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?

Appreciate it. Assemble Lowenthal, thank you for your patience. Move the bill. And this is item eight, AB1803. Is that what we're starting with?

Boy, Mister Chair, nothing like a back breaking hearing to, make sure my bill moves pretty quickly. Thank you, Chair Kalra, Members, for your time today. I'm so pleased to pronounce AB1803, which is part of a broader legislative package developed in partnership with Select Committee on Racism, Hate, and Xenophobia, chaired by Assemblymember Corey Jackson. AB1803 requires all California businesses with five or more employees to include anti hate speech training as a component of their existing workplace harassment prevention training.

This bill does not add additional training hours.

It just ensures that hate speech is addressed so workers understand how to identify and report hate speech when they encounter it. California law already requires employers to train workers on sexual harassment, abusive contact, and harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. However, it contains no requirement to address hate speech targeting race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, among the most commonly reported forms of workplace hostility. Hate speech is not just offensive language. It can be a precursor to violence.

When hate speech goes unchallenged, it normalizes hostility and emboldens escalation. Reported hate crimes in California rose by nearly a 160% over the last decade, and no community has been spared. As a Jewish American, I wanna speak to the rise of antisemitism. California now ranks second in the nation for anti Semitic incidents with 1,344 recorded just in 2024 alone. In Los Angeles, anti Jewish hate crimes accounted for 80 excuse me.

80% of all religious hate crimes. Excuse me, Mister Chair, and 19% of all hate crimes committed in schools. But the crisis extends far beyond any one community. Between 2019 and 2022, hate crimes against black Californians nearly tripled, hate crimes against Latinos nearly doubled, and hate crimes against Asians more than tripled. California's civil rights department estimates that 2,600,000 Californians experienced at least one act of hate between 2022 and 2023.

These are not abstract numbers. They reflect real people in real workplaces who deserve better. Employers employers already undergo harassment prevention training. We're simply asking them to ensure it covers the full scope of what workers are actually experiencing. When employees can recognize hate speech, they can understand their rights, and they can feel empowered to report it.

Hate loses the silent tolerance it depends on to persist. Lastly, I want to address concerns that have been raised about the first amendment. This bill does not target speech itself. It addresses conduct that creates a hostile work environment. The courts have long recognized that speech delivered in the workplace can rise to the level of harassment or intimidation when it is severe or pervasive enough to interfere with employees' ability to do their job.

Training employees to recognize that distinction is not a restriction on free expression. It's acknowledgment that workplace conduct must be appropriate and that workers deserve protection from a hostile environment. Every worker deserves to come to work without fear of being targeted for who they are. The workplace should be a space where people can attribute and thrive, not one where they have to absorb hatred in silence. This bill gives employers and employees the tools and knowledge to make that a reality.

Very pleased, Mister Chair, to be joined by Connie Tan from Stop AAPI Hate who's here to test fines.

Do you accept the committee amendments?

Yes, Mister Chair. And thank you for all the work by the committee. I do accept the committee amendments.

And we do have a motion. Is there a second on this? So at least we can get that on the record. And there's a second. Thank you.

Yes, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Kalra and Members of the Committee. My name is Doctor Connie Tan, and I'm a research manager at Stop AAPI Hate. Stop AAPI Hate offers the largest community reporting center for anti Asian, anti Pacific Islander hate acts. This bill is a critical step in reducing harassment in the workplace.

Bias motivated hate acts are a major problem in California. Based on the latest UCLA California health interview survey, researchers estimate that over three million Californians ages 12 and older experienced a hate act in 2024. Among them, eighty three percent encounter verbal abuse or insults, fifty five percent were targeted for their race, and twenty percent experienced hate in their workplace. And so this data is just a tip of the iceberg, as it requires Californians to be able to identify what they experience as hate.

In our Stop AAPI Hate annual survey, which asked about experience of hate in more detail, we found that forty six percent of AAPI adults in California or about 2,800,000 AAPI adults experienced a race based hate act in 2025.

Among them, thirty seven percent experienced hateful or derogatory words spoken directly to them, and sixty two percent experienced hateful or derogatory messages in their environment. And here's just one example that was shared with us. We have an AAPI comedy event coming up to support the community. One of my coworkers went up to our only Asian coworker in the department and said the event was of his people and used her fingers to pull her eyes back to make slanted eyes.

The targeted coworker brought this up in our team meeting and the rest of the team just laughed, and our head boss decided to ignore the comment with no action taken.

And this happened in Los Angeles. Hate acts like these have adverse impacts. We found that forty percent of California AAPI adults who experience hate reported negative impacts on their health. So training on harassment could prevent hate acts in the workplaces and more broadly in our communities. Thank you.

Thank you. And before I call, I I have to run to present a bill. I'm gonna hand this over to our experienced assembly member, Zamora Dixon. But is there anyone else in support of ABH in o three?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Craig Polberg on behalf of Equality California in support.

Shane Gusman, on behalf of the the Engineers and Scientists of California, in support.

Elizabeth Kristen, on behalf of the California Women's Law Center, in support.

Any more in opposition? Actually, in support, should we move to wait. Opposition. If you are you the primary witness in opposition? Come forward, please.

Please proceed, whichever is first, yeah.

Good morning, members. My name is Sophia Lorey and I'm with California Family Council in opposition to AB 1803, which adds an anti hate speech training to California's already mandated workplace harassment training. The core problem is simple. You cannot regulate what you cannot define. Hate speech has no settled legal definition and the Supreme Court has made clear it is not a First Amendment exception.

