address their concerns. I think there's some things that they raised that are legitimate that we can tighten up the bill, and so we're gonna continue working with them.

The discussion on this bill, you know, was complex as it is for many other bills that are brought to this committee, but that's the reason why I authored the bill. And the, you know, the reason for it is simple. Decisions and information about protected health care should be in the hands of the patients and their providers, and that's it.

No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care could put their privacy and safety at risk, not transgender youth, not people seeking reproductive care, not LGBTQ plus Californians, not anyone. And this bill simply allows the attorney general to know to know health care is under attack and to be able to step in and protect patients and providers.

Every patient deserves to be safe, seen, and to be cared for. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We'll place that on call. Thank you. Assemblymember Jackson with File Item Number 2, AB 1584.

And while he's approaching, do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Motion. Is there a second? And a second. So why don't we go ahead and do a roll call vote on the consent calendar as Dr. Jackson is getting ready?

Consent calendar includes AB 1640, Stephanie to appropriations. AB 1724 Ellis, as amended to appropriations. AB 1828 Chen, as amended to appropriations. AB 1878 Patel, to appropriate. AB 1918 Dixon, to public safety. AB 2086 Ellis, to appropriations. AB 2101 Gibson, as amended to emergency management. AB 2187 Ramos, to governmental organization. AB 2331 Nguyen, to the floor. [Roll Call]

Okay. Consent calendar is out. And as mentioned when we opened up the meeting, Item 35, AB 2690 Davies, has been pulled from consent, so it'll be heard on the regular agenda. Alright. Assemblymember Jackson, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. This is AB 1584, which would create the Office of Civil Rights within the California Air Resources Board. This office will provide civil rights training, language access services like translation and interpretation, and a compliance framework to guide grantees and contractors, giving communities real tools, not just promises. CARB has already committed to racial equity. Now it needs the infrastructure to deliver.

CARB passed Resolution 2033 in 2020, establishing a zero-tolerance racism policy and developed tools like the racial equity lens. But without a dedicated office of civil rights, these commitments lack the institutional backbone to be fully enforced. As the Federal Government eliminates environmental enforcement mechanisms, AB 1584 ensures California holds its own programs, grants, and contracts to strong civil rights standards. The health stakes are too high to leave civil rights compliance to chance.

Air pollution in frontline communities contribute to asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.

Communities that are already overburdened cannot afford gaps in the oversight that is supposed to protect them. With that, Mr. Chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1584? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1584?

Nicole Young. Placer County Resident. In opposition.

David Bolog. SFV Alliance. In opposition.

Okay. Bring it back to committee. I have a motion. Is there a second? We have a second. Alright. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson, for bringing this forward. I'm actually on the CARB website right now. And there's a civil rights office. So why would we not work to just expand an existing office instead of creating a new one?

Well, I think that the issue is that right now, it does lack the actual legal framework to be able to enforce those things. And even though there's an Office of Civil Rights within one of the departments, they now believe that it's time to create its own free-standing office that will be in charge of all the civil rights activities as opposed to just one within a certain segment of CARB.

So this is really just rearranging how CARB is able to enforce civil rights throughout this entire portfolio as opposed to just one segment of their operation.

So, would you get rid of this civil rights office, or would there be multiple within CARB?

That would be up to CARB to make that decision.

So, wouldn't it be more efficient to work within the framework and just expand that? That's currently already in place? I mean, it talks about all kinds of things that I would imagine yours would also cover. So I'm just confused. If we have existing infrastructure, why wouldn't we use that?

So, I'm not gonna be able to support the bill today, but I do encourage you to look on the website to figure out how maybe we could maximize what's already there instead of creating new cost and potentially new state resources that may already be existing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate you bringing that up, and I'll have those conversations with them.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? Alright. Well, thank you, Assemblymember Jackson, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright, we'll place that on call. Thank you. Next up, we have Assemblymember Wilson, and we're going in order. So it'll be Wilson, then Aguiar-Curry, and then Lowenthal.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. So, I'm here to present on AB 1608. I'm a strong supporter of the California High Speed Rail Project because of its potential transformative value it can bring to the state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the project is having a strong positive impact, economic impact in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide.

This project has faced many challenges during construction, including lack of funding to complete the project, challenges acquiring right of way, and moving utilities.

And these challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases. Every dollar on this project counts because we have lost a federal funding partner. And at this time, we are completely reliant on state funding to deliver this significant infrastructure project. Independent, effective oversight is critical to the success of any large infrastructure project and ensuring that every single dollar is spent wisely.

The legislature created the Office of Inspector General in 2022, and the inspector general has already proven its value in the short time it has been in operation.

However, the office has faced challenges hiring necessary staff because it does not have access to the position classifications and contract authority it needs to hire staff with the appropriate qualifications and acquire specialized services in a timely matter. When the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public or protections to ensure that the Inspector General could keep confidential for a period of time information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers.

Concerns were initially raised that this bill would keep information confidential. In fact, this bill does the exact opposite by requiring the Inspector General to make its reports public, which is not required in current law. Moreover, this bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the Inspector General that are in excess of the current protections that state auditor and inspector generals within our state have.

My office and the inspector general have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition to make as much information as possible available to the public without jeopardizing the project. In response, our, to our amendments, the First Amendment Coalition is now in support of this bill. I'm—I was gonna read a quote, but I think they're gonna say it in their comment. I've, I, I've got in front of them at Transportation Committee. I won't do that today.

