Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

Good afternoon. I call this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Human Services to order. I would like to start today's hearing by welcoming Assemblymember Solace, who will be filling in for Assemblymember Solace Rodriguez. Once we have established a quorum, we have 24 measures on the agenda, five of which are on consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition.

Each witness has two minutes to testify. In addition to, all additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, if they represent one, and a position on the bill. I also want to note that that we are accepting written testimony through the position portal letter portal on the committee's website. Lastly, we'd like to address disruptions during the hearing. Conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited.

If disrupt if disruptive behavior occurs today, you will be removed from the hearing room by the assembly sergeants. Now for a little housekeeping. File item number 7AB1989, Tangipa. File item number 20 AB2500, Celestia Rodriguez, have been pulled by the authors and will not be heard for today. The Assembly Rules Committee has determined that file item number 11, AB 2189 Nguyen, also falls within jurisdiction of the Assembly Committee on Education.

Should the bill pass out of this committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Education. Since we do not yet have a quorum, we'll start as a subcommittee of members. And I see that our first author is here to present file item number one, AB 1575 by Assembly Member Rembula. So you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Madam Vice Chair. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. The Lanterman Act is a landmark law in California guaranteeing rights and services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Prior to its passage, individuals within the IDD community were often subject to overcrowded state hospitals and institutions without access to education, socializations, or the opportunity to receive care and services at home.

By ensuring the state's responsibility to the care for persons with developmental disabilities, the act changed the landscape of disability in California and went a long way to lessening the associated stigma. Unfortunately, despite these existing protections, adults with disabilities continue to experience discrimination in education, employment, and in health care settings.

AB 1575 continues this arc of progress by changing the definition of respite services to allow for care in and around the community, providing greater access to socialization and continuation of daily routines for members of the IDD community. This bill also updates the Lanterman Act to ensure consistent use of person first language, emphasizing each person's humanity and moving away from stigmatizing language.

Here to testify in support of AB 1575 is Joe Meadours, former executive director of People First of California, and Alex Mountford, president of California Respite Association.

Are your witnesses present there? Okay. Yes. You can come up to the desk here.

Welcome. Alright. You have two minutes, and you can begin, whoever wants to start, you can begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon. Hello. My name is Joe Meadours. I am the former executive director of People First of California, a self advocacy team network. I am also a person with a development disability.

And I am here to speak for many of my peers with a disability. I am here to support AB 1575 because I believe it's in the need or per for the person's first language in their laws. The moment towards people first language begin in the late nineteen eighties, over forty years ago. It was about putting the person person before the disability. It it helped reduce harmful labels by showing that a disability is just one part of of who someone is.

At the time, as the time as as times are changing, our language should change too. The term of "consumer" in the Langham Act may once been okay, but it's no longer okay. The consumer bothers me, it doesn't not sound like a person. When when I when I hear consumer, I think of someone eating something something. It is not clear and does not describe who you who you are talking about.

The change is the is the law could stop calling me a consumer. From now and on, I would be call a person eligible for regional center services. When when when you are talking about me, please call me a person. I want to be treated like a person. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Joe.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Next witness please.

Hello, Assembly. My name is Alex Mountford. I'm the CEO of Manos as well as the president of the California Respite Association. AB 1575 updates the definition of respite to provide clarity and consistency on where in-home respite services can be provided.

When in-home respite services are authorized, we see some regional center state that the services can only be provided within the four walls of the home, while others allow the individual to access the community resources such as a park down the street during their respite services.

There have even been cases where different case managers in the same regional center will have differing interpretations on where respite can be provided. The language in this bill provides clarity and updates the definition that has not been changed since the seventies. Especially now that in-home respite is a home and community based service, this legislation ensures that community access is an option for the individuals receiving in-home respite services.

I'd also like to provide a little clarity on what this what these changes do and do not do. This bill does not change what in-home respite is nor the types of supports provided to an individual during these services.

This bill does not authorize or add transportation or driving components to in-home respite and does not create any additional costs outside of the established and existing rate structures already in existence for in-home respite services.

AB 1575 provides clarity that it is an option to go into the community during these services. This community access is not guaranteed, but is available based on what the individual case manager, planning team, and service providers determine is safe and appropriate.

Providing clarity and enabling an individual to access the community when appropriate and safe during in-home respite services ensures that that individual has all the integration and engagement opportunities as their neurotypical peers. That they are truly a part of their community while receiving in-home respite services and are not being strictly confined to their home.

In closing, AB 1575 is important, impactful, no cost legislation that supports the IDD community and ensures consistency for in-home respite services. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come to the microphone. Name and organization, please. Give it one second to turn on first. Okay. Go for it.

Eric Ciampa with United Cerebral Palsy here in Sacramento. We're in support. Thank you.

Diana Gonzalez, public policy and advocacy manager at Manos Home Care, and we're here in support of AB 1575.

Hi there. Julie Sherman, director of public policy of the Arc and UCP California Collaborative for the bill sponsor. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shauna Day, senior director of government relations, 24 Hour Home Care in support.

Now do we have any, witnesses in opposition to the bill, please come forward? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill, please come forward? Alright. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais for the committee members. Any questions or comments?

Any questions or comments? Oh, Assembly Member Elhawary go ahead.

I just wanted to, thank the author and especially the witnesses for sharing your experiences and your story with us, and especially around utilizing people first language.

I would also like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. And, and many of the bills that Assembly Member's does is always people centric, and this is one of those things updating the letter of law to be people centric so that the spirit of all our services are people centric. I recommend an aye vote on this matter when, we have a quorum to vote on it. But, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1575. Ultimately, this bill is about making sure that persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when it's appropriate.

Thank you very much. We will take the matter up when we have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Do I, I saw I saw another author. Oh, you have a sorry.

Serves you well.

Alright. Assembly Member Arambula, you're on a roll. Which one do you wanna go for? You wanna go file item 18, 21, or 25 or 22. Sorry.

I can do whichever order pleases you, sir.

If you could do all three simultaneously. No. If you could do, follow-up 18 AB 2470. Let's start with that one.

Thank you, mister chair and madam vice chair. AB2470 addresses a critical but often overlooked issue, the economic impact of intimate partner violence. According to a 2021 report from the Little Hoover Commission, beyond the crisis, IPV is widespread, impacting women, men, and especially vulnerable populations, including young people and transgender individuals. IP b IPV goes well beyond physical violence. So survivors often face financial abuse, identity theft, damaged credit, and loss of vital documents.

These barriers make it extremely difficult to secure housing, employment, and to provide stability necessary to escape from abuse. AB 2470 establishes a statewide one step reentry program to help survivors to replace vital documents, to repair credit and financial damage, to protect against future economic abuse, and it also expands flexibilities in the CalWORKs emergency housing program by allowing survivors to use unspent funds for permanent housing needs. Economic stability is essential to survivor safety.

Without it, survivors are at a higher risk of returning to abusive situations. This bill streamlines access to services, reduces barriers to service, and supports dignity, independence, and long term recovery of survivors.

With me today to provide testimony is Tamar Foster, deputy executive director of the Little Hoover Commission.

Good afternoon, chair Lee and members. Again, my name is Tamar Foster. I'm deputy executive director of Little Hoover Commission. Back in 2021, we released a report that examined how the state responded, to intimate partner violence. We found that survivors often experience financial abuse, which affects them long after they've left their abuser.

Many survivors have lost access to their identity documents, and even control over their bank, credit, and other financial accounts. This blocks them from resources that they may may need to flee. Some have had their Social Security number used to create accounts and open lines of credit without their knowledge. This can make it transportation, childcare, and permanent housing, particularly if survivors lack funds to cover deposits, move in costs, and other upfront costs.

So we recommended a one stop reentry program to help survivors recover identity documents, help them understand their financial picture, repair their credit, and connect with legal and federal resources.

We also recommended improving the flexibility of CalWORKs emergency housing voucher program by allowing domestic violence survivors to use their unspent funds to help them pay for permanent housing. Because AB 2040 sorry, twenty four seventy implements these recommendations, we respectfully request your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room to testify and support? Do we have any members in the audience that are primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room to testify in opposition?

I'm going to bring it back to the committee. Is there any comments from committee? From the committee? I actually just want to thank you for this. I have in the past worked with, victims of domestic violence, as well as the perpetrators as well.

So I do thank you for this. It is important to be able to help them in those situations that are very difficult to get out of. So thank you for the bill. And I'd like to invite you to close.

Thank you, madam chair, for the opportunity to present. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. So now, we are going to move to file item 21, AB 2510.

Thank you, madam vice chair. AB 2510 strengthens the CalWORKs family reunification program by ensuring that families have the support they need to bring children home safely and successfully. CalWORKs provides critical supports to families working to reunify with their children who have been placed in foster care, including the family reunification funding for families who have had their children removed from the home. Successful reunification requires stable housing, food, childcare, and transportation.

However, under the current rules, all CalWORKs eligible children must be removed from the home to qualify for reunification funds.