Yet this bill requires California employers to train employees on a concept the law itself does not define. That means employers will be forced to rely on shifting cultural and political standards to determines what qualifies as hate and we already know how that plays out. I've experienced it firsthand. I've been personally compared to a Nazi called hateful, transphobic, and harmful by sitting members of this legislature simply for expressing common sense views in my religious beliefs. I was an invited speaker at a library event in Davis.

I was removed at and the event was shut down by the librarian after I said boys should not compete in girls' sports. A viewpoint, I was told was illegal misgendering. I filed a First Amendment lawsuit, and the county attorney immediately backed it down. Also, at a recent press conference on the issue protecting girls' sports in Long Beach, high school female athletes spoke about their discomfort sharing locker rooms and sports with males.

I personally invited assembly member Lowenthal, who showed up to come speak alongside them, if he was ready to protect them.

Instead, those girls reported that he flipped off the press conference. Now maybe the anger was directed at the legislators present and not the high school girls but how is the author of an anti hate bill promoting civility when he could not even exercise the self control to refrain from that kind of conduct in front of high school girls? So I have to ask, under this bill, who decides what is hate? When my speech, those girls' concerns, and common sense beliefs be labeled hate.

This bill doesn't stop hate.

It decides who gets labeled as hateful. This is not neutral training, this is compelled ideology. We respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1803. Thank you.

Ma'am, would you please refrain from speaking directly about a person?

Yes.

And any disparaging comment. Thank you very much, just keep it respectful.

Ma'am, did you want to speak next?

Yes. Good morning, members. My name is Courtney Corbello and I am counsel with the Center for American Liberty, a public interest legal organization that fights to protect free speech, parental rights and the free exercise of religion. We respectfully oppose AB 1803 unless it's amended to remove the requirement for anti-hate speech training. The problem begins with vagueness.

The bill does not define anti hate speech and neither the statute nor the bill's author provides any meaningful standard for what that term includes. That leaves employers and employees guessing about what they are required to teach, say, or endorse, which is exactly the kind of uncertainty that invites arbitrary enforcement and chills protected speech. Second, hate speech is not unprotected speech under the first amendment. Offensive speech is still protected.

So when the state requires mandatory anti hate speech training without defining the term, it risks sweeping in a wide range of constitutionally protected expression on contested political, moral, and religious issues.

Third, this bill risks compelling speech, because the training is mandatory, employees may reasonably believe that they must affirm the state's preferred views in order to comply. That is especially concerning where individuals may be pressured to adopt and profess particular views on sex and gender identity, including, for example, being told that they must agree that so called misgendering is hate speech or harassment in every instance. The government may prohibit unlawful conduct, but it may not force Californians to mouth ideological orthodoxy.

Mandate would burden free exercise by forcing them to affirm views that conflict with their sincerely held beliefs.

California already prohibits unlawful harassment and already requires harassment and anti discrimination training in accordance with state and federal law. This bill does not add clarity. It adds constitutional risk. We urge the committee to strike proposed section 12950.1A4. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other witnesses in the room in opposition? Come to the microphone.

Good good morning. David Bolog, SFP Alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sarah Kim from traditional values for next generations in opposition to 1803. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Leila. I'm a detransitioner with Women Are Real, and I'm in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, free citizen, American, in opposition.

Thank you.

Beverly Talbott from San Francisco for the LGB Courage Coalition. Hate speech has no foundation in American law. Existing law already covers harassment and discrimination.

Thank you.

This bill is a clear violation of the criminal justice system.

Thank you

Just name and position, please.

Romy Mancini. I'm a San Francisco resident, a current member of Women Are Real and a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in opposition.

Thank you.

Meg Madden representing CAUSE Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law in opposition.

Thank you.

Jenny McGrane, San Francisco resident, in opposition.

Thank you.

Arianne Garinger from LGB, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance USA, in opposition. Thank you.

Sunil Wijeyesekera our Bay Area leader for FAIR, a nationwide civil rights organization concerned about the vagueness of this bill, in opposition.

Thank you.

Amanda Covetana with Women Are Real, Women's Liberation Front, and lesbians advocating for a resilient future in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Cronin, Democrat from San Francisco, thirty five year member of California Teachers Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Nicole Young, Moms for Liberty, in opposition.

Thank you.

Barbara Walker with Women Are Real from Alameda, California in opposition.

Thank you.

Cynthia Cravens, member of Women Are Real, a group called hateful by my own politician District 11. Not cool.

Thank you.

I will bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? With that, mister Lonta, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you members, I just want to point out for the second time.

Madam chair.

Thank you.

For the second time, in as many hearings on this bill, the opposition has chosen to make this about me. And when their concerns are actually about making sure that hate speech covers the areas that they feel hate towards them. And instead of having a conversation about that, which they are always invited to do, everyone has a seat at the table. They've chosen instead to denigrate the author, which I resent. I wish that the chair would take care of that and stop it when it was happening.

Respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Madam secretary, call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave that bill on call. We have idle file item 142076. Whenever you are ready, mister Lundahl.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for their thoughtful work. AB2076 does two things. It does two things. It adds nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification for online purchase under California's Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act, and it strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for large sellers, sellers who fail to comply.

Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas or whip it, is increasingly ending up in the hands of young people. What was once primarily a medical and culinary product can now be ordered online by a teenager with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card. It is cheap. It is easy to find. It is being delivered straight to doorsteps with little to no barrier.

And the health consequences are severe. Regular recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin b twelve deficiency, and severe cases paralysis or death. It is so evidently dangerous that even the high is commonly described as killing brain cells. California already has a framework in place to keep dangerous products out of children's hands, but we know it isn't working.