But I greatly appreciate their contributions to helping us draft this legislation that appropriately balances legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's absolute right to know. I ask for your support on this bill that will improve transparency, accountability, and oversight. My witnesses today are Ben Belknap, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, High Speed Rail, and Danny Kando-Kaiser, representing the First Amendment Coalition.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Danny Kando-Kaiser, here on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition, in support of the transparency provisions of AB 168. First Amendment Coalition is a California advocacy organization that promotes and defends free speech, a free press, and the people's right to know. With the recent amendments, the bill provides a model framework for how independent offices of inspector general can balance legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know about government activities. We urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Belnap, Inspector General for the California High Speed Rail. The passage of AB 1608 will result in more timely, robust oversight of California's High Speed Rail project. This project is at a critical inflection point. My office estimates that we are only two years away from scheduled delays caused by a lack of near-term funding.

To avoid this project delay, the High Speed Rail Authority must secure financing at the same time it is trying to complete major procurements necessary to keep the project on schedule. Without having yet resolved this problem, the authority has signaled that it wants to spend up to, and even lift, the $500,000,000 cap on spending outside of the said to Bakersfield segment imposed by SB 198. My office provides independent oversight of the project as important resource to state lawmakers at this critical time.

Two months ago, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes, and we're currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's draft business plan. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction, construction quality program, review how environmental requirements is affecting the project, and review the authority's change order process.

However, my office has been slowed in its efforts to complete its reviews by lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of its staff and lack of purchasing authority that would allow us to hire needed expertise in a timely manner.

In addition to establishing reporting requirements and a work paper retention framework, AB 168 would grant my office access to job classifications already in use by other oversight agencies, and it would provide my office with purchasing authority up to a million dollars. Absent AB 168, my office can develop its own class classifications through SBB and can seek a purchasing delegation through DGS, but both of these tasks would take years and would require more administrative resources than my office presently has.

For these reasons, I urge your support of AB 1608.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1608?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. I won't speak to the administrative request of this bill, but I will tell you this organization that supported this project that has seen more oversight than any capital project in the state of California. We continue to welcome OIG's insights, oversights, and reviews of this program that's critical for the transformation of our transportation infrastructure system. So, we appreciate the good faith effort.

We appreciate the author bringing this forward, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. Is there anyone in here in opposition to AB 168?

Nicole Young, Placer County resident, formerly from Bakersfield, California. I drive that stretch of the freeway at least once a month. I oppose this on the grounds it's a boondoggle. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, citizen of Contra Costa, taxpayer. I don't want more money spent down a rat hole. This is ridiculous.

So, you oppose. Thank you.

Oppose.

Meg Madden, California resident, parent of children's, I would like to be able to stay in California and afford it. In opposition. Thank you.

Alright. We'll bring it back to the committee. Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you, assembly member. Thank you for your leadership on this. Obviously, I've been a supporter of High Speed Rail since it was initially proposed. We have to get this done, and, of course, oversight is an important component of that. You know, I think the public looks at what's happened in other countries and the fact that they've been able to sort of get these really important infrastructure programs completed, and I think this bill is a necessary part of actually getting this finished. So, I just wanna thank you for your leadership, and I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you.

Is there a second? Alright. Senator Pacheco, did you—Assemblymember Dixon?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assemblywoman, I think this is great, and I, I think it's a, a major step forward and really creating the, the transparency of how do we get here and where are we going and when we finish. So, as Chair of the Transportation Committee, I applaud your efforts. And this seems like a prudent decision. Everybody from 60 minutes to the average person is wondering where all the money went.

And if anybody—I've been to China, till, till recently, I've been there a 100 times, literally, and I could see within a six month period of time, this is during the nineties and the near two thousands, within six months, a new high speed rail was now going from Beijing to Shanghai and interior. It's just shocking how—and then that's a different kind of government, but how you could get you can build faster, smarter and faster. So, confidentiality, I understand. Transparency, of course, is a priority.

I have a question.

Yeah.

In the code, and I don't know if it's in the bill, but it would limit the distribution or the access of the findings of the Inspector General to the committee chairs only about both the assembly and the Senate transportation committees, and explicitly not to the vice chairs. Is that a correct understanding of the language of the bill?

Let me get to it. And it, it, it doesn't say that it goes to—it, it lists of who it can go to. So, it doesn't mean that those confidential reports will go to those folks. But let me find where it is and I'll see if the Inspector General, do you recall exactly where it is in the, searching through my, yeah.

And so, it does list of where, it can go, which includes, I believe, the governor, the High Speed Rail Authority Board, the two committee chairs of, of each house, and one other that I feel like I'm missing.

So, there—so, it, to the executive director, the Board of the High Speed Rail Authority, the chairs of the Assembly Committee on Transportation, and the Senate Committee on Transportation or the Governor, and I think that's where you're you're referencing to. And it says,"To state officials with oversight of the project," and those are the official folks who have oversight of the projects.

Although vice chairs play a key role on the committee, as do all members of the committee do, but the actual chair is designated as oversight when we are doing our informational hearings and things of that nature.

And so, that's why they're listed and vice chairs don't have the oversight. I, as a committee chair, as you know, for those who sit on Transportation, when I've received information from the OIG or others, I have freely shared those with those members of the committee, but it is the discretion of the chair. So, we have not added vice chairs because they don't have that designated role of oversight and limited to those that do.

Okay. So, I appreciate that explanation. And you are unique as a committee chair because you do operate very transparently and, and in a very accommodating bipartisan way. But I'm concerned.

I hope not too unique. I hope not too unique.

But, but so, as to not create confusion and ambiguity, because the way the words in the code are written, it seems like it's directly excluding the vice chairs of the committee and in something, the project that's so expensive, in the over a $100,000,000,000, I would think that the more legislative scrutiny by the chairs and the vice chairs would be advantageous to credibility and to understanding. And particularly, I would, you know, the elephant in the room is that we are a one-party state.

I think it is helpful for debate, discussion, consensus to make sure all the key players in transportation policymaking have access to the same information and not be subject to the generous discretion of you as a committee chair, but you may not always be the one who is the chair of the Transportation Committee.

Very true. Very true.

And so, I worry about, well, no. I would like it to be amended to be more explicit to include the leadership, the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Transportation, and of both the Senate and the Assembly Committee.