Cutting off support during this critical time undermines reunification efforts and creates unnecessary hardship that jeopardizes family stability and delays reunification. This bill aligns policy with the goal of keeping families together whenever safely possible and increases the likelihood of timely reunification. AB 2510 ensures that families have access to these critical resources by allowing families to continue receiving cash aid and childcare during the reunification process. This bill is about stability, equity, and better outcomes for children and families.

With me to testify in support is Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate at the Western Center of Law and Poverty, as well as COI with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations.

Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are cosponsors of AB 2510 along with the reimagined CalWORKs Coalition. This bill updates the CalWORKS family reunification program to remove barriers that prevent parents from continuing to receive cash aid and services while their children are temporarily placed outside the home in foster care or the home of a relative. This allows the state to better achieve its goal of family reunification by promoting family stabilization.

The 2021 law allowed the California Department of Social Services to issue guidance to the counties to implement the program.

In doing so, the department restricted what a family can continue to receive assistance in ways which are inconsistent with the intent of the statute. The department resolved several of our concerns about the guidance, but, ultimately, the areas addressed in twenty five ten were identified as needing statutory clarification. As mentioned, this bill, says that not not all children have to be removed in order to continue receiving reunification cash aid.

Two, re reunification aid can be continued when an eligible child joins the family, such as the birth of another child or in case cases of partial reunification when the parents are still meeting conditions to have the other children returned. Three, automatically ends the immunization sanction for families who fail to show proof of immunization or submit a statement of good cause.

This bill would restore the parents' aid since they do not have physical or legal custody of the child. Thus they cannot meet that requirement. Four, specify that parents must navigate only one set of requirements that cover both reunification and welfare to work requirements in a unified plan. Five, specify that the assignment of child support and child support cooperation agreements are suspended during this period. Six, clarify for families when the children were removed from one parent and placed with the other parent otherwise eligible for CalWORKs.

The CalWORKs parent can receive, family reunification aid. Lastly, ensure the sixty month limit on CalWORKs time and aid is not running for CalWORKs family reunification families. This bill helps to fulfill the state's goal of reunifying CalWORKs families by removing unnecessary barriers. We ask for your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public in support? Do we have any witness that are you in support? Say your name and your position.

Good afternoon. Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Do we have any members of the public in opposition? I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Any questions from the committee members? And would you like to close?

Thank you for the opportunity to present. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you. Awesome.

And now we are moving to file item 22, AB 2585.

Thank you, madam vice chair. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and their committee for their work on this bill. Guaranteed income pilot programs across California and the nation have demonstrated promising results, including improved financial stability, health outcomes, and participants' ability to pursue education, employment, and safe housing. Pregnant individuals, parents of young children, foster youth, and survivors of intimate partner violence often experience significant economic instability during critical periods of their lives.

Providing modest direct cash assistance during these pivotal moments can help stabilize families, reduce financial stress, and improve outcomes for both parents and children.

However, many regions, particularly underserved and rural areas, have not yet had the opportunity to participate in or benefit from these efforts. Because California's communities vary widely in terms of cost of living, economic conditions, and access to services, expanding pilots to include counties that have not previously received funding is critical. Here with me to testify in support of AB 2585 is Amber Crowell with the professor of department of sociology at CSU Fresno.

Good afternoon. Guaranteed income has been shown to improve income volatility, quality of life, and economic opportunity. However, most of what we know about guaranteed income in California and across The US has come from studies conducted in urban areas. This is why I'm here to support AB 2585. None of the GI pilots that were funded by the state of California in 2022 were in the Central Valley despite high levels of poverty in the region and the need for geographic diversity.

After not receiving funding from California's round of guaranteed income pilots in 2022 in Fresno County, we raised funds to conduct our own guaranteed income pilot, where we have the largest urban center in the San Joaquin Valley, but also many rural communities that are home to the farm workers who sustain our food production. It was important for us to understand how San Joaquin Valley communities often overlooked by state programs could benefit from a stronger and more robust social safety net.

The only other GI pilot conducted in the valley was led by former mayor Michael Tubbs in Stockton, which was also not state funded. We focused on the urban community of Southwest Fresno and the rural community of Huron, where over a third of families live in poverty. We conducted our pilot and study from 2024 to 2025.

I served as lead evaluator of this study, and we conducted surveys and focus groups over a twelve month period using a randomized controlled trial design to understand how guaranteed income was affecting the lives of families in Southwest Fresno and Huron. What we found was largely aligned with what other pilots have concluded, but some of our findings, particular to the small farm farmworker community of Huron and marginalized families in Southwest Fresno illuminated some important contextual factors that require more study of rural and underserved communities.

We found that while families enjoyed improved quality of life, reduced debt spending, and better parenting experiences, they also voiced experiences that come from living in rural and marginalized communities, where even with improved income stability, it is still difficult to access childcare, health care, education, and job opportunities, which are the ramps that GI is meant to get them to. One small study is not enough to fully understand these dynamics.

These communities deserve social safety net investments as well, but we need to better understand how to create a social safety net that is robust enough to support areas where access to resources, services, and opportunities is more limited.

A new round of guaranteed income pilots for rural and understudied communities is needed so that this anti poverty approach, which is so effective, is also informed by empirical data from both urban and rural communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any members in the public in support? State your name and position.

Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you.

Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Do we have any members of the public in opposition? And I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. And I'd like to invite the author to close. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to present assembly bill twenty five eighty five. Ultimately, this bill is about making sure that Californians who are experiencing economic instability in rural and disadvantaged areas are able to receive state funding when we create these types of funding streams for GBIs in the future. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you. We are moving to file item five, AB 1932, l Huari.

Okay. Sorry about that. We just wanted to make sure our witnesses were ready to go. Good afternoon, madam chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1932, the crisis act two point o.

This bill builds on a system that is already working, community based crisis response that meets people where they are. We know law enforcement is not always the right response for someone experiencing a mental health crisis or a social abuse crisis. And too often, those situations escalate when they don't have to. The crisis pilot program established by statute in 2021 has shown that trained community based responders can provide more appropriate and effective care. AB 1932 simply continues and strengthens that work.

If we let these programs lapse or this program lapse, we're not starting over. We're taking away a resource communities are already relying on. This is especially important for communities of color and for people navigating mental health or substance use challenges who need consistent, culturally competent care in moments of crisis. This bill is about making sure the right response shows up at the right time. It reduces harm, prevents escalation, and supports better outcomes for everyone involved.

Testifying with me today are Erica Naranjo, who has been directly impacted, and Asantewa Boykin, an interventionist with Mental Health First. Also with me today is Jay Kian Wood. Is Kian Wood for technical support.

Good afternoon. My name is Erica Naranjo. On 09/28/2022, my father, Jaime Naranjo, was killed by Sacramento sheriff during a mental health crisis. A single deputy arrived, and within twenty three seconds, my father was shot five times. Twenty three seconds.

That's not enough time to understand a person. That's not enough time to deescalate a situation. That's search certainly not enough time to save a life. We are taught from a young age, if you need help, call 911. But what happens when that help that arrives isn't trained to handle a mental health emergency?

What happens when asking for help becomes a death sentence? My dad didn't need force. He needed care. He needed trained professionals who understood crisis, compassion, and deescalation. Instead, he became another statistic.

Having an untreated mental health issue makes you 16 times more likely to be shot by law enforcement. And truth is, this is not uncommon. Every year, families like mine are left grieving love loved ones who should still be here today. People experiencing mental health crisis are too often met with systems that are not built to support them. This is why funding matters.

We need investments in mental health response teams, trained professionals who can respond with empathy, skill, and the right tools to save lives. We need systems that prioritize care over control, understanding over fear because this isn't just about policy. It's about people. It's about fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, Michelle Shirley, Daryl Richards, Christopher Gilmore, and Gabby Nevarez. My daddy's life mattered, and so do the lives of everyone who will face a mental health crisis tomorrow.

We cannot keep responding the same way and expecting different outcomes. Funding mental health services is not optional. It is urgent and is necessary and is long overdue, and I strongly support AB 1932. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Asantewaa. I'm a board certified psychiatric mental health nurse. I'm currently working at the emergency department at UC Davis. I'm also one of the cocreators of Mental Health First and cofounder of the Anti Police Care Project.

I know that you guys have probably heard a lot about what happens when police show up to mental health crisis. I would like to share with you some of the things that happen when community shows up. I've personally seen sexual assault victims get rerouted to leave instead of waiting in an emergency department just to add another backlogged rape kit.

I've also seen folks who needed acute mental health care, get that care and get to go in an ambulance instead of in the back of a police car handcuffed. I've also seen people who wanted to go in an ambulance, wanted to go to mental health urgent care, and got to go to those places instead of going to Sac County jail.

Excuse me. It's a lot. I've seen folks who got I've seen folks who are not clinicians spend a lot of their time volunteering, doing it for free. And one of the things that the crisis I've brought about is some of those folks were able to do the work that they're really passionate about and skilled about and actually be able to get an income and proliferate those things. I had a colleague who was not who worked in mental health care and had done so for years.