Just this past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are actually complying with the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act.

The findings were alarming. Researchers were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification. In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a made up birthday to buy a BB gun, and the order went through anyway. That BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard. No adult signature, no ID checked, just dropped and left.

That is the system that exists today. And nitrous oxide, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any store doorstep, fits squarely into that gap. AB2076 also prohibits online sellers from accepting gift cards for the narrowest subset of age restricted items, like BB guns, hunting knives, tobacco, and nitrous oxide. This is a targeted measure. It's not a broad restriction.

Gift cards are one of the biggest problems when it comes to children evading age verification online. A gift card can be bought with an allowance at any convenience store with no name attached to the transaction. Credit and debit cards, by contrast, have a name attached and can better identify the purchaser of these products. Until we have demonstrated proof of age that age verification cannot be evaded through gift cards, it is simply too dangerous to allow these particular items to be bought by gift card.

By closing the gift card loophole alone is not enough if the penalties for violations remain too low to compel compliance.

Current penalty of $7,500 per violation is just not a meaningful deterrent for large scale sellers. And frankly, it is not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either. Whether the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery, enforcement becomes impractical. AB2076 addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way. To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties only apply to sellers with more than 25,000,000 in annual gross revenues.

For those large sellers, courts will have discretion to impose penalties up to 250,000 per violation when necessary to deter future violations. The punishment should fit the scale of the violator, and AB2076 gives courts the tools to make that happen. No parent should have to worry that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easily as ordering a book. AB2076 closes that gap and gives the parents accountability and child protection act the enforcement power it is always needed.

Thank you. Each witness has two minutes.

You're pleased to present

please go ahead. Go right ahead.

Before they begin, are you be going to be taking the committee amendments, Mister Smith?

Absolutely taking the Committee amendments. Thank you, and thank you to the Committee for their hard work on this matter.

Thank you. Each witness has two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is James Fontaine. I'm the chief of the major narcotics division at the San Diego County

District Attorney's Office and a Attorney's Office and a twenty-six year prosecutor. Our district attorney, Summer Stephan, is a proud cosponsor of Assembly Bill 2076. With my time, what I wanna do is discuss some of the harms that we've been seeing in San Diego County that is directly tied to nitrous oxide, and it's undoubtedly happening throughout the rest of the state.

And as you just heard, those harms include hypoxic brain injury, degeneration of the spine, nerve damage, incontinence, you know, those rare cases, paralysis, and even death. Information that we've received from our public health partners in San Diego County show that just in the last two years alone, emergency department visits tied to nitrous oxide misuse increased by four hundred percent.

Those involving spinal cord injuries tripled. So just just last week, I was talking with one of our partners who has a team that provides drug prevention education in to ours in the schools. And she was in an elementary school in Northern California, and a fifth grader was openly discussing nausea and, with its terms that are associated with inhaling nitrous oxide. And those harms are not limited to the direct users.

I did, an examination of every single adult case that came through my office between 2015 and 2025 where nitrous oxide was either charged or was meaningfully involved.

And we had one hundred and eighteen cases. Seventy four of those cases happened just in 2025 alone. That's sixty three percent of our cases just last year. Vehicles were involved in over seventy percent of the cases we prosecuted. The just the

cases, they range from a father losing consciousness, crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children ages two and four and fleeing the scene, to a young man losing control of his car refusing request repeated request to stop inhaling nitrous oxide and ending the life of his 17 year old passenger and sending several others to the hospital, to a crash on a local freeway, freeway that would take the life of the 19 year old driver and the 25 year old, police officer who responded to the scene.

So real events, significant, sometimes fatal consequences, and AB2076 seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes by adding nitrous oxide to the list of those products for which reasonable age verification procedures must exist, and civil fines will be imposed for those found in non in not in violation. So we respectfully urge your aye vote on Assembly Bill 2076. Thank you.

Thank you. We have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Ed Howard, senior counsel at the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. Pleased to co-sponsor this measure. Really, just one thing occurred to me. I had the I have the good fortune of having my daughter here in the capital, with me today, and it reminded me as, I stepped up to this table about how hard it is to be a parent, in the digital age.

And it is one thing to think about this bill as one regrettably necessitated by companies simply and flagrantly not obeying current law. But it occurred to me that it is also a bill aimed at helping every parent out there. It is enormously challenging for parents to be able to make sure that their kids are safe and to raise them according to their own values of and to the needs of each individual kid.

And when you can't walk into a brick and mortar store and easily buy such inherently dangerous items like BB guns and hunting knives and e-tobacco products, but it's effortless to do that online. It makes it really, really hard to be a parent.

And so on behalf of California's parents, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Christopher Sanchez with the Consumer Federation of California. Proud to be a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you.

Mary Creasy on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Nora Angeles with Children Now in support. Thank you.

As a parent whose child has actually purchased some nefarious products off Amazon, I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Karen Lang on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Julian Avaros on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you. Do we have oh.

[Unintelligible], I guess, the Fee Alliance in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody here in opposition? Oh, we're sorry.

Sabina Tacker with the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

Thank you. Now do we have opposition? I was very excited for this opposition. Sorry. You have two minutes whenever you're ready. Sorry.

Good morning, Chair Members. Jose Torres with TechNet. We appreciate the work from this committee and that of the author on this bill. As noted in the in the committee analysis, the bill had been amended to address many of the initial concerns we had flagged, and we are continuing to have the discussion with the author to ensure that this is workable. But we, again, looking forward to continue with that work to address the remaining outstanding concerns, but we're almost there.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room in opposition?