Understood. And, and I'll consider, but I wanna hone in on the line that says two state officials with oversight of the project. And, and then, we've defined those people that have that oversight of the project. So, we'll consider whether it can span it. I don't wanna get it to where we're, we're expanding it so far because then I could say members of the committee—every member of the Transportation Committee could say, well, technically, we have oversight.

And that's why it's clear that it's those that have designated oversight. And it is at the discretion of the, of the IG. So, if you read specifically what it says—I am not a lawyer. I recognize I'm in front of a whole bunch of lawyers. But it says to state officials with oversight of the project and, and the discretion is with the IG and it lists, which may, so, it's not entirely exclusive or inclusive, and it has the word "or."

So, doesn't mean that every single person gets there. It doesn't mean that that's the expanded list, but it is up to the IG to determine what state officials. And I would like the IG to talk about the, the changes that we made in consultation with the First Amendment Coalition around when something is confidential, how his office would have to note that, and then, the time requirements, if you wanna elaborate on that a little bit, and that might help, my colleague.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. Yeah. So, to your question, so, there is some some discretion. There's an "or" on who we would provide confidence reports to. The question is who can affect change?

So, sometimes it could be the High Speed Rail Authority CEO. Like, it, it could be a smaller issue that they are willing to handle, get it done. We would have to notify everybody that we've kept something confidential and then only hold it confidential for a period of time. Once that matter is resolved, then we release that report. So, all, all holdings are temporary.

You would eventually get that information. And on the, on the back end of it, you would hear this High Speed Rail Authority did to resolve this weakness, and now we're releasing the report.

Okay. And real quick, before we go there, I wanna echo some things he said about that it is released to everyone, meaning the public would be completely aware that a section was be confidential and the reason for it being confidential. And then, it's given to the discretion that he's using is who could effectuate change. So, if it's given to the chair of a committee, that means the legislature could effectuate change, which would involve more than the chair, because the chair can't do that on their own.

So, it's who the—that little bit of piece of information that's held back is given to.

I, I understand and appreciate your comments, but we're just talking about two positions on something that is so critically important. This is not every audit for every inspector general of, of project in the city of California. But because of the long-term issues related to getting this project completed, which I, right now, would like to see it completed in the most expeditious and transparent—transparently—smart way to do it.

But to add two people as a leadership of the transportation committees in both houses, they are the ones who've been dealing with this, presumably as yourself, for a number of years. There's a lot of expertise and a good opportunity to show good faith effort to make sure everyone is as formed as the chair, because it's very complex.

And it, instead of putting—I could put it another way. Instead of putting the entire burden of understanding all these complex issues, share it with your leadership team, which is the chair and the vice chair. Why not? I, I appreciate and respect your thoughts because that's typically how inspector general processes work. But I think in this when the public is, in this matter, when the public is demanding transparency to—I know that's not your intent.

I'm not accusing you of any intent to not be transparent, but it does suggest that only a certain limited people, would have access to the—before the public. Why not bring in the trans pay—transportation committee—vice chairs? Just a suggestion. I, I would appreciate you considering it and, and.

Absolutely. And I did say that already.

Yeah. I appreciate that, chair.

That would—that will get the language there and see if there's a way.

I know you...

Add that in.

Believe that way. I just wanna make sure it's in the words. That's all.

Yeah. I understand.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Madam vice chair?

So, I've obviously not been shy about my feelings on the project. And one thing that you said is the people that are in charge of oversight. Well, I think every legislator is technically in charge of oversight, but particularly, the people that represent the area that this is being built in right now, and the direct language says, deliver a confidential report or a confidential portion of the report that describes and makes recommendations to resolve the identified weaknesses to state officials with oversight of, of the project.

So, based on that, are you saying that that's something that would be shared with me because a large portion of the project is going through my district?

Or is that just people in the leadership directly on the project? Because I have oversight in my district. That's my job.

You do and we all can make that argument; all 120 legislators can make that argument. And so, I would go back to what the IG said is that the discretion that he is using in determining who should see the confidential report or portions of the report before the public, is based on who can effectuate change.

So, it doesn't even—so, that would mean that the ledger, in order for you to receive it, that means that the let—there would be an expectation that the legislature can effectuate that change. And so, and that could be—right now, it's the transportation committees that have oversight of the High Speed Rail.

And so, that's why it would go to those transportation committees, versus a member who happened to have a piece of the—who happened to have a district of where the High Speed Rail goes through. And so, it's not that the Transportation Committee chairs or vice chair, if the language is amended, would get it every single time. It's, as was noted, it's the IG's discretion based on who can help effectuate the change that is being identified that would have to be fixed.

It's saying that there's a problem, and it needs to be fixed right away. I would say that most often, that is going to stay with the High Speed Rail Authority or executive members like our, you know, transportation secretary, things of that sort, more than it would go to the legislature.

Because for us to effectuate change, that means that the identified problem has a legislative fix for us to know about it in advance.

Well, that's where my concern comes in, is if there's something going on with this project, there's a weakness, which you've cited security as a reason for to keep things private. If that, I mean, what that means is there's something going on in my district that maybe I can't effectuate in the legislature, but working with other local electives that don't have access to this information, do.

So, I guess my question is to you of would there be a situation that if you identified something in Tulare, Kings, or South Fresno County, those portions of the project, that you would come to me and let me know what's going on? Would I fall under that category?

You would. Every member of the public, every member of the legislature is going to receive a report about what what occurred. So, let's take—let's say we're talking about a security weakness. I'm not gonna release that though, until it's been resolved by the High Speed Rail Authority. If it's, if it could harm somebody, we're gonna hold on to that temporarily.

Yes, you would eventually receive that, but it would be on the back end like everybody else after that's been resolved. If you take a confidence report and release it too widely, it's pretty hard to keep it confidential. So, it needs to be fairly narrow.