She had an intimate understanding of what happens when you say things like, I feel like I don't wanna live anymore, or I I don't have a reason to get out of bed. Right? You get your rights and your dignity stripped from you. I wish we had would have done something sooner because instead, she could have reached out for help instead of quietly planning her suicide that she completed. So thank you for backing this bill.

I know you're gonna vote yes. The people need this, and we don't need to lose any more fathers or health care professionals because the systems that we have are unfriendly.

Do we have do we have any members of the public in support? Yes. State your name and your position, please.

Good afternoon. Jasmine Asher representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League. We're in support.

Sheila Bates with Black Lives Matter California and Health Care for Us in strong support.

Good afternoon. Darby Kernan for End Child Poverty California in support.

Hi. Zechariah Okendo. I'm a suicide survivor in support.

Mandy Yeeke with Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in strong support.

Alejandro Solis on behalf of CPCA Advocates in support. Thank you.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Nancy Netherland, parent of a child impacted by this bill and also little lobbyist in strong support.

Sally Ching with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color in strong support. And if I may read off orgs, who would also like to give their me too? Urban Peace Institute, California Coalition Women's Prisoners, Nextdoor Solutions to Domestic Violence, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Transitions Clinic Network, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Transformative Programming Works, A New Path, Clyde Foundation, Felony Murder Elimination Project, and Buen Vicino.

Additional me too's from the South Bay People Power from South Bay People Power, Health and Partnership, Kindred, Travajartis, Unatos, Work United, TUWU, Street Level Health Project, National Compadres Network, Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities, Prevention Institute, the Children's Defense Fund of California Services for Immigrant Rights and Education Networks, also known as SIREN, a new way of life reentry project, and end child poverty California.

Thank you.

There's a few more right here.

Keyon Bliss, speaking on behalf of the Anti Police Terror Project, in strong support, and, additional organizations also, speaking up in Me Too's, the Peace and Justice Law Center, Sisters Warriors Freedom Coalition, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Californians for Safety and Justice, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, California Coalition of Women Prisoners, Justice to Jobs Coalition, La Defensa, Orange County Rapid Response Network, the Collective Healing and Transformation Project, Youth Leadership Institute, and Bend the Arc Jewish Action California.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Do we have any members of the public that wanna testify in opposition? None. And seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee.

Any committee members have any comments? Thank you. And I want to invite the author to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And we are going to move to file item number nine, AB 2126, Elhaware. And I'll invite you to. Let's switch that since mister Gonzales is here, we are going to move to file item four, AB 1925.

And Assemblymember Gonzalez, please present your bill.

The witnesses. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1925, which takes an important step toward improving how California serves individuals living with permanent disabilities. Today, millions of Californians with permanent disabilities rely on multiple programs to meet their basic needs, including health care, housing, in home services, transportation, and utilities. However, each of these programs often requires its own separate verification of disability status.

As a result, individuals with lifelong conditions are forced to repeatedly prove the same disability over and over again, even when there's no expectation of improvement. This is not just a bill or me just reading from this. This is actually in my house. This is happening in my home where my own son, RJ, lives with cerebral palsy, with spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder. He's 33.

He can't walk or speak. And these disabilities, yet each year, we are required to once again take a trip to the doctor to prove he still lives with these disabilities. I pray for a miracle. That would be amazing. But the reality is he has cerebral palsy.

Because he has no use of his arms or legs, transportation is a real challenge. I'll go off script quite often because this is very much in my house, such as my wife taking him to the doctor, picking him up, putting him in a chair, moving him to the to to the car, picking him up from the chair to the car, going to the doctor, picking him up, putting him back into the chair, so on and so forth. So imagine doing that and pregnant.

Imagine doing that and I'm up here. This is members, this is not the way.

The duplicative the duplicative process creates real hardship. Families must repeatedly gather medical records, schedule appointments, and submit documentation across multiple agencies. Medical providers spend valuable time completing similar forms again and again. Meanwhile, state and local agencies devote resources to verifying conditions that have already been established and are not likely to change. Even more concerning, this fragmented system can lead to interruptions in essential services.

This has happened in my house for months at a time. This is this is real. Individuals may lose access to benefits or face delays simply because paperwork deadlines are missed or standards vary between programs, not because their conditions have changed. AB 1925 addresses this challenge in a thoughtful and responsible way. This bill does not create a new certification program today.

Instead, it requires the California Health and Human Services Agency to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study to evaluate the challenges and opportunities associated with establishing a statewide permanent disability certification program. Again, a study. This is to determine if we can do this. Right? The study will examine key issues such as fraud prevention, privacy protections, technology feasibility, and compatibility with existing federal, state, and local programs.

It will also require consultation with stakeholders, including disability led organizations, independent independent living centers, and county agencies to ensure the voices of those most affected are heard throughout the process, to ensure the voices of the most literally the most vulnerable are heard. This is a careful and measured approach. Establishing a permanent disability certification is a complex undertaking, and it must be done correctly. That's why I asked for a study.

By requiring a feasibility study, AB 1925 ensures that policymakers have the data and analysis necessary to design a system that reduces administrative burden while protecting privacy, preventing fraud, and maintaining program integrity.

Ultimately, the goal of AB 1925 is simple, to make government work better for individuals with permanent disabilities. By identifying opportunities to streamline verification process, we can reduce administrative duplication, improve continuity of services, and allow individuals and families to focus less on paperwork and more on their health, independence, and quality of life. Members, AB 1925 represents a responsible first step toward a more coordinated and efficient disability services system in California. It recognizes that permanent disabilities should not require permanent paperwork.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Beside me is the is the member from Stanislaus County and joint author of AB 1925, the honorable Assemblyman Juan Alaniz, as well as Heather Stegall representing the sponsor of this measure, Disability Resource Agencies for Independent Living, and Ted Jackson representing the Marin Center for Independent Living.

I'll go real quick.

Thank you, madam chair and members. I wanna thank assembly member Gonzales for bringing forward AB 1925, and I'm proud to be a joint author. As the author outlined, individuals with permanent disabilities are often required to repeatedly verify the same lifelong conditions across multiple programs, creating unnecessary administrative burdens and, in some cases, disruptions in services. AB 1925 takes a measured approach by directing the state to study whether a standardized statewide certification could improve coordination, reduce duplication, and better serve these individuals.

I appreciate the author's thoughtful approach to examining this issue carefully before moving forward.

This affects many in my district as well who've come forward. And, you know, they don't like to be reminded that they're gonna never be able to walk or be able to not have to use the services. So I'm proud to be part of this and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. My name is Heather Steagall, and I am the Executive Director of Disability Resources Agency for Independent Living, also known as DRAIL. DRAIL is the designated independent living center to that serves six counties, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Tuolumne, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. DRAIL is proud to sponsor AB 1925. Every day, we work with individuals with disabilities who rely on multiple programs just to meet their basic needs, health care, housing, in home support, and transportation.

But one of the biggest barriers that they face is not their disability. It's the system. Right now, there is no single way for someone to verify a permanent disability across programs, so people are forced to prove the same lifelong condition over and over again. That means repeated paperwork, repeated doctor's visits, and repeated delays. We see individuals lose services not because they no longer are eligible, but because of missed deadlines, inconsistent requirements, or paperwork errors.

This creates unnecessary stress for individuals, families, providers, and agencies alike. AB 1925 takes a thoughtful and responsible step forward. It does not create a new system overnight. Instead, it requires a feasibility study to carefully evaluate what it would take to build a statewide permanent disability certification process. This includes looking at privacy protections, fraud prevention, and how a system could work across existing state and federal programs.

It also ensures that stakeholders like independent living centers and disability led organizations are part of the conversation. This bill is about reducing duplication, improving efficiency, and most importantly, ensuring that people with disabilities can access and maintain the services that they need without unnecessary barriers. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members. My name is Ted Jackson. I'm the CEO of the Marin Center for Independent Living and the public policy board, the public policy board chair of California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. And I'm proud to offer support from MCIL as well as CFILC today. The Marin Center for Independent Living is a unique ILC.

We are also a parent center. I think the only one like that in the country. In addition to that, we have a robust program in CalAIM and we're the largest provider of veterans directed care in the entire state. So while we started with one county, we actually serve people with disabilities in the majority of Northern California.

Because of all of those programs, we are probably the one organization in the disability community that reaches into every little nook and cranny of the subsectors of the disability community.

And with that, we see a lot of recertifications. We see folks coming into our office who need to recertify the people that we serve, no matter what the disability is, from intellectual to physical. We have memory loss issues. We have issues of poverty and people not having access to computers or getting mail on a regular basis to receive the reminders. A 101 different reasons that people come into their to the office and needing help with these many recertifications.

But the other thing that I wanna draw your attention to is actually emergency preparedness and community resilience. One of the things that we have to do often is in helping people with disabilities when there are fires and there are disasters in California is to relocate them. After the LA fires, we were the center in the North that became a hub for relocating disabled people who could no longer live in that quality of air. And we still are working on that and still are doing that.

So that type of movement requires another certification.

Having a statewide certification for a certain number of years, permanent disability that would travel with you without throughout the state, is really imperative for the sustainability of in inclusion and community integration for people with disabilities. In almost every emergency and disaster in the state, people with disabilities and older adults with access and functional needs are relocated, and I ask for your support.