Good morning. Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association. Very much appreciate the work of the author, but remain opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce. Similarly, appreciate the work and echo the concerns raised by my colleague, mister Torres, and not concerned about the Whippets piece.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. [Unintelligible] on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We too appreciate the work of the author and would echo the comments made by TechNet. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Ryan O'Lane with the California Retailers Association. Dittoed everything said, said the line of comments with the TechNet. Thank you.

Thank you. I will bring it back to the dais.

I'll I'll move the bill.

K. We have a motion by Miss Papan, Miss and a second by Miss Sanchez, Miss Dixon.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a really important bill. And I'm sorry when I was sharing that there that let that slip in. I didn't catch it quickly enough.

I apologize. Why just cards? I mean, why is this the untouched control area or enforcement area? Why just the cards?

It it's not just the cards. It's it's for underage completely. Cards is an area that needs to be tightened, unfortunately, for all ages because there's no way of knowing what the age is of a person who's using the cards. So regrettably, this does impact somebody who's of age, who would be using a card as well.

But there's out of protection, out of abundance of caution, and out of the damage that you heard the witnesses speaking of that's happening in real time, we need to take care of children.

No. I I it's undisputed. Back to your witness's statement about the rise in the number of growing instances of this. Was this related to the purchase of nitrous oxide with cards or just generally in the in the environment, the what's going on in the world?

There was a my understanding is there was a study that was done and maybe the other witness can answer that more directly in in terms of the how these items were in fact purchased.

I bet.

Basically, are they is this the ponderance of victims to this use of nitrous oxide? Is it because they purchased it with online with cards? That's what I'm getting to.

Yes. I believe that's right. If I I'll have to go back and check that study because I have a little bit of confusion in my head about what was purchased with gift cards and what wasn't. What I can underscore is the assembly member's point that the origin story of this bill was a child who bought a a BB gun without the legally required cap with a gift card, and there's no way to check the

Madam, Madam Chair, if you would indulge, one of the people who spoke in favor of the bill has a personal story that addresses your question. Would it be okay for her to respond?

If that's okay with the Chair.

Yeah. Okay.

I unfortunately had the terrible situation where my daughter, who's now 16, she was 14 at the time, approached me and first apologized and then handed over a box of hemp cigarettes that she had purchased off Amazon. And so the immediate question is why was my 14 year old buying cigarettes, and that's a whole we can go down another day.

I asked her they were sold as an alternative to cigarettes, but she noticed on the side of the box that it had THC and CBD limits in it. And from my decade of cannabis policy, she knew well enough to bring it to me and, and and give up the product. She didn't know what she was buying.

My second question was how she actually obtained that. And she told me she went to our local grocery store and using Apple Pay purchased a gift card and said that that is how kids are now procuring certain things like tattoo guns, hemp cigarettes, and various other items, and they're doing it using gift cards.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. That was a different product. So I'm just trying to hone in on the nitrous oxide and the use of gift cards and how prevalent that is.

And because of BB guns and all that, I think that's valid. I just wondered how how has it risen to this level that we need a law specifically to prevent gift cards on nitrous oxide?

When we're hearing from the medical and pediatric community that there is a spike that's going on and when we know from on online real retailers that they have no mechanism to understand the ages of those that are doing it. And we hear anecdotal stories from parents, including in our capital community, that it is happening on a rapid scale. We need to tighten those rules.

Well, I I I am all in favor, frankly, of tightening. It's just I don't know how effective it's going to be. Are there hundreds of thousands of purchases of this item online with a gift card?

Let's hope not. I mean, there are so many other things that are bad that we when when this spoke about it, it's or you spoke about how difficult it is to raise children. Unfortunately, I'm not raising a child in this area, but I'm my daughter's raising her children. It is I totally understand that point. I just it like, we're going right into this specific little area when there's so many other issues of how to control this item in in the consumer marketplace.

Madam Chair, you know, I'm I made a career on digital business, and I certainly understand the allure of having less restrictions around this. But let's evaluate for a brief moment who is the pool of people that would suffer from this being enacted. We're talking about adults who would want to anonymously purchase whippets on their own because fakes could certainly use a credit card. They could use any other mechanism to purchase that.

So I absolutely see this as a common sense way to make sure that young people are not harmed, because we all know that they don't have physiologically the brain development to assess consequences in doing this.

It's our obligation to try and tighten that up, to listen to the scientific pediatric legal experts in this space. This is not gonna create a major difficulty or hardship for the online platforms. As we heard from them today, they're very interested in continuing to work with this office and making sure that we fine tune this so we get legislation that everybody is happy with, and we're on that road right now.

Okay. Alright. And and adults would be sub this is simply online use of a gift card.

That's correct. For those Mister, Mister Howard can, can

For an extraordinarily small subset of items. Okay. These are the items most inherently dangerous to children, including the whippets, also including weapons and TV guns, hunting knives

So then the online community would just deny the use with a gift card. Is that how it works?

Online for an online retailer, they could you could not use a gift card to purchase those currently in

I think it's a good concept. I just, again, was curious as to how significant a problem it is. I could think of other things that probably should be banned with a gift card as well. But first things first. Okay.

Thank you. Happy to work on those with you. A silly number.

Thank you.

Well, it sounds like the authors do further work with the opposition. Oh, sorry. This is my check second time seeing the bill. So I think you're almost there. So I'm looking forward to you fixing it so I can support it on the floor, but opposition continue to work with the author.