To those that can fix it. And you, as a legislator, would not be able to fix it. You would have no role. You have no role to be able to resolve the issue. You have no authority at the High Speed Rail Authority or any construction portion of it, so, I don't.

Not that I have direct authority, but if there's a security risk and it involves coordinating with law enforcement or county supervisors or local city council members. I would argue that I absolutely should know. That's my job, and it, it actually would look bad on my part if there was a security risk going on in, let's say, Hanford, California, and I didn't know about it in a way that I could engage, because that is my job, is to communicate with my community. Now.

But it would be the job of the High Speed Rail Authority to work with the supervisors, law enforcement, or City Council to address that issue. It wouldn't be your job as a legislator to facilitate those conversations. Now, I recognize that we, as legislators, have the power to convene, and it is a wonderful power.

But at this point, we're talking about a critical issue or weakness that the IG has identified under the authority of the High Speed Rail Authority, and it would be confidential, and they would be allowed to fix that weakness with the appropriate officials on a need to know basis to ensure that it is fixed before it is made public in any way, shape, or form.

And so, just because we, as legislators, have a soft power in terms of a...and the ability to facilitate and bring people together, it doesn't mean that it's a direct authority.

And so, I would argue that it is appropriate for the way the language is now. And I do understand the concern brought up by our colleague in terms of vice chairs having a role in leadership and transportation committee and being of the minority party because this is basically said in the chair is always the majority party and having that second look, and I and I can see the thought process on that.

But to say that you, as a legislator, over an area that has a portion of High Speed Rail, which in theory, the entire park runs through a number of districts.

I would love all of them to have access to this information for the record.

They, and they will after that issue has been identified. And as a reminder, we have worked it out that when it is confidential, it's noted what is confidential and why it's confidential and a time period of review to ensure that it's released in the most timely way possible. And so, I don't consider it reasonable or even good governance to, one, expose confidential information when we're trying to put in protections so that we can have maximum transparency and accountability.

I don't think that's reasonable than to open it up to all 120 legislators. It's just not appropriate.

Well, so.

I did, yeah. We just disagree. It's a state project. So, as a state legislator, I think all state legislators should have access to it, but particularly, those that represent those areas if there is weaknesses or security risks particularly to the community. So, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

We just disagree.

But, additionally, you bring up the authority. They hardly have a reputation, I would say, as far as I'm concerned, at least in the valley, for being as transparent, especially the project overall. So, I think, once again, saying that we're relying on the authority when this is giving you the authority as Inspector General, I think that's kinda convoluted arguments. But my question.

Can you repeat that? Because I'm confused on what you're you're, you're, you're making some assertions that I'm confused about. Can you repeat that?

Well, in general, with the High Speed rail, there's just been, and as far as the public purview of it—now, I'm, I'm not saying that this is how it's been. What I'm saying is from a public standpoint, I mean, it was just on sixty minutes this past week that there's national scrutiny of this project that I would think as much information as possible being out there is better. I mean, we're seeing this even with the Capital Annex project of having scrutiny for things being kept secret.

I just don't think it's a good look amidst the public, from a PR standpoint.

Remind that when you talk about the High Speed Rail Authority, that's one thing. What we're talking about today is the Office of Inspector General, which the whole point of it became created in 2022 was to provide that oversight and to provide eyes and ears not only to the state legislature, but to the public.

And that's why we're here today, to give them authority to hire the right people, to be able to make purchasing decisions, and also, to be able to keep those things confidential that would expose risk, but keep it in a temporary mindful way to ensure that the public still will get maximum transparency around what is confidential and then, eventually, get that information that's released.

And so, I—so, not to opine, and I know you're using your comments to do that to opine on the High Speed Rail Authority, but I would like to note that what we're talking about today is the Office of Inspector General of the High Speed Rail Authority, and they're independent.

And they are—their whole reason for existing is to provide transparency on every single issue, whether that be he noted a few of them, but cost overruns, how they're doing procurement, their environmental review, the impacts of the environmental review, whether they're receiving enough resources on time to complete the project, whether they're going to complete the project because that's in question as well.

And so, this, this office is doing that. So, if you don't mind in your questions, if you can parse between the two, that'll help us understand better how to answer those questions and also provide clarity for members of the public.

So, I totally appreciate and understand that. You mentioned the authority coordinating with the locals previously. So, you had mentioned them keeping certain things confidential. It's the only way to enroll.

No, they're not keeping it confidential. The IG—that's why I wanted to make that distinction—the IG, as an auditor, is saying that there's a weakness here and then is giving it to the inspector—I mean, into the High Speed Rail Authority to resolve that weakness. Those—in order to resolve that weakness, which they would be required to do, would have to work potentially with the county, city officials, the people you, you reference that you would like to work with. You don't have authority to work with those people.

It's a soft power. This, the off—the High-Speed Rail Authority would have authority to work those people to resolve the issue within their, purview. And the IG would be the one that would keep them accountable, as well as whoever else they gave that information to. And they would have to report on that in a public report saying that this an issue has been identified and when it's resolved, note that it was resolved. And so, there is accountability there.

But, anyway, I wanna give you a chance to answer your question that you wanted to give to the IG.

My, my question for the IG was, do you currently have—like, are you required to follow the government accountability's office auditing standards currently?

No. We've adopted the standards by the Association of Inspector Generals. That's the standards that my office uses.

Okay. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I, I think that we've had many decade decades of jurisprudence and public policy that have given very strong private property rights in our state, in our country. And so, you know, other countries may not have those property rights. I think that has really led to a lot of the cost overruns and delays.

That being said, I think there is definitely a balancing act and there's still a lot more that we can do that's more efficient. I don't think bringing legislators into every decision will do anything but delay even more. And so, especially, the—given how the, this program is politicized, I think we have to focus on actually efficiently fixing issues as they arise. That all eventually becomes public. And so, there can be scrutiny after the fact that there's a—there are gaps that need to be fixed legislatively.