Thank you. Are there any members of, in of the public in the room that want to testify in support? State your name and position, please.

Good afternoon. Dan Okenfuss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers here in support.

Good afternoon. Diana Gonzalez with Manos Home Care here in support.

Hi there. Julie Sherman, The Arc of California, Director of Public Policy in high support.

Alright. Is that everyone for support? Has everyone for support? Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Any members of the public wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Seeing now, bring it back to the dais for questions and comments. But before we do that, let's establish quorum since we now have quorum. Madame Secretary, please call the roll for quorum.

I'm closing. Here.

Lee?

[Roll call]

Alright. Members, any questions, comments, motions? Second. Those are probably moving second. I come I'm I'm out for a couple minutes, and then suddenly you have another witness.

Where this guy I come from? Where did you hire this guy from?

This is public safety. I apologize. Alright. Well, I really want to thank you for bringing this bill forward and for some of the Alanis for also joining us today. I am recommending an aye vote for this bill, and I also wanna thank our Vice Chair for taking over.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll for AB0, sorry. I'm going to, I wanna let you close, but I will be recommending an aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Members, as I stated, this is personal to me. Everything that I talked about in here has happened in my house. So it's not like I'm reading from, if you will, a script and it's far away. This is something that's happening in my house.

So if it's happening in my house, it's happening in houses across LA, San Francisco, San Diego, everywhere in between. And we need a voice. We need a unified voice that talks about how we take care of those that are most vulnerable in the most vulnerable communities. So members, as a parent of a son with severe disabilities, My wife, Christine, and I have seen firsthand how families must repeatedly navigate complicated systems just to maintain access to essential services.

She's a superhero in my eyes because she has to do it every day.

When a disability is permanent, families should not have to continually prove the same condition again and again just to receive the support they depend on. AB1925 takes a thoughtful first step by asking an important question. How can we build a smarter, more coordinated system that respects people's time, protects their privacy, and ensures continuity of services? This bill is about reducing unnecessary barriers and making government systems work better for the people they are meant to serve.

For families like mine and for the millions of Californians living with permanent disabilities, myself and my joint author respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB1925.

Alright. Thank you very much. I'm recommending I vote. Madam secretary, please call the roll on this bill.

File item four, AB1925. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

For dessert, that bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for ASSA members. Thank you. Alright. Do we have any other author members here?

Stephanie Nguyen is here. So similar to Stephanie Nguyen, when you're ready, you may come up to the desk. And Assembly Rowan has three bills. So which one do you want to start with?

Two. Right? One's on consent.

You have three bills and one is consent, but yeah. You can start with whichever you want.

I'm gonna do 2189, I believe.

I'm gonna go first.

So we'll start with file item 11 AB 2189.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 2189. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the committee staff for really working with us on this bill. AB 2189 authorizes the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to award a $800,000 annual grant over three years to support a statewide effort to train and connect parents of students with disabilities.

This effort will provide families with tools, training, and coordination they need to understand their rights and advocate within California's special education system.

Recent federal actions have significantly reduced the capacity of the US Department of Education to oversee the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I d e a, IDEA. As a result, states are increasingly responsible for ensuring compliance, protecting the rights of students with disabilities. This leaves our most vulnerable students and their families bearing the short end of the stick with the Federal Government reducing their enforcement of IDEA, the responsibility to protect and ensure the rights of California's 800,000 special education students fall on us.

Today, special education makes up around 15% of California's public school population and members. I'd like to remind you all that these numbers are only growing over years and years.

It continues to grow. AB 2189 provides a practical solution to this gap. Over the span of three years, this bill would lay the groundwork for the creation of a statewide special education parent action network. The organization receiving the grant would be tasked with conducting outreach training and bringing leaders together to inform students in special ed and their families about their rights and how they can advocate for themselves.

AB 2189 is an effort to strengthen coordination and uplift the parents' voice when it comes to special education.

And with me to speak in support of the bill is Jordan Lindsay, executive director of the ARC California, and Christine Caslow, a powerful advocate and mother of a student in special education.

And two Manish, please.

Thank you, mister chair and members, and thank you very much to our champion, the author, Assemblymember Nguyen, for bringing this bill forward and for the incredible analysis that this committee staff has done on this bill. I'm Jordan Lindsay, executive director for the Arc of California statewide movement started seventy five years ago by parents with children with developmental disabilities who had the audacity to believe that their children deserved the same opportunities as every other child.

Over the last seventy five years, we've seen the continuation of the disability rights movement with federal laws such as the ADA or state laws such as the Lanterman Act. This includes laws and rights for our students with disabilities. The ARC was a driving force in the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in 1975, which required schools to educate all students with disabilities.

Many of these advancements, however, are under attack. Section five zero four of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a US civil rights law prohibiting disability, is currently under attack in the courts. The Arc is fighting against nine states that are trying to invalidate section five zero four. Similarly, the Federal Office of dismantled, and an audit found that 90% of complaints in the last few months are going, dismissed that are going to that office by parents. What does all this mean?

It means that oversight and enforcement of IDEA and other critical rights for our students with disabilities is going to be more and more reliant on the states and statewide stakeholders. Now when we talk about stakeholders in special education, there are several, many of which are in this room and we've heard of today heard from today.

And nearly all of them, many stakeholders in special ed are very well organized at the state level and can provide input to the legislature, whether that's the teachers or school administrators or the self buzz. The most important voice in our opinion, however, the voice of the students and parents is usually not at that table.

So AB 2189 would provide funding to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities to administer a grant to ensure that the parent voice in California can be heard at the state level, at the federal level, can be organized and heard.

The grant would create the infrastructure for a co for a coalition of all stakeholders in California's special education system, a collaborative, not combative coalition with the aim of unifying around systemic advocacy. The grant would not duplicate or try to replace this is important. It would not duplicate or try to replace activities that are already happening around the state, such as direct parent training and parent leadership training, but instead would bring together those local and regional community leaders to align on statewide systems change.

We've had great conversations with many of the stakeholders regarding the goal of the bill. We have received constructive feedback on clarifying the bill, and we appreciate the amendments that have been proposed by the committee. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and members of the committee. My name is Christine Caslow, and I have been a special education volunteer advocate for sixteen years in Santa Clara County. But more importantly, I am the parent of two children who have had special education services. Currently have an eighth grader. I am here to support AB 2189.

While our local family resource centers, mine is called Parents Helping Parents, does incredible work helping parents advocate for their individual child. As parents lack a statewide structure to advocate for systemic policy change. As legislators, when you hear about special education from parents, chances are you hear from a parent like me with the time and resources to learn how this system works despite the lack of a statewide special education parent and student advocacy organization. You don't necessarily hear from parents working three jobs, the non English speaking parents, or parents managing very intense medical needs.

The network that AB 2189 would create would allow local organizations like the family resource centers, like PTAs, like other advocacy groups to work together to get those voices heard by our legislators at the state level. I'm a union member, a member of SEIU twenty one sorry, twenty fifteen as I am my son's in home support services worker.

As a union member, I hear from them about local actions, actions with other branches of SEIU, and actions of many unions working together. In the labor in the labor movement, local chapters unite to create a powerful collective voice. This is the kind of network we want to build with AB 2189, a network where local groups doing important work can work together to create bigger action and let more voices be heard by legislators. AB 2189 is the bridge we need.

It will unite existing groups like PTAs, family resource centers, and other local organizations into a powerful network able to elevate the voices of families and students affected by special education.

To ensure legislators hear directly from families and students living these experiences, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2189. Thank you for your time and your leadership.

Thank you very much, and thank you for serving my our home county, Santa Clara County. Alright. Do we have any members of the public who wish to testify and support a bill? Please come to the microphone. Your name and organization, please.

Good afternoon. Diana Gonzales, public policy and advocacy manager at Manos Home Care here in support of AB 2189. AB 2189.

Good afternoon. Emlyn Shabbard with California Disability Services Association in support.

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

Jane Chen, board certified pediatrician for thirty one years and a parent of a child with special needs, in support.

Julie Sherman, director of public policy for The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaborative, in support.

Jennifer Womack Olivera. I'm on the CAC with Sac City Unified School District. I'm also my area's LCAP representative, and I have two children's in special education. And I also am an SEIU twenty fifteen union member, so and I'm in support.

Thank you. Now do we have witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward to the desk if there are witnesses in opposition.

Ted Jackson with Marin Center for Independent Living and Matrix Parents at MCIL. We have actually sent a letter in before, which was not on the late letters, but we have an opposed unless amended, and we have sent amendments to the author. If it is amended, we will switch our position.

Alright. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses' opposition or any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Janice Canavan, Family Voices of California. We're in opposed unless amended.

Okay. Thank you.

Nancy Netherland, parent of a child with intellectual disabilities and complex medical needs and in opposition unless amended, also with little lobbyists.

Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public who just wish to sign opposition to the bill? Alright. Seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments on this bill, members.

Alright. Assemblywoman, would you like to close?