And with that, mister Lowenthal, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Will you call the roll?

Motion is do passes amended to appropriations. [Unintelligible]

We will leave that bill on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Wallace. With this as Bill 2190.

Well, good morning Madam Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today Assembly Bill 2190, which takes an important step towards improving website accessibility in California. Wanna say thank you to the committee staff for their work and analysis. We are accepting the committee amendments. The challenge before us is clear.

Today, approximately 96% of major websites still contain accessibility barriers. That means nearly one in four California adults living with disabilities can face real obstacles when trying to access essential online services like banking, health care, and employment opportunities. AB2190 offers a thoughtful and balanced path forward. It establishes clear accessibility standards based on widely recognized WCAG guidelines, encourages businesses to take proactive steps to address barriers, and provides protection for these those acting in good faith.

At the same time, it ensures accountability for technology providers and aims to reduce unnecessary and costly litigation.

We've engaged with stakeholders across the business and technology sectors, as well as the disability rights community, and we remain committed to continuing that dialogue to address concerns and strengthen this bill. This is a practical and long overdue framework. It reflects California's long standing leadership in advancing disability rights while supporting responsible businesses and ensuring broader access in an increasingly digital world.

Here with me to testify in support are Evan Fearn, public policy advocate for Disability Rights California, and Tim Elder, elected president of the National Federation of the Blind California.

Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Evan Fearn, public policy advocate with Disability Rights California in support of AB2190. The majority of disability civil rights legislation was enacted well before web access became ubiquitous.

Consequently, digital environments were largely overlooked. Now the digital environment is a cornerstone of daily life. The digital environment now has legal, regulatory, and model standards to lean upon. However, the majority of digital platforms continue to lag behind in compliance. This lag has significant consequences for people with disabilities, such as those who are blind, have dexterity impairments, learning intellectual or developmental disabilities, and any who use assistive technology.

Millions of disabled individuals are excluded from essential online activities like banking, accessing benefits, health care, jobs, applying for housing, and commerce. Fortunately, California has pioneered civil rights laws such as the 1959 UNRWA Civil Act UNRWA act that inspired the ADA. AB2190 extends that legacy to the digital age. AB2190 balances both business and disability community needs, encouraging proactive accessibility rather than reactive litigation.

Current law is often under enforced, and when it is enforced at scale, it can result in only monetary settlements without requiring a fix to the website's design.

The bill preserves federal and state law while streamlining the enforcement process and addressing the root cause of an access barrier. This bill creates feasible mechanisms to improve the digital environment, an indispensable tool for people with disabilities. DRC supports accessibility mitigation efforts, such as, one, preventative substantive website change, and two, funding opportunities for small businesses to engage in barrier removal. I respectfully request your eye vote on AB 2190. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Greetings to the Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Tim Elder. I'm the elected president of the National Federation of the Blind of California. I'm here to speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of blinds, low vision, and deaf blind Californians.

I'm also a civil rights litigator and have some familiarity with these issues in practice in the courtroom. I wanna thank, Samuel Nerva Wallace for his leadership on this, important issue of digital access. My community vigorously supports AB2190. It's a reasonable strategy to help modernize California's civil rights protections while still offering a carrot to businesses that truly want to comply and increase their customer base. Now I appreciate that some of the the business community do, in fact, support this bill.

I also appreciate that some in the business community have some concerns. I'd like to highlight three, points to address some of their concerns. First point, section 58.2 a. It provides an affirmative defense for businesses that post a DAR while remediation work is in progress. This model came from the CASP inspection, context and physical construction, access issues.

The intent of this defense is to protect businesses that voluntarily find and begin remediating work. It was, intended to give a shield during this period. Because it applies to a a period of time in which damages could lie while that remediation work is is undergoing, it's it's not circular, but in fact has a discrete period of time where damages remedies could lie but will be, protected through an affirmative defense.

The second point, the affirmative defense in 50 in 58.2B gives businesses a list of best practices for scaling accessibility across their enterprise. And if followed, these practices, will, provide a a affirmative defense as well.

These are not unduly burdensome practices. They're best practices in the industry. They scale depending on the level of compliance of the business. And the third point, I just wanna say, in in 58.2 sorry. 58.3, the provision providing liability for Internet resource providers, that applies only to, quote, if the resource or part of the Internet website is within the control of the resource service provider to remediate.

So, resource provider is not going to be, on the hook for things that they are not in the control. So Aye, am happy to take questions. I was very involved in the technical drafting of this bill along with some of the attorneys at Disability Rights California. But I think this is a great sensible solution, in the spirit of the ADA and the bipartisan compromise that it reflects between the business community and the disability community. And, again, the disability community, we're here to listen.

And if there are, further amendments that would help the business community, make this more workable, we're open to that ongoing discussion.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support? AB2190?

My name is Regina Brink, and on behalf of our 23 statewide chapters of the California Council of the Blind, we are in very strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Mike Paciello, chief accessibility officer for AudioEye. We stand in strong support of AB 2190. Thank you.

Sorry for the slowness.

Alright. Anyone yeah. Anyone here in opposition AB 2190? Yeah.

Myself. No.

Good, still morning, I think. Mister chair and members, Robert Moutre, California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to AB 2190. First, I wanna thank the author and the staff and mister Elder, for the engagement. We've had calls on this, and thank committee for the analysis on the topic, and adding some clarity with Bill's timelines.

No. You have to yeah. Yeah. I'll give you need extra time to get up here.