That's when we can step in and say, hey. We're seeing this common problem happening in these fixes. These common fixes being asked of the High Speed Rail. Now, we can have our Chair of Transportation and others come in and say, hey. We need to do a little bit better on this end of it.

And that's why this transparency is so important for the long term success of the project and creating greater efficiencies and a greater transparency than we've had in the past. So, I appreciate the chair for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I wanna equip the Office of Inspector general with everything it needs to ensure the high speed well construction project is a success, and it's, and it's delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. I ask for your support of this important bill to give the Inspector General all the tools they need to perform the critical oversight this project needs, per the sixty minutes recent show. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We'll place that on call. Next item is 6, AB 1776. Some are Aguiar-Curry. And just a time check, we have done 6 bills, and we have 20 more bills to go.

Alright. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I really appreciate that all of the members took the time to connect with me and hear me out on this issue. I also wanna thank the committee staff for the work on the bill. As we know, this is a complex but extremely important issue. I wanna reassure everyone that I'm open to working with stakeholders and will continue to have conversations with anyone who is willing to come to the table.

I have appreciated the meetings I've had with the chamber, life sciences, and many others. We have act actively sought meetings with stakeholders who haven't sought haven't sought them. And I look forward to getting answers to my questions from them and more information about their specific concerns and experiences in states that have laws that address single firm behavior. But the issue of corporate economic power imbalance has become so compelling, I feel the conversation must happen now regardless of the outcome of any individual bill.

Consolidation has touched nearly every part of California's economy, and then that creates a risk of bad actors acting alone to hurt consumers and hard workers.

Since the nineteen nineties, over 75% of US industries have experienced market concentration. This contributes to higher prices for essential goods and services, fewer choices for consumers, and suppress wages and declining economic opportunity. I took this issue on because I come from a small town that used to be full of thriving small businesses, but many of them are now struggling to hold on. I want them to have this the chance to succeed.

I hear from them of that they are struggling to compete with large chains, and I see with the in my own town that my options for getting supplies are limited.

I think about family farms and the fact that we just can't get our irrigation supplies because the supplier doesn't exist anymore. Now instead of replacing parts, we have to overhaul an entire system. I think about the restaurant owners who told me that they are facing higher prices on supplies because they have own they have only an ever shrinking number of suppliers to choose from.

Now those restaurant owners are even more concerned because the the the most affordable option was bought by a company that charges higher prices. This issue is economy wide and uncomplicated, and the legislature recognized that when we passed the a bipartisan resolution in 2022 to ask the California Law Revision Commission to look at the nineteen o seven Cartwright Act and make sure it could stand the test of time.

Today, it only applies when two or more companies collude to undercut competition. But for a long time, car courts and legislators have recognized that one large company can be just as harmful as two companies acting together. Federal antitrust law applies to single companies, and 45 other states have laws that apply to anticompetitive activity by single companies. The California law revision followed the legislator's direct legislature's directive and convened working groups to study these issues in-depth.

They held over 18 public meetings, accepted public comment over the course of more than three years.

They decided against radical changes and made a clear decision to work with the existing framework of the California antitrust law. This language has been revised repeatedly and approved without any no votes. Just because the company is large, it does not mean that they aren't doing something wrong. This bill does not penalize companies based on being big. This bill does not penalize companies who are trying to make the best product and provide the best services.

This bill is about making sure that when one large dominant company decides to stop being the best and instead use their power to put their competitors out of business, that's where we need to draw the line. This bill is about making sure that the federal law does not trump does not trump California law, which has been under a separate framework for over a hundred years.

This bill is about making sure that businesses compete and protecting a free and fair marketplace that helps small and medium businesses, workers, and everyday Californians. With me to testify today, I have Abhil Garcia, an antitrust expert who is a member of the California Lawry Vision Commission working groups, and Bianca Bloemquist on behalf of small business majority. For technical or process questions, the California Law Revision Commission is also here today to provide information.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair, caller, and committee members. My name is Aviel Garcia. After graduating from Columbia University School of Law, I've versed almost exclusively in the antitrust space. First, at California DOJ, then as a defense lawyer at Gibson Dunn, and now as a partner at Custom and Brantley Stockinger, where I advise startups all the way to Fortune 100 companies as both a plaintiff and defense side attorney.

Jose is also able to serve as a law review commission expert for the big tech and artificial intelligence working groups along many esteemed defense and plaintiff side colleagues.

I'm here to support AB 1776 because I believe that California and its enforcers should be allowed under its own laws to prevent a single company from using its market power to harm competition. It's no secret that since the nineteen nineties, we've seen mass consolidation across almost every industry in our state and nation, leading to higher prices and greater reliance on a handful of mega companies. The assembly judiciary analysis is correct that the opposition's doom and gloom arguments are overstated and without evidence.

First, AB 1776 does not change the practical reality of bringing an antitrust case. I will still have to undertake a multi step analysis that will cost me hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to prove that a defendant has market power and that their conduct has unreasonably affected competition.

And even after making that proof, a defendant will still get a chance to show that its actions are pro competitive. This means we won't see a flood of litigation akin to the ADA or privacy suits due to the fact that these cases are still hard to bring even under a p seventeen seventy six. Second, the argument that a p seventeen seventy six undoes a 100 of case law is simply incorrect.

Restraint of trade is a term that appears in over 10,000 cases, over 600 of which are in California. It means an action that harms competition rather than merely harming individual competitors.

Third, AB 1776 does not create legal liability for every business in California regardless of size. This argument ignores the unchanged requirement that bringing a case against a single firm for a restraint of trade mandates a showing of market power, which is still complex and hard and which is why small businesses haven't and won't face similar lawsuits if this bill is enacted.