Yes. I think I think you have.

Oh, there's a comment by somebody talking about. Go ahead.

Thank you, mister chair. And and, you know, I I do appreciate the the author on this. And I understand one specifically how important, advocating for, those with special needs. It's something that I care about very deeply. And I would commit to you that on the personal end, my only worry with this bill is that it opens the door where the the language can be done in the future for a different group.

That and we've seen that time and time again, where bills that are really good ideas also become what opens the next door. And when I see state resources and funds being used for advocacy, think a lot of people think that means lobbying the government, pushing things. And I think that's where, on my personal end, I commit to you wholeheartedly That I think whatever I need to do on my personal end.

But when it comes to the state resources, my fear is that somebody else comes in and then they work on another bill in the future that says this. And this is the framework that opens that door.

And so, for me, I can't support this bill. I just wanted to make sure that you know, from my personal end, whatever you need me to do, I will do.

I appreciate it.

I committed that to Assemblyman Jeff Gonzales.

I've committed that to Loretta's little micacles in my district. I've committed that to anybody and everybody that wants to see what we can do and work as hard as we can, but it's just the prioritize prioritization of state resources used for specific advocating that opens the door to things that aren't in the same boat as this. So thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments, members? Alright. I'll invite the I'll invite the author to close.

I think my Mister chair would is is it okay he speaks? Or do you want me to just

DO you have something in response to

Quickly, and is that okay? Yes. Yes. Very much appreciate that and the personal work that you have done. I I want to just note in a lot of our research around this, there certainly is precedent already for state funds being used for advocacy building and advocacy infrastructure development.

Whether or not you believe that's wrong or right, that's right. Up that's fair game. But this doesn't set a precedent. Just want that to be clear. There's certainly many precedents or many situations and examples of that happening already.

Yeah. Yeah. And Assemblymember Tongkie, if I you know, thank you thank you for that. And you've been you're right. Like, I've had conversations with you on the side, and you really do care about this this community having two members in the legislator that speaks openly about it.

And you've always opened up your heart to us and told us how much you care about this. I think for us, it's more than that. When we talk about state resources, this is the community that gets overlooked, that is forced to get cut. That is the one that never, has anybody that's advocating for them. So both assembly member Jeff Gonzales and I are using our experience and our lived experience to advocate to ensure that we let members of the legislator know about this.

Because if not us, then who will advocate for for this community? Right? But I Aye, you know, I appreciate you for, really, you know, support supporting this effort. I under I understand what you're I disagree, but I also understand. I I think that's why we're here.

Right? Like, we're here to advocate. And when we can use, the state to be able to provide voice to us resources for families that are more in need than most other families that are still trying to figure this out. This is where we can help them out in a very small way. Right?

We're not asking for millions and millions of dollars. We're asking for very little to be able to give them an opportunity to advocate and be the voice. You've heard of a a parent that's here. She's working. She's the person that supports her kiddo.

She doesn't have the time to do this. And having this extra support and this this extra resource is going to help her so much more, and that's why we're doing this. I wanna also state, mister chair and members, that, some of these amendments came over really late, and so we're committed to working with them to figure out where the balance is so that we can continue to move this forward.

But I will also say that everybody that was in opposition or sending amendments are for this community. I wanna see something happen and wanna make sure that they're supported and that their voices are heard.

So we have this this overarching goal. We are all speaking the same language. You just gotta figure out where that that balance is. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Wen, for for bringing this bill forward. Should this bill get out should this bill get out today, it will go to the Assembly Education Committee where I know you'll continue to work with the stakeholders. I really appreciate you bringing this bill because, you know, it is a creating an advocacy network advocacy support for so many families that often, at best, are doing this on a volunteer basis in the limited amount of time that they have.

And like you said, it's really supporting a network for just so that they can better amplify their needs to talk to people. It's not such an advocacy in a strict lobbying kind of sense, but also to build solidarity and like mindedness.

And this occurs especially in the local level where you really need to have advocates and like minded folks like the parents of the parents, right, on the school district's level. So I really appreciate these efforts, and I'm recommending it high as amended. The bill was, moved by Assemblyman Castillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this bill.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that roll open for absent members. Thank you. And now we'll proceed to the next bill. If AB2684. 84. File item 24. So you may begin when you're ready.

Okay. Of course. Yes. K. Mister Chair and members, thank you for allowing me to present AB2684.

This bill aligns state law with federal law by giving non minor dependents, also known as NMDs, who are placed out of state the option to perform monthly visits with their social worker virtually. California is currently one of 26 states that has opted to provide continued support for foster youth transitioning into adulthood. This bill builds on California's commitment to continue supporting foster youth by giving NMTs the flexibility in how they conduct their monthly meetings.

I wanna also state that in person meetings are one of those that are very important to me because it allows social workers to develop that relationship, the trust, and also giving them the opportunity to gauge the physical and emotional well-being. So we are not eliminating the in person meetings.

We are just making it so that way it is a little bit easier when they're able to do the virtual meetings. This bill ensures that relationship between NMDs and the social workers maintained by requiring in person visits to happen at least once per quarter. And here to speak in support of the bill and answer any technical questions is Amanda Kirchner, director of legislative advocacy for County Welfare Directors Association of California.

Thank you. Go ahead. Two minutes, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Amanda Kirschner on behalf of CWGA. We are proud to sponsor AB2684, which will allow non married dependents who are living out of state to use virtual visitation with their social workers. We've had extended foster care since 2010 that allows 18-21 year olds remain in foster care.

They get additional supports like housing and educational support, financial stipends, and independent living and life skills. As of January, there was about 6,700 NMDs in California. Most of them live in state, but about two to 300 live out of state. They live with their family. Some are attending college, and others are out of state for work.

Our social workers try really hard to have a very collaborative relationship where they can support these young adults as they sort of navigate through this new chapter of their lives. But because of trauma and if their involvement in the foster care system, those relationships can sometimes be tricky. And when our social workers come for the monthly visits, it often feels like we are checking up on them and not checking in with them as young adults.

And so we're hoping that with AB 20 June, this becomes really a youth led choice for them to be able to use virtual visitations, have a more collaborative approach, and so that they can take the lead in how they manage this relationship with their social workers. So it truly feels very cooperative and supporting.

As noted, social workers will still schedule visits in person once a quarter or if there's ever any concern about the health or safety of the NMD living out of state. By making these changes, we hope the visits are more youth led. They incorporate technology they're familiar with on their own terms to help them develop a trusting and collaborative relationship with their social worker. We urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in support of this bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Good afternoon. Libby Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in support.

Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill, please come up to the microphone. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, comments, motions?

Assemblymember Elhawary. Go ahead.

I'm a foster mom to a young woman who actually went to school out of town. And just thinking about this opportunity for the youth led aspect and really allowing the young people themselves to make the choice and and really make those decisions is huge. So thank you for the work that you all are doing and to the author for, bringing this forward.

Thank you. Any motions? Alright. Thank you. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Sharon. Thank you for sharing that you are a foster mom. I'm a foster mom before in passing. We've talked about this.

And when this bill came to me, when I was a foster mom, I was more of a respite looking to foster adopt. And so I took in little babies, and we would have to do visitation. And when I did the visitation, I would once in a while see some transitional age youth, so youth that were getting into adulthood that would have to do these visitation. And you can tell how upset they are that they had to be there.

You can tell that they didn't wanna be there.

Just their body language and the look on their face, it already sets this negative tone in their mind. Right? And what we wanna do with these, young people is that we wanna build on that relationship. And sometimes it does taking that virtual, like, hi, how are you doing? Just checking in.

And then the next time it gets a little bit more to some point where you develop this relationship that you wanna come and see them in person and you become friends. And that's the way you deal with young people who are growing into adulthood because they've got hormones. They've got all these things that are going on with them, and so we wanna meet them where we're at.

And so when this opportunity came to me as a former foster mom, I thought this is definitely something that we need to do. This is something that we need to get caught.

And I absolutely thought about you as assembly member, Elhard, because I remember you talking about being a foster mom as well, and I knew that this was something that you would see, have the experience, and know that this is something we need. So with that, respectfully ask for your arrival. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. This bill was moved by Assemblymember [Unintellligible], seconded by Assemblymember Tangipa. This bill enjoys an aye recommendation for me. Madam Sec, Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB2684.

File item 24, AB 2684. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

That bills out. Congratulations. Alright. I see Assemblymember Zibur is here. And if he is ready to present file item number six, AB1967, he may come up when he's ready.

Yeah. Whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members. I'm proud today to present AB 1967, which will promote better outcomes for older youth experiencing homelessness and instability. Children and young adults often experience homelessness for reasons that are distinct from the adult population. Their episodes of homelessness may follow significant family instability or exits from institutional settings such as juvenile, the juvenile justice system.

In other cases, youth may be left, may have left the child welfare system through adoption or guardianship, often to find themselves in a situation that's unsupportive or even unsafe.

Youth who leave those situations can become homeless or exploited within weeks. Disproportionately LGBTQ plus and people of color, these youths are extremely vulnerable, and yet current law is leaving them behind. Youth who are unhoused and living in a youth shelter or group home are often unable to enter the child welfare system through self petition.