Our concerns with the bill are similar to a prior iteration, but our concerns are in the details of the bill, not in the concepts. Generally, as noted, I think reflected in the analysis in our letters, we see kind of two core things the bill does. Somewhat as summer summarized, it makes it easier to sue certain businesses, notably resource service providers.

It also creates a presumption of intentional discrimination that is new to law and was not in the prior version that is very concerning to us if you do not fix a reported issue more quickly enough. And the second thing that bill does, which we are very focused on, is it attempts to create affirmative defenses for the good actors.

Mister Elder summarized these to a degree. Our without getting into the details of these, you know, to save the committee's time and because we are in touch with the author, we don't see these affirmative defenses as presently workable. I will briefly touch on the DIR example. This came up in the prior iteration of the bill.

But if we spoke to many businesses who said if we list a concern over accessibility in a DIR and then protection expires and we have not fixed this fast enough, we have essentially flagged items to be sued on if we miss that deadline.

So, obviously, that's a concern for them, not because they don't wanna fix these, but because if the deadline does not allow them to get through fixing it in time, they've effectively made an admission. So we hope to fix functional issues like that, working with the sponsor or excuse me, not sponsor. Mister Helder and the and the author's office, aware it's not the author's intent to increase liability that way, but that's where our concerns are. Thank you.

And I don't think it's lost any of us to give a little bit more time to access the desk. Thank you. Yeah. This morning. Good.

Oh, yeah. I'll share the microphone. Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair and members, and thank you for the author and stakeholders for this discussion. Annalie Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are also in an opposed unless amended position. CJAC's mission is to advocate for policies that create a fair civil justice system for all parties in the process, and we do also note the alarming trend in shakedown lawsuits regarding website accessibility and the exploitation of the very laudable objectives of the ADA.

That being said, any efforts to mitigate this issue is very much appreciated in concept, but we do have remaining concerns with the language, and I will echo all of the points raised by my colleague.

Just particularly concerned with the feasibility of the compliance pathways listed and the timeline, for with a forty eight hour response requirement and five day review timeline. That being said, we are very much committed to continued conversations with the author and stakeholders and thank them for their, fellow commitment to do that and work on the bill so far. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2190?

Hi. Ryan Lane with the California Retailers Association associate the identify the comments with the opposition and opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments, or motions? Assembly member Dixon. Sure.

Is there a second?

Second. Okay.

I think the bill is clearly laudable. But just listening to the hope for amendments, I we all know the experience of some public right

of action lawsuits, especially in the disability space. I hear this heard these stories for years with small business, especially. So I hope this is not an invitation to finding fault and curing that problem in a short period of time. I'll let you folks work on it.

But I would also encourage the author, to look at ways how we can incentivize business to really understand the needs of the disabled community and how to make these tools work better for them so they can be fully engaged in life on on, in online world.

And I know a number of people who've been limited by that because of their functional disability. So maybe this is an opportunity to find a way to incentivize and not sue, just to say, okay. We can make it better. How can we make it better so people feel or believe or can function without any hesitation?

So it's a I I think it's a great beginning and a framework, but I hope we can inspire innovation and how disabled people can function better instead of finding fault with businesses that are trying or entities that are trying, incentivize them to find ways to make it better.

So thank you. I look forward to supporting the bill.

Appreciate your comments. Thank you, Selbu.

Any other questions or comments? I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's a very important piece of legislation. Internet website accessibility is as important now as any other kind of physical accessibility in terms of the structure and what have you. And I do think legislation like this will spur innovation.

There's already a number of companies that work in this space, and I think that the innovations are just gonna make it more and more accessible as the years go on. And when it and and the thing about, you know, the we talk about disability community. The reality is that could be any one of us any given day at any given moment. And so we're not just doing this for a particular community.

We're doing this really for all of us and our family members that but for the grace of of God, you know, it could be any of us that might need access in different ways on different days.

And so for that, I'm I'm grateful. Would you like to close?

I just thank you, mister chair. Appreciate you and, the committee's work on this bill and in this space and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Motion is do passes amended to privacy and consumer protection committee. Kalra.

Calra, Aye.

Aye.

Macedo, Aye. Lee. Ryan.

Macedo?

Aye.

Dixon, Aye. Harabedian.

Connolly. Dixon?

Aye.

Aye.

Pacheco, Aye. Pappen?

Aye.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sanchez, Aye. Stephanie Ziburr.

Pappen, Aye. Sanchez?

Alright. We'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

What would you like to do?

Assembly member Pacheco. Alright. So you are you we starting with AB 1957? That's Alright.

Whenever you're ready.

Perfect.

Good morning, mister chair and members. I am here to present assembly bill 1957, which addresses a loophole that has undermined the competitive bidding process of foreclosure sales, which has allowed bad actors to suppress the sales price of foreclosed homes, effectively depriving homeowners of equity that should belong to them. AB 1957 revises the eligible bidder and eligible property provisions of in civil code section twenty nine twenty four m and provides foreclosure bidders with comp compensation for lost inner interest on their bids.

In 2020, the legislature passed s p ten seventy nine to create alternative pathways to homeownership through the foreclosure process and prevent corporations from swallowing up foreclosed properties. The law created a forty five day post auction period allowing qualified entities such as nonprofits or prospective tenants to match the highest bid and purchase the property to provide housing rather than to flip flip it for profit.

However, fraudulent claimants have exploited that provision by falsely claiming eligibility or using straw buyers to bypass the competitive auction process. Instead of participating in the public auction, they wait until it closes and use the SB 1079 provision to outbid the winning bidder by as little as 1¢. This manipulation suppresses the final sales price and deprives former homeowners of thousands of dollars in earned equity.