The four sections making up AB 1776 reiterate reiterate the current state of federal law and California law and make one change that promotes fair and free competition. I'm happy to answer any questions the chair and members may have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, chair Kalra and members of the committee. My name is Bianca Blomquist. I'm California director for small business majority representing a network of 85,000 small business owners. Together, small business owners employ roughly half of California's private sector workforce, and small business owners are saying growth is becoming harder, not easier, signaling something in our markets is not working.

The question is not digital tools, large platforms. It's whether they are used to expand opportunity for business owners or as many small business owners in the CLRC record described, used to dictate pricing, control supply chains, limit access, and set the terms of competition. So the question is, do small business owners count as economic analysis? Over the past three years, small business owners took time away from their businesses to participate in the CLRC process. They described how markets actually function for them.

99% of businesses in California are small, and about 80% have just one employee but want to grow. These are micro businesses with little ability to influence prices, supply chains, or the terms of trade. Across the record, a consistent pattern has emerged. Dominant firms are setting the terms of competition for these business owners.

One toy store one toy store owner in Granite Bay, whom I've worked with since 2022, explains that large retailers can sell products at a loss and receive better wholesale pricing, while small businesses must make every sale count.

Some suppliers require such high purchase volumes that small toy stores are priced out of buying directly and must rely on distributors, often paying way more than big box stores charge at retail prices. That means she cannot carry the products customers expect, and those customers go elsewhere. As companies consolidate access declines and products appear in big box stores as at prices small business owners cannot match. That isn't demand disappearing. It's about the terms of the market.

When pricing access and supply are controlled by lar larger firms with greater scale, small business owners are left operating on terms they cannot sustain. This is not competition. It is concentration. AB 1776 ensures dominant firms cannot use their power to shape markets in ways small business owners can't survive. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1776?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Violet Swidler expressing support for the American Economic Liberties Project.

Thank you.

Bettina Cross, small business owner of Crystal Vibez LLC, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Kalra and Members of the committee. My name is Charisse Malebran here on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor in support of 1776. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions proud cosponsor in support.

Thank you.

Tasia Stevens on behalf of UDW, AFSCME Local 3930 representing 255,000 IHSS and family childcare providers in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Lee-Ann Tratten with Tratten Price, and representing Consumer Attorneys of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Shane Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California. Proud to cosponsor the bill. Also, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinist Union, Unite Here, all in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Lege with SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Katie Van Dynes with Health Access California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair and Members. Megan Soopers on behalf of the Writers Guild of America West, a cosponsor, and the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Chair Members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. Proud to be a cosponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association, proud cosponsor in support.

Thank you.

Danny Kando Kaiser on behalf of both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Loyal Terry here on behalf of, a proud cosponsor, Economic Security California Action I'm in the following groups, Center for Responsible Lending, Kapoor Center Advocacy, California Public Banking Alliance, and the following small businesses based in California, Public Council, All Row Window Coverings, Reyna's Business Center and Insurance Services, Association, the Emperandores, Synergy AI, Booksmith and Kepler's Books, Little Red Dog Incorporated, Wit and Whimsy Toys, Solar Connection Incorporated, PCR Business Finance, Firestarter Studios, Solaris Media Group, Worksterves, and Nourishing Jesley. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1776? We're gonna we'll hear from the primary witnesses first before folks don't have to line up quite yet.

Good morning. My name is Eric Enson. I am an antitrust attorney with the law firm of Crowell and Moring. I am here today on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, as well as really an unprecedented coalition of over 80 businesses and nonprofit organizations in respectful but firm opposition to AB 1776. We have three core concerns with the bill.

First, the bill creates unprecedented legal uncertainty. Competition thrives when there are well settled antitrust rules that guide businesses and courts. But AB 1776 upends California's Cartwright Act by prohibiting what are called single firm restraints of trade, which is a standard that no court has ever interpreted, analyzed, or defined. Adding to this uncertainty is the bill's express rejection of federal standards designed to distinguish between lawful and unlawful competition, including rules that help courts evaluate whether low pricing is predatory or simply good aggressive competition.

This is why the CLRC's own single firm conduct working group and the ABA's antitrust section have both warned that the bill gives courts no useful guidance in terms of distinguishing between conduct that promotes competition and conduct that suppresses competition.

And I wanna be as clear as I can on this. Cal Chamber opposes this bill not because it creates stricter standards. Cal Chamber opposes this bill because it creates no standards. Second, AB 1776 exposes every California business to substantial legal liability. Unlike the federal, single-firm conduct law, which only applies to businesses with large market shares, AB 1776 has no thresholds whatsoever.

Meaning that everyday competitive practices like price cutting and loyalty rewards programs, even by small and medium sized businesses, could be recast as unlawful restraints of trade. Finally, there's no economic analysis supporting this bill. There's no study supporting it other than the one that came out yesterday that explained that this bill could lose could cause the loss of $67,000,000,000 in economic activity and put a 180,000 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Nadir Mahmood, and I'm the president of Nkarta, a small clinical-stage biotechnology company based in the Bay Area. We are developing therapies for autoimmune diseases like lupus and particularly lupus nephritis, one of the most severe forms, which disproportionately affects women, especially women of color. I'm here today to respectfully express strong opposition to AB 1776. At Nkarta, our goal is simple. Get new therapies to patients, but developing a single therapy takes years, significant capital, and deep collaboration.

AB 1776 would fundamentally change the rules by introducing legal uncertainty. Today, antitrust law requires real evidence of harm to competition. This bill removes that clarity. For a small biotech like ours, that is existential. Most companies in our industry are small startups built around science, not litigation.

We don't have the balance sheets to withstand years of lawsuits even if they're meritless. So when that risk increases, capital pulls back and innovation slows. Startups like ours are where new medicines begin. If partnerships and acquisitions become legally uncertain, capital will move out of California. And these are the companies creating high quality jobs and driving California's leadership in biotech.