When these youth self petition, the county often only investigates the shelter or group home they are temporarily living in and considers them to be in a stable situation. This assessment ignores the reality of the youth situation and the circumstances that they may be left behind when they become unhoused.

For unhoused youth who need the support of the child welfare system, this bill ensures that county social workers review the circumstances in the home of the youth, not just the youth shelter or group home they may be temporarily living in when determining if they need to enter the child welfare system. This gives them a more accurate picture of the instability a youth may be experiencing and why they need services.

This bill also ensures that these youth can petition the court if the assigned county social worker does not respond to their self petition and gives the court discretion to open a juvenile dependency case. For youth who left the adoptive home, this bill eliminates barriers so that they can enter extended foster care when their guardian or adoptive parent is no longer providing support but is still receiving financial benefits on their behalf.

Reentry into foster care allows a youth to regain access to housing, case management, behavioral health services, and education supports that prevent homelessness and long term harm.

Older youth deserve a safe path into foster care when abuse or neglect occurs, whether they're entering for the first time on their own petition or returning because of an adopted parent is no longer supporting them. AB 1967 continues the work I started in this space several years ago and ensures that older youth have access to the support that they need. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

And with me today, in support of the bill are Zachariah Oquenda, senior policy attorney with the Alliance for Children's Rights, and Deannie Choiselat, membership and policy coordinator with the California Coalition for Youth, both cosponsors of the bill.

Alright. Two minutes each, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Deannie Choiselat, membership and public policy coordinator with the California Coalition for Youth. Our members support young people with other options. They've been kicked out of their homes or left abusive families, and state law requires that unaccompanied youth who seek services from youth homelessness prevention centers, YHPC, can only stay at these programs up for ninety days.

YHPT staff, our mandated reporters, note that when youth disclose abuse or unsafe home environments, the resulting reports often do not trigger immediate child welfare investigations because the youth is temporarily safe within the program. A responsive self petition process helps that.

It gives older youth a confidential trauma informed way to ask for help when they're in danger. These young people are fully capable of explaining what's happening to them, and the legislation still ensures that every petition triggers professional assessment and judicial oversight.

I'd like to share a story of a young person who came to the attention of one of our members. Matt was living on the streets in San Francisco after years of years of abuse by his father. Matt's father threw him out of the house after he came out at age 16.

After several months on the streets, Matt found respite in a local youth shelter following several dangerous encounters. Staff and, staff at the shelter connected Matt to legal aid advocates who assisted Matt in filing a petition under California's welfare and institutions code 329 to enter foster care alleging maltreatment.

Despite his self petition to enter foster care to find the stability and support he needed, Matt's self petition did not result in the county child welfare agency opening a juvenile dependency case.

The county welfare agency did not, sorry, advocates believe that Matt was residing in the youth shelter, and the county welfare agency did not recommend opening a juvenile justice case because he was not facing an urgent safety risk.

Because California law allows youth to stay in youth homelessness prevention centers for up to ninety consecutive days, the stability of a youth shelter can put in jeopardy the long term supports and services that Matt and young people in similar circumstances need to stabilize in the short term and thrive in the long term. He struggled to identify stability and safe and affordable housing. Matt was not able to find long term housing situation.

His relatives all rejected his request. His legal aid advocates lost contact with him after he left the youth shelter. AB 1967 will help ensure timely and responsive attention to Matt and other young people's self petitions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

I'm Zachariah Okenda, senior policy attorney with the Alliance for Children's Rights. We serve youth who experience poverty, abuse, or neglect, which can include youth and adoptive families. Adoption is not always the permanent safety net we hope it to be. When an adoptive placement breaks down, a young person can lose their housing overnight.

And under current law, a youth can be locked out of extended foster care entirely if they're unable to successfully reenter before turning 18. This worst case scenario, which we see too often, can happen when an adoptive parent is still collecting adoption assistant payments even while providing no support to the youth.

We saw this with a client, Zara, a young woman who was adopted out of foster care and later kicked out of her adoptive home at 17. She was forced to drop out of community college and work full time just to survive. The system had no foster care reentry pathway for her.

No more should the provision of AAP payments or any other financial assistance be a barrier to the youth like Zara to reenter foster care. AB 1967 would have helped Zara. Despite her failed adoption by allowing Zara to reenter into foster care under a voluntary reentry agreement that triggers the suspension of those payments.

This refocuses the support where it should be on the youth and their needs. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone at this time.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in support.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Phan on behalf of California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association in support. Thank you.

Simone Tureck Lee with John Burton Advocates for Youth in support.

Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill, please come up to the microphone. Seeing none, I'm gonna bring back to committee for any questions or comments from committee members. Alright.

Seeing no questions, I'll let the author close.

You know, one of the things that causes me to sort of focus on foster youth is the fact that, you know, they are youth that we, as the state of California, are responsible for.

And so, you know, when the systems aren't working for them, we need to make sure that we're stepping forward and making sure that these kids are being cared for and whether, you know, they have, been adopted and come into an adopted home.

It's still, it's still our responsibility when that's not working for us to sort of step in and make sure that the system cares for them. And so, I just wanna thank the sponsors of the bill for working with our office and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward, and thank you for your attention to, to these young people who are unfortunately out there. We definitely need flexibility, especially because of some of the stories you shared.

LGBTQ, they're overrepresented in homelessness and people are experiencing a lot of hardships, especially among young people. So I think this is an important bill. I'm recommending an aye vote today, and this bill was moved by Assembly Member Solache and seconded by Assembly Member Elhawary

So all the LGBTQ members on here. So, madam secretary, please call the roll on a on this bill. AB 9667.

File item six, AB 1967. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [ROLL CALL]

That bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Are there any other noncommittee of authors present? If not, I believe Assembly Elhawary is ready to present a bill.

You're doing file number 9, 2126. Correct?

Alright. File number 9, 2126.

Yes, sir.

Hi. Thanks for your patience.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I'd like to thank the committee and staff for all of your work on the bill, and I will be accepting committee amendments. AB 2126 removes unnecessary hiring barriers for peer partners in our child welfare system. People who bring lived experience and are uniquely positioned to support others navigating those same systems. A peer partner is someone who has navigated one or more public systems of care and now uses their lived experience to support others facing similar challenges.

They play an important role in child welfare, behavioral health, and juvenile justice systems. Research shows that peers improve engagement, strengthen stability, and support outcomes like reunification and staying in school. However, many individuals who apply for positions at community care licensed facilities are unable to secure employment because their criminal records trigger a lengthy exemption review process. This delay especially affects former foster youth, many of whom have nonviolent offenses tied to trauma or instability during adolescence. This exemption review process can take up to twelve months.

As many of these individuals cannot wait that long for employment, the delay leads to a loss of qualified peer workers. Accordingly, AB 2126 creates a targeted automatic background check exemption for peer applicants who are current or former foster youth and whose offenses occurred before age 21. Violent and child related felonies are still excluded from this exemption, and all existing fingerprint based checks remain in place to ensure safety.

This change allows agencies to hire peer partners more quickly and enables individuals with lived experience to contribute to the workforce while maintaining safety protections. Joining me today is Annie Thomas, policy advocate with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, and Santos Flores Castro, a former foster youth and peer partner.

Alright. Thank you. Two minutes each, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Lee and members. Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud cosponsor of AB 2126. The California Alliance represents over 200 organizations, including many licensed providers such as short term residential therapeutic programs, foster family agencies, and other programs that serve foster youth in the child welfare system.

Our members recognize the value of hiring peers with lived experience because they see every day the trust, connection, and credibility those peers bring to youth engagement and support.

Too often, the very young people best positioned to support foster youth are blocked from employment because of a youth age offenses tied to trauma, instability, and system involvement. Under current law, if the offense is not on the state's list of disqualifying crimes, the Department of Social Services already has the authority to grant an exemption. The problem is that that process takes seven to twelve months, and most applicants can't wait that long for a job.

These delays not only cause agencies to lose qualified candidates, it also discourages agencies to hire peers in the first place. Current former foster youth are uniquely appropriate for these roles because they know the system from the inside.

They understand what it means to navigate placements, court hearings, case plans, and the instability that so many young people face. That lived experience helps build trust, improve engagement, and help youth advocates youth advocate for themselves from a place of firsthand understanding. This bill removes that barrier. It doesn't change the law for serious nonexemptible crimes, and it maintains the same background checks and safety standards already required under current law. It's safety standards already required under current law.

It simply ensures that for current and former foster youth seeking to work in a peer support capacity, already exemptable offenses committed before age 21 do not trigger a long discretionary delay that keeps them out of the workforce. This bill recognizes lived experience as an asset, not a liability, and helps ensure that foster youth are supported by people who truly understand their experience. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Lee, members, and everyone present. My name is Santo, and I am a former foster youth. And I'm here to speak on behalf of the importance of this bill, AB 2126. Removing barriers for former foster youth as Annie spoke and the author, to to some may be just bureaucracy to some.