AB 1957 will restore integrity to the foreclosure process and ensure that homeowners receive the full value of their equity by clarifying who qualifies as an eligible bidder. AB 1957 prevents bad actors from using the provisions of California law to cheat the foreclosure sale process.

I am also committed to working with the opposition to address all of their concerns and look forward to discussing amends. Here with me today to testify is Mike Belote on behalf of the United Trustees Association. He is also here to answer any technical questions, and I will hand it over to him.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members. Mike Belote on behalf of the United Trustees Association. We are the professionals who conduct nonjudicial foreclosures in strict compliance with the civil court. Five years ago, the legislature enacted SB 1079, a well intentioned effort to try and broaden homeownership by to tenants and prospective owner occupants and others.

Sham non profits in order to take away the to hinder the foreclosure process. Two bad things. One, we should never be facilitating foreclosure. But second, this is disincentivizing bidding at foreclosure sales, which is by definition bad. We want high bids at the public, transparent on the courthouse steps foreclosures because that's what gives homeowners losing their homes equity back.

So this bill is substantially identical to one passed on consent last year in this committee, but I'll say this. We have now received opposition from legitimate consumer or com community groups, and I am I am pledging along with miss Pacheco to work with Brian Augusta, Danny Kondo Kaiser, Robert Harrell, and others, and with the California Association of Realtors who have asked us to look more closely at the prospective owner occupant category. But no one should be facilitating fraud and disincentivizing bidding at the foreclosure sales.

And I'm happy to answer any questions but would ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1957? Is anyone here in opposition to AB 1957?

Good morning, chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, one of several organizations that the author and sponsor have referenced, bringing some concerns from our perspective about the current bill. This is a coalition that includes a number of folks who helped to craft SB 1079 and have been working diligently to put together the tools to fully implement it, which includes, replacing the financing that was lost when the FIT program was zeroed out several years ago in the budget.

And I've worked with, a coalition of, both banks, CDFIs, and philanthropy to put together a funding source that can help facilitate these, transfers to maintain housing and community ownership. And the linchpin of that is making sure that we don't go too far as we root out fraud in constraining truly mission driven nonprofits from getting access to this.

We've had fruitful conversations so far with, the author and sponsor, and we look for those to continue. We also hope that in resolving those issues, we too wanna root out fraud. We want these projects, these deals to hand land in the hands of mission driven organizations and not those who we're trying to root out of the process.

So we will be partners on that with the author as well, and we are appreciative of our commitment to work with us, and we look forward to doing so as it moves. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1957?

Good after good morning, mister chairman members. Christopher Saenz is with the Consumer Federation of California in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Hello. Danny Kando. Kaiser, aligning my comments with, my colleague Brian Augusta here in respectful opposed unless amended. Thanking the author and, supporters for working with us. Here on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and also the California Community Land Trust Network.

Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill, but we're very pleased to hear the commitment today from mister Bloat and the assembly member to continue to work with us on our concerns regarding the owner occupant provisions in the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee for any questions or comments.

Do you have the bill?

We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. And I wanna thank the author and sponsor as well as the opposition. It sounds like, you know, the intention is not to capture some of those concerns from opposition.

So I'm confident given the commitments made today from both the author sponsor and opposition that there'll be a positive resolution. I wanna give the author time to be able to get to those resolutions. Would you like to close?

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your vote.

Motions do do pass to appropriations. Cara? Aye. Cara, Aye. Macedo?

Thank you.

Aye. Missedo, Aye. Lee, Brian, Connolly, Dixon? Aye. Dixon, Aye.

Harabedian. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, Aye. Papan.

Aye. Papan, Aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, Aye.

Stephanie Ziburr. Stephanie, Aye. Ziburr. Okay.

That that bill is out. And Senator Mosheka, if I can ask you to return to the diocese, we have a a nonmember here. Thank you. Assembly member Sharp Collins, Come on up. And I believe you're also presenting for Assemblymember Rodriguez, but you can pick any order you'd like with those two bills.

Rodriguez first.

Okay. So we'll start with a b file 16, AB 2195, Celestia Rodriguez, presented by assembly member, Charles Collins.

Thank you. Alrighty. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, chair and members.

Assembly bill twenty one ninety five is about a simple idea. If we want parents to support their their children, then we should not take away the license that they need to work. Child support enforcement matters. This bill does not end child support collection. California will still have its its other enforcement tool put in place.

Under current law, when a parent falls more than thirty days behind, the state can move to deny or suspend licenses. That can include licenses tied to a person's job and also being able to sustain their overall livelihood. For low income parents, that penalty can be self self defeating. Taking away a work related license can make it harder to stay employed, harder to get back on track, and harder for children to receive consistent support.

California already recognizes this problem in Senate bill ten fifty five from from, from 2022, which limited driver's license suspension for parents at or below 70% of the county median income.

Assembly bill twenty one ninety five builds on that same model. This is a more targeted and more effective approach. It also keeps the focus where it currently belongs, which is getting support to children by helping parents stay connected to work. Today, you were here in in support of assembly bill twenty one ninety five from Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and and Damon Hampton, a resident from Van Nuys, California.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The Western Center is a co sponsor of AB 2195 under the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition, which is a statewide coalition of 30 plus organizations that seek to bring equitable reform to our state's child support system to better support low income children and their families and to reduce child poverty in California.

AB 2195 eliminates a counterproductive and nonsensical policy, which makes it harder for low income parents who owe child support to pay it back by limiting their earning capacity. This bill will end occupational license suspensions for low income parents who get behind in their child support payments, and who make less than 70% of the area median income.