And biotech partnerships and acquisitions are how innovation actually reaches patients. But if those pathways become legal risks, fewer therapies will reach the people who need them. And those patients are not abstract. I think about patients with lupus nephritis, often young women who cycle through existing therapies with limited success, managing chronic pain and risk of organ damage, just waiting for something better. For them, innovation is urgent.

California is the global leader in biotech, but that leadership is not guaranteed. AB 1776 introduces uncertainty. It discourages collaboration and risks slowing the development of life saving therapies. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1776?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kristy Wiese on behalf of the American Investment Council in opposition.

Thank you.

Sam Chung with California Life Sciences in active opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Bridge on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Clint Olivier here on behalf of the Los Angeles Business Federation as well as the Central Valley Business Federation in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, also respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Felipe Fuentes with the Associated General Contractors of California, both chapters.

Thank you.

Jasmine Advincula with Cal Asian Chamber in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kalyn Dean on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Justin Fanslau, on behalf of DaVita in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Patack, Motion Picture Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association and also on behalf of my colleague at Cal Broadband in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Shultz with the California Bankers Association in opposition.

Good morning. Jennifer Hodgkins on behalf of the Connected Commerce Council in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Moira Topp on behalf of both the Orange County Business Council as well as Biocom. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jasmine Vaya on behalf of California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jose Torres with TechNet in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Triffo on behalf of California Grocers in opposition.

Jonathan Arambel behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry in opposition.

Good morning, Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Anthony Sampson on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Chair. Jack Yanos. We got the California Fuels Convenience Alliance and the California Trucking Association respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart, California Attractions and Parks Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of California Business Properties Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Chair and Members. Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr Chair and Members. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Nicole Young, proud daughter and sister of a California farmer in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brooke Whiting on behalf of the Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an important bill, and I've talked with the author. And I think I understand intellectually what they're trying to do, but I'm afraid that it's based on a presumption that small business is disadvantaged at significant levels in California. I mean, I just pull up the mastheads of these letters that, you know, you think of the California Chamber, those are big companies.

I'm looking at Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce, Oceanside, Brea, Chino Valley, Carlsbad, Tri County, High Desert, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, Bakersfield, Torrance.

These are small to medium cities who are filled with small business owners. That is who belong to these chambers of commerce. And so I just Googled chambers of commerce or small business in Amazon in California. And just to get this on the record, in California, over 220,000 small and medium sized businesses and independent, independent authors leverage Amazon grow their businesses. This could be Amazon or Walmart.

I'm just using Amazon as example. Because Amazon Web Services, if I only know because I know people who use it as small business people to access the power of the web where they have grown their businesses phenomenally, exponentially because of Amazon Web Services. These California sellers are part of a broader ecosystem with with recent data indicating more than 82,000 to over 220,000 independent sellers as of 2025 to contributing over 777,000,000 products into the marketplace.

We all know, as the Assemblywoman says that there are communities where they've been shuttered or what have you. But behind other areas, whether it's brick and mortar, our families and small businesses that have grown because of the web services, whether it's Walmart or any other company.

I'm concerned that you say a single company. Well, it's practically written in neon lights going after the Amazons and the Walmart who are providing lower priced goods and web related services to millions of people. These people, you could Google these stories of people who had an idea. The entrepreneurs had a small product idea. They realized that they potentially could have a market, and they were just in a local community, and they get involved with Amazon Web Services.

And before they know it, within a couple years, they're selling to the entire country. This has changed retailing and created a small business cascade of opportunities. So I'm concerned by changing. I'm not a lawyer, so to speak to the Cartwright bill in the context of the federal antitrust law. That's beyond my lane here, but I'm just I'm an advocate for small business.

I see it everywhere in the communities I represent and have represented. And I come out of big business, and I know how important as a manufacturing work for a $10,000,000,000 company, not selling consumer products per se, but to other manufacture other businesses who need business-to-business products. These are the businesses that grow America and thrive in our communities, and create jobs. So it's not just the bad guys that you name here as Amazon comes off everybody's tongue.

But this is the basis of our economic system of small business being given the tools and today now the online tools to grow.

And then they hire people, and then those people have jobs, and then they do it's just the it's the ripple effect tha feel fuels our economy. So I'm concerned that that the federal law should be supreme. I the supremacy clause in the United States that California wants to do its own thing. But why, who's gonna get rich off this? It's not the small business people, believe me.

We know who's behind this, the consumer lawyers, the trial lawyers. They see an opportunity. I see it every day because I deal with small business and the Private Attorney General Act. In a blink of an eye, there's a lawsuit, and there goes her business and the settlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the nonprofit world. That's a whole other subject.

The point is we should be supporting business. We want business to obviously operate ethically and with integrity to grow the market for all, creates jobs, revenues into the state. We keep chasing business out of California. That's why we have a deficit, ladies and gentlemen, is the average paycheck of a worker who doesn't have a company to work for anymore in California because that company has gone to Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Florida. Those are deficits.

That's money not going into our general fund. We have to be careful of the message that California persistently sends the rest of the country, we're not open for business. This is a neon sign. We're not open for business. We're gonna make it tough for big business, and the consumer lawyers will be the ones who benefit.

So I respect why you're doing the bill. I know it's with good intentions. I just respectfully disagree. And I want to see small business thrive, and they're thriving, and to take away all these regulations that prevent them from thriving. Though that's another story with regulations and lawsuits.

Why make it difficult? Let's let them thrive. And the big businesses that hire this that work with the small businesses, that's the economic engine of our growth opportunity. So I'm concerned about this bill, bottom line. So thank you.

If you wanna respond, I welcome your thoughts.

I would like my, attorney, Mr Garcia, to respond.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Iagree that California needs to protect its small businesses. I think that's paramount and fundamental. I think for the last hundred years, the California courts have said that the antitrust laws in California are here to protect and promote fee free and fair competition.