But for former foster youth who have been let down by family, caretakers, society, who also carry trauma and the instability that has been spoken about, shuffle through systems, this can be a lifeline, a hope that cannot be truly measured. I wanna share briefly just my story to illustrate this. I didn't commit any crimes after I turned 18, and I am very grateful and blessed for that. I don't have that exact experience, but I was given a second chance while in foster care.

I ran away from the court ordered group home, Rancho San Antonio, had a warrant for my arrest.

Two months later, after reaching the end of all hope for my life, ready to die by gang violence, God saved my life. I had a deep desire to go back to Rancho and face all my trauma and pain. And sorry. Lost my train right there. I turned myself into Juvenile Hall, and Rancho set accepted me back.

As a result of that return, hope was not only restored, but a life of service and devotion to helping others with birth. I became a youth peer, completed college, worked at the very boys home Rancho that saved my life, got a master's degree in social work. I'm a licensed therapist, and I have influenced thousands of people over my career at this point. I say all this just really for one reason.

What if that lifeline of a job that a former foster youth is seeking and that barrier that AB 2126 solves was removed and hope was infused and they can work?

What if that trajectory of that life is like mine, serving hundreds and even thousands, giving back, making a difference. And for this reason, I ask from my heart to yours for your a vote for AB 2126. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in support of this bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Tom Renfree, on behalf of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, in support. Thank you.

Nicole Moroles, on behalf of Children Now, in support.

Yesenia Revancho with End Child Poverty in California in strong support.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, cosponsor in support.

Zachariah Okenda with Alliance for Children's Rights, strong support.

Jonathan Munoz, Children's Institute in strong support.

Alana Latticer, with the American Nurses Association of California in support.

Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association. We're a cosponsor in support.

Sally Ching with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color in strong support, also reading a me too on behalf of several other organizations, California School Based Health Alliance, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, Integral Community Solutions Institute, Integral excuse me.

Felony Murder Elimination Project, California Coalition for Youth, Los Angeles Trust for Children's Health, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Cancel the Contract, National Health Law Center Law Program, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, End Child Poverty California, Children's Defense Fund, the Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, Youth Leadership Institute, and Boys Republic. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Now are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Let's go forward. Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill or members of the public wish to sign the opposition bill?

Seeing none, I'll bring back to committee for questions or comments or question or comment from Assemblymember Tangipa.

Thank you. And I look forward to moving this bill forward today, and it's good to see you both. You know, I know we've worked together a lot recently. The one thing that I do want just for consideration for the future, you know, obviously, this is the exemption all the way up to crimes committed before 21 years old.

If we can at least look into something potentially that says end crimes not committed within the last two years, because because I wanna make sure that we're not having a specific carve out.

Or somebody does something and then they're 20, then all of a sudden, you know, if there are it's just if there's just a general protection. So that way, we can make sure that if somebody wants to get better, if somebody wants to then go and and give that service again, you know, we're making sure that we have all of the protections in place.

You know, when I I really thank you for sharing your story, and all of you have heard mine when I shared at the the event. But I understand what it means when you find hope and you find a chance. And sometimes that comes from somebody else with lived experience.

So as long as we can have those safeguards in place, so that way we can make sure that we're benefiting those who are looking for some help. So just- just as a consideration, and look forward to moving this forward today. And then I- I will be looking for that in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll definitely consider that. Thank you.

Alright. Any other questions, comments? Assemblymember Castillo?

I wanna thank the author for this bill, and I wanna thank you for your testimony. I'm a dual licensed therapist, and I'm gonna be honest. I was gonna oppose your bill. As someone who worked for the county of Riverside Department of Mental Health, I worked with peer support specialists and, yeah, although it says not caregiver roles, my concern was peer support specialist in the role doing the work that I do without a license, you know, that was my concern

Yeah.

Which, yeah, they're still dealing with people who are very vulnerable, and that was where my concern was. After hearing your testimony, I'm gonna vote to support your bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Any other questions or comments? See, this is why it's important to have our witnesses come to Sacramento. So I appreciate your open mindedness. Yes.

Alright. I will invite the author to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. I thank you for working with committee staff on this bill. Foster youth peer support allows for unique support to foster youth and ultimately leads to better outcomes. The bill reduces barriers for the specific population to work with in a peer capacity, and I am recommending aye as amended.

And this bill was moved by Assemblymember Solache and seconded by- seconded by anyone? By Tangipa. Assemblymember Tangipa.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2126.

File item nine, AB 2126. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. [roll call].

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Alright. Next, we're gonna go to Assemblymember Solache for file item 16, AB 2379.

No rush. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you.

Great. Yes. Whenever you're ready. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair, Members, for the opportunity to present AB2379, protecting family, childcare providers constitutional rights. I'm grateful to you and the committee for, your hard work and thoughtful analysis on this bill. Child care homes are essential to California's childcare system, especially for working class immigrant families. AB through twenty three seventy nine insurance license and licensed exempt family child care providers are informed of their constitutional rights when confronted by immigration enforcement.

The bill requires the Department of Social Services to notify providers of the Fourth Amendment protections and to coordinate accessible multilingual training.

The training will ensure providers understand the rights regarding searches, seizures, arrests, and detentions in their homes. By educating providers of their constitutional rights, the bill helps keep childcare door doors open and safe for from intimidation, misinformation, and unlawful searches or arrests by law enforcement, including federal immigration authorities. AB 2379 bills on existing sensitive location protections by ensuring family childcare providers have the information and tools they need to protect themselves.

The children, their their on the care in their care and the families they serve. This bill is co sponsored by the childcare providers United, SEIU California, United Domestic Workers, ASPE Local thirty nine ninety.

With me today, childcare providers, Vicky Ramirez and Charlotte Neal.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Charlotte Neal, and I am a 24 childcare provider here in Sacramento. I am here today to support AB2379. Providers like me have been first know firsthand how child care facilities have become targets for aggressive immigration enforcement activities. We know that agencies like ICE prey upon people's ignorance of their rights in order for people to unwittingly cooperate with their own victimization.

I have to say that again. To cooperate with their own victimization. We know knowledge is power, and that is why it is essential that AB2379 be adopted. We must have mandated trading that informs us of our fourth amendment rights against unwarranted searches, seizures, and unlawful entries into in order to protect the children in our care, the families who rely on our services, our employees, and ourselves.

AB23 will ensure that providers are already prepared, informed, and ready to assess our constitutional rights.

If ICE comes to our doorstep, we must know how to respond and how to stay safe. We are proud to partner with Assemblyman Solange to assure that state broadens its trainings, offerings for our providers with a focus on the safety and well-being of us, our families, communities that we serve. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Elvira Ramirez, and I am a childcare provider in San Jose. And I am a proud member of childcare provider, SEIU Local 521. And I am also a certified Know Your Rights facilitator with our childcare providers united training fund. I have cared for many children, including kids with immigrant families, and I have seen firsthand the trauma, fear, and cause.

One of those families recently experienced this as the father was detained by ICE for two

months. His his young son went from being happy and carefree to anxious, living an uncertainly, while his mother had no had no one to turn to but me. Providers are often placed in this, uncertain situation, which we were never trained for. That is where my role as a certified facilitator matters. To know your rights training, I am able to teach providers about the four amendment protections and how to respond safely while protecting their homes, their business, and children in their care.

I have seen providers to go from fear to confidence, from not from knowing not knowing what to say to being able to respond calmly and clearly, and from feeling alone to feeling prepared. Right now, this training is not reaching everyone because access depends on location, language, and opportunity, which means our childcare system is relying on chance. That is not acceptable. AB 2379 changes that by ensuring every provider statewide is prepared by receiving consistent know your rights training in multiple languages.

So when a moment crisis happen, providers have the tools and preparation to face it.

If providers are prepared, children are safer, families have peace on mind, and communities are stronger. As a provider, I have lived it. Now as a facilitator, I am able to help fellow providers and their families to serve. That is why I respectfully urge you support the AB 2379 so that together, we can educate entire communities. And I can tell you firsthand that this cannot wait.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you.

And we have Edgar Guerra. We'll just be here to answer any technical questions from SAU California. Great. Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in support of the bill? Any or any members of the public who wish to sign in support of the bill, please to the microphone.

Hi. Yesenia Rabancho with End Child Poverty in California in strong support. Thank you.

Lucy Salcedo Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in support.

Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Kathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University of Women of California in support.

Stephanie Orozco on behalf of First Five LA in strong support.

Yajaira Gonzalez with First Five California in strong support.

Alright. Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Any witnesses in opposition?

Any of the members of the public who should once testify in the opposition to the bill, please come forward to the microphone. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or commentary on this bill or any motions. You have a commentary or questions? Okay. Go forward.

So, typically, for me, I I never have an issue with trying to inform the public when it comes to their own constitutional rights. I think everybody should be aware. Heck, I even think that members of the legislature should have lessons on the second amendment, maybe the first amendment as well. But, you know, when it comes to the positioning of DSS or DDA or yeah.

DSS, you know, I think that this is something that the constitution is made legible so and easily so people can actually access it.