ThiS Bill is modeled as was just said on the successful passage of SB 1055 in 2022, which ended driver's license suspensionS Based on the same income threshold. An Orange County evaluation of SB 1055 that found after implementation, Orange County child support agency experienced no significant impact on collections. In fact, collections increased. Additionally, limiting license suspensions to parents resulted in significant administrative savings for the county agency equal to two full time case workers.

California has other effective tools to collect child support such as wage garnishments, tax refund offsets, bank levies, credit reporting, passport denials and revocations, and adding interest to late payments.

None of these enforcement tools interfere with a non custodial parent's ability to earn a living, and several put money directly into the pockets of the custodial parent. AB 2195 will remove a barrier to employment and economic stability for low income parents and and the overbroad and punitive impact of this policy, which also creates a costly administrative burden and creates distrust between parents and the child support system, which undermines the state's goal of improving the well-being of children and families.

Interfering with the parents ability to earn income by suspending their occupational license hampers their ability to pay child support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is Demont Hampton. I live in Van Nuys, California. My child support obligation began in 1995. And over a time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned.

My children were in their thirties, and I had over a $100,000 in child support arrears. My most most of it was inter interest. All of my arrears were assigned to the government. Over the last decade, I have been fixed on a fixed income. Child support was garnishing $50 each month from my Social Security.

Despite these collections, every six months or so, because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended. When this happens, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was very hard to get, into contact with the right person. Once I got in contact with them, child support said they will lift the suspension. But sometime, it would take months to get the license reinstated. Then about a year ago, thanks to SB1055, I didn't have to worry about my driver's license being suspended anymore.

I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill. So I looked into a program that would train me to become a barber. When I first received my barber license, it was immediately suspended because of my arrears. I called child support, and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again.

I had to call them back and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked to talked with knew that my barber's license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions, and then she would release the hold.

This happened even though there were they were taking $50 each month from my Social Security. Fortunately, I have now resolved my child support arrears, but my expenses showed me how hard it was to pay my bills and my child support when I was constantly dealing with license suspension, especially the the one that allowed me to work. AB2195 will help others like me to keep their license so they can work and make pay their child support.

Thank you. Thank

Thank you. Thank you. And thanks. It sounds like you although your issue is resolved, I appreciate you coming forward

you.

To make sure the others don't enter that same situation in the future. Appreciate it. Anyone else here support AB 2195?

Yeah.

Hello. My name is Anine Escaro. I'm with California, providing support on behalf of California Partnership End Domestic Violence, Courage California, Curry j, and the Children's Partnership.

Thank you.

Hello. From the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2195? Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. There was a motion.

Is there a second? Oh, there is.

She was Oh, okay. Waiting I apologize. Yes.

She was. She was waiting patiently.

Sorry. Back to the room.

Oh, yeah. No problem. No problem.

Hi, everyone. Thank you. Good afternoon now, I believe. Yeah. I'm Lauren Washi on behalf of the California Child Support Association.

We are opposed to the bill at this time, but we are actively working with the author's office and optimistic that we can find a solution that works for everyone involved.

Great. Thank you so much. Alright. Is there a second? I know there was a motion in a second.

Thank you, mister chair. I would just like to say that I would like to be added as a co author. I don't know.

Okay. Any questions or comments? Assembly member Pappan?

And I find it amazing that the one time you don't need a bureaucratic agency to be efficient, all of a sudden, it has the utmost efficiency, you guys your life every other day. It's just shocking. Anyway, thank you. And and I would like to be able to co author too. I'm sorry.

Alright. Any of the questions or comments? Go ahead. And I also wanna thank Assemblymember Rodriguez for bringing this forward and agree that, you know, we shouldn't take the barriers away that actually help you to pay the child support, especially if you're in arrears. Wanna make sure that you keep your job, keep your license, your licenses in order to continue to pay down your child support and and support your so your family. Would you like to close?

Yes. So in in honor of assembly member Rodriguez, she stated that assembly bill twenty one ninety five does not excuse unpaid child support. It ensures enforcement does not stop a parent from being able to provide for their child, and she appreciates and we appreciate the California Child Support Association's input and are committed to discussing amendments that could help address and also relieve their concerns as the bill move forward. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass to business and professions committee. Cara. Aye. Kalra, Aye. Macedo?

No. Macedo, no. Lee, Brian, Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, Aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Hairabedian?

Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, Aye. Pappen? Aye.

Pappen, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie?

Aye. Stephanie, aye. Ziburr? Aye. Ziburr, aye.

Alright. Well, place that on call. Thank you. And then item twenty AB 2395?

Yes. So once again, it's is it afternoon now? I'm so morning afternoon. Afternoon. Chair members.

No. No. We have time. We have time. Let's go.

I am here to present a

We're gonna get to Jesse Gabriel's bill too.

Alright.

I see you over there, mister budget chair. We'll get to you.

You better get him in quick. Yeah. I represent assembly bill twenty three ninety five, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program. California carries more than 6,000,000,000 in government owed child support debt, much of which is actually, increased by a 10% interest rate, which is one of the highest interest rates in the entire nation.

People get into this type of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government, assistance from what their their child is currently receiving.

And, therefore, the result of this government reimbursement comes at the expense of a child that that actually loses money. The child that loses money, their parent can actually provide. So this can be a incredibly harmful situation as their child is already eligible for government assistance due to their custodial parent income. But the debt reduction program was created to assist these low income families who have become paralyzed by by their current debt situation.