Now, with your example of small businesses relying on Amazon Web Services, what this bill is intended to do is to ensure that the small business can continue to operate once it gets successful before Amazon decides, I'm gonna copy your products.

I'm gonna steer all of, the the consumers you're getting on your website to my store rather than your store, and then decimate that store. I advise small startups all the time on these sorts of issues, and their practical reality is to bring one of these cases, even under AB 1776, costs a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money. This is not, like I said, one of the ADA suits, the Paga suits that you see. Right? There is no strict liability.

The way these antitrust suits work is to even get out of the gate. You have to prove market power. Right? And that usually means economist. It usually means if there's no direct evidence of sustained super competitive pricing, then that means a market definition, market shares.

I have to spend weeks, if not months, going through data with my economist to make sure that the complaint that I'm bringing is valid. Right? And so I don't think we're gonna see a, you know, opening of the floodgates of litigation. I think, you know, this does not change the core multistep analysis that has to be undertaken on our antitrust case.

I know. Just as I said, the opening comments, these small businesses that belong to these local chambers of commerce, they're small business. If they had a problem, they wouldn't be opposed. If they had other if if they had a problem with the laws, they would seek protection. They're part of the organizations of thousands of businesses and small businesses in California that said, leave us alone.

We're doing okay. So I don't disregard or disrespect your evidence. There are always going to be issues that keep lawyers in business. There's no question. There's always an opportunity.

So I appreciate that. But I don't know if this is the best for this time in California when small businesses are being encouraged to leave that this is the right thing to do. So thank you.

Assemblymember Papan.

Well, that was fast. I was hearing Assemblymember Dixon wax on. I didn't expect that I would. Anyway, so a couple things. I've got my my notes from the weekend.

Thanks for taking me back to law school. Assemblymember Curry. Aguiar Curry. Sorry.

So I got a clarification question first. And my colleague Assemblymember Pacheco and I were reviewing these things even as we've been sitting here. Hope you don't mind I reveal that. Wait.

But in any way so let me ask you this. In the the third part of the bill where we have this I call it the laundry list. So for purposes of this discussion, I'm gonna call it the laundry list. I hope we're all on the same page. So my feeling is, first of all, where did that list come from?

Was that from the law review?

That list is similar is very similar to the end draft from the CLRC, single firm single firm conduct working group report.

In the law revision that was part of their little subdivision.

Okay. I got you there. Because I couldn't figure it out. I was like, where did this come from? Alright. So then, as it's worded, and I think I have a decent command of the English language, not to make it about me, but I was confused.

And it says, you may a judge, a court, a may or a jury, take your pick, may find that there's been anti competitive behavior if it finds one of these laundry list of items. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. So my question is, what if you find it, but you don't determine it to be anti-competitive? Is that what you set out to do in this bill? Because I can't figure that part out. And it's not a trick question.

Just I just need clarification.

Completely understand this. So over the past thirty to forty years, there has been mass consolidation that we think in part has been driven by or not really. Some of the experts on the CLRC commission in the single firm working conduct group have determined that some of these decisions have fed into the ability for companies to consolidate and has led to this mass consolidation.

These specific a through I terms are specifically addressed at opinions that antitrust law has created artificial restraints within the law that has made it harder to bring these types of single frame conduct cases. So all this section in my reading is supposed to be doing is allowing California to go back to what its roots of antitrust law were, which is a case by case analysis rooted in the rule of reason.

So these are not telling judges you have to you you don't have to follow this. Right?

No. That that part I got. And the word threshold was used in the staff report numerous times. Meaning, you don't need one of these in order to establish anti competitive conduct. Right?

Correct.

That's your open ended language including but not limited to. Got you there? Correct. Mister Columbia? Okay.

Alright. So I got that part. But but my question to you is when you say a court may consider this, if a court finds it, does that in itself say dead bang, you're guilty of end up a anti competitive conduct?

No. Because in an antitrust case, you have to look at all of the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Right? So you have a multi-prong analysis that the court should undertake to determine whether a multitude of factors are evidence of anti-competitive effect and behavior.

So we have this laundry list to be what then? I guess

To to basically reiterate to to California judges that these are not requirements. What has happened in the evolution of the past thirty years, in some of these decisions, so in since Trinko, Brooks Group, Aspen Skiing, is that one court will say, looking at these facts, we believe this to be persuasive of to show anti combative conduct. Then the next case comes out and says, well, this is now a requirement for these types of cases.

But that should not be the case. It should be a case by case analysis, which is deeply rooted in California and federal antitrust law.

What takes you over there? Because my staff keeps saying, well, this might be just an evidentiary question. So what takes you over the threshold? I think that's judge says, I really don't like in the biotech world that you, you know, somehow did something that and cut out everybody else who's in that space who thinks they can treat that same disease. Let's just use them as an example.

So is this just an evidentiary bill?

Well, I think it's a burden of proof issue in terms of, you know, what you need to show and what is not required to be showed and then what you can show. So, again, you have to look at a holistic approach as to what this fact pattern in front of me is. And then, again, to undertake the rule of reason analysis, which is not being changed by this bill to determine a balancing of pro competitive justifications on versus anti competitive effects. Right?

And then you do that balancing act, and the judge will determine the answer.

So judge could find one of your laundry list items exist, but it is not sufficient to be

It's not enough to take you over the edge in the balancing act. It might not be enough to to say this is anti competitive. Yes. I think thats completely correct.

So are we focusing on the laundry list, are we focusing on the conduct, or are we focusing on the anti-competitive nature of the conduct?

It is both in the same. I think you're you're focused on both the conduct and the effect of that conduct.

We would have to. Would we not? Yeah. Because you can be have this conduct all day long, but if the impact in the marketplace is that it wasn't really anti competitive to anybody. Because, you know, we have these lofty statements in our report from the Supreme Court that says