And, you know, when I'm looking at what's going on right now, the this is I don't believe it's the purpose of DSS to work on this. And that's where when it comes to the education on the constitution, I think, one, there's a lot of information out there. It's readily available. And, you know, for that, I'm just laying off. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments or motions, members, this bill? If not, I will invite the author to oh, somebody called around? Yes. Go for it.

Hi. Can you hear me? Hi. I just wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know I walked in late, but I think it's a good bill.

And I'd love to be added as coauthor, please. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. I'll invite the author to close.

Sure. Thank you to chair, committee members. Thank you for those comments today. I think it's a very, simple and to the point, we're trying to hit today. We're trying to ensure that our providers know their rights.

In my district where I probably represent, eight communities, my community continues to live in fear of what if what what happens. And so I think one of the things that that I'm I'm proud to have carried this bill to ensure that our childcare providers who are taking care of our children statewide are gonna have the opportunity to ensure that they're educated and and and and informed of what the rights are. Nothing new. We're not creating anything new.

We're just informing them and ensuring that they have the best tools to protect not only themselves, the child carers, and ultimately the children that they're caring for.

So I'm proud of our our child care providers today that offer testimony, of course, to our our our labor partners at SA California ensuring that we are always advocates for our our communities. And I think this is the right direction to just keep informing community members of of their rights and in a time of kind of of living a a little bit of of fear in this situation. So thank you, and I ask for your it's okay for your your eye support.

Alright. Thank you so much. Assemblymember, I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and building upon the momentum we've had in the recent years. It is an unfortunate reality that our childcare centers are essentially under threat from mass deportation rates, and I do think it is important that our childcare providers do are educated more on the constitution and the constitutional rights, especially it's something as critical as the Fourth Amendment.

I would say that eighteenth century English is not actually the most successful thing, especially for immigrant families and especially for and I really think all of our, childcare providers themselves are coming all the way up to Sacramento, especially since you're doing twenty four hour care.

You're taking a couple hours to come up here is really important as well. I do think it is very important because, especially speaking for people of color and immigrants, you know, it it do come from other regimes that you have to cooperate with the government. Right? But in America, you have constitutional rights, so this might not be the norm for people. And I think it is so important, especially when you're protecting our children, especially as we've seen the Federal Government also use children as bait.

So I think it's very important that we can do such important step as educating people about the Fourth Amendment right, which is a very crucial part of the bill rights. I also would love to be had as a co-author. I also believe in this bill very much. I'm reckoning an aye vote on this bill. If we could get a motion and a second for this bill.

Move the bill. Second.

The bills are probably moved and seconded by Assemblymember Calderon and Assemblymember Elhawary. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 2379.

File item 16 AB 2379. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Alright. Do I see any author members here? If not, we'll go to Assemblymember Calderon to do AB 2299 item 14.

And then after that, if we have a lull, we will just we'll take up motions on all the bills we didn't previously have quorum on. But we're also looking for authors. So if your staff and you're watching this and you have a committee bill, we're still looking for many authors. Alright. Whenever you're ready, Assembly Calderon, you may begin.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. In July 2025, president Trump signed HR 1, which made the largest cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, also known as SNAP, and CalFresh in California history. HR 1 cut food assistance for millions of families and shifted costs from the Federal Government to the state. One of these cuts was an expansion of time limits on food benefits.

As a result, beginning in June 2026, nearly 700,000 Californians will lose federal food assistance simply because they cannot prove they meet the work or community engagement reporting rules. After June 1, anyone receiving CalFresh who is not exempt can only receive CalFresh benefits for three months within a three year period unless they can demonstrate they are working a minimum of twenty hours a week every month. Through HR 1, the Federal Government cruelly limited exemptions from these time limits.

So now people who are once exempt will be cut off from food benefits if they can't find work or fail to report their hours, including veterans, former foster youth, older adults age 55 to 64, people with dependent children older than 13, and people experiencing homelessness. Limiting access to food is just wrong.

If we do nothing, the California Department of Social Services estimates that 665,000 Californians will lose indispensable food assistance. AB 2299, the California Anti Hunger Response and Employment Training Act, will provide a safety net for Californians who lose their CalFresh benefits until they are able to become eligible for CalFresh benefits again. I'd like to thank the chair and the committee for working with me on this critical bill.

With with me here to testify in support is Keely O'Brien from the Western Center on Law and Poverty and Koy Saeteurn from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights.

Hi, Chair and committees. Koy Saeturn with the- Legislative Advocate with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm the daughter of an refugee family, US military allies in the secret war in Laos. We came to this country carrying the weight of a war this government helped start, and we built our lives here the best that we could. I'm a first generation American born in Fresno, a UC Santa Cruz graduate, a CalFresh recipient.

The system was built first with someone like me in mind, and it's still hard. Fourteen days ago, humanitarian immigrants, refugees, asylees, survivors of trafficking began losing their CalFresh. People who came here the same way my family did to flee persecution, violence, and torture. They haven't all lost their benefits yet. They'll lose them one by one at recertification without a bridge waiting for them.

AB 2299 is that bridge. It has to pass before the wave fully lands. My community came here carrying trauma most had never had the chance to treat. A published study in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that ninety percent of the inpatients showed PTSD, even among those who made it to a clinic. These are people already below baseline.

When you're carrying that kind of weight, losing food doesn't arrive as a separate problem. It really accelerates everything. A 2023 JAMA study found that SNAP access is directly associated with reduced suicide risk. The ripple effects land in emergency rooms and hospitals and child welfare cases. Thirty six percent of the people who have begun losing their benefits right now are children.

While food banks are a vital source, they cannot fill the gap that HR 1 is causing. For every one meal that the food bank provides, CalFresh delivers nine. Public benefits gave my family room to breathe. The Californians who have already begun to lose their benefits and the hundreds of thousands who will lose theirs in the coming months deserve that same room. This bill is cheaper than what happens without it.

So being hungry never supports stability, and I truly believe that we should support policies like AB 2299 to help us many vulnerable Californians receive basic human needs in order to thrive. I urge you to support AB 2299.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Two weeks ago, as Koy said, 72,000 humanitarian immigrants in California, including refugees, asylees, and survivors of trafficking, started having their food benefits stripped away. In June, nearly 700,000 more Californians will follow as time limits are implemented. If we do nothing, time limits alone are expected to cause 4,000 avoidable deaths in California among older adults and parents with children by 2040.

And these cuts are built on a lie that hungry people must be starved into working harder. The research is unambiguous. Work requirements do not increase employment. Every rigorous study shows the same result. People don't find more work.

They just lose food. The maximum CalFresh benefit is $10 a day. Nobody is avoiding work for $10 a day. These are people who are already working in jobs with low pay, unpredictable hours, and no margin for error. AB 2299 empowers California to fight back against this cruel policy.

This bill and the associated budget request would make California the first state in the nation to build a food system that's capable of providing everyone losing access to CalFresh with, excuse me, everyone losing access to SNAP due to discriminatory federal rules. And it builds on work that we've already committed to. The planned expansion of the California food assistance program to undocumented older adults in 2027. AB22- AB 2299 adds to that plan and makes CFAP an even more powerful tool against discrimination and hunger.

The return on investing in food security is extraordinary.

Higher employment, stable families, reduced health care costs, better educational outcomes, and so much more. And if we don't fight back, people will suffer and thousands of people will die. When we strip food access, those costs land in our Medicaid budget, our ERs, and our child welfare system, as Koy said. And HR 1 didn't cut food benefits because we ran out of money at the Federal Government. The 1.5 trillion dollars they cut from food and health benefits, that funded 1.5 trillion dollars in tax breaks for the ultra wealthy.

So the best way for California to fight back against HR 1, against all of its cuts to food, to MediCal, to our communities, is to reverse it, claw back those tax breaks where we can, and restore what was taken from our people.

We're lucky to be in the most beautiful and prosperous state in this country, and AB 2299 is our chance to make that prosperity a reality for everyone, not just the ultra wealthy, but the hundreds of thousands of people, the veterans, the seniors, the families, the refugees who built our state and who are now being abandoned by the Federal Government. I urge you to vote aye on AB 2299. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Yesenia Robancho with End Child Poverty in California. This is an End Child Poverty Imagine priority, Also priority for the Dream Alliance Coalition, Stronger California Coalition, and adding in support the California Immigrant Policy Center and End Poverty in California, EPIC.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association, pleased to be in support.

Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in support.

Alejandro Solis on behalf of California Primary Care Association in support.

Josh Wright with the California Association of Food Banks, proud cosponsors along with the Public Interest Law Project, also a Me Too for the California Food and Farm Network in support.

Mandy Diec with Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, also in support.

Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. Any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Alright.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Solache.

Thank you, Chair. I wanna thank, again, the author as well for bringing this bill to forward to us. I know our Chair earlier this year was also speaking about how do we improve and work on the SNAP program and food and food insecurity issues. I have a bill in the space, so just wanna thank the author for this.

This is an important conversation to have and to, obviously, the witnesses today. I also would like to add myself as a coauthor and the importance of moving this conversation forward and looking forward to in- celebrate when the governor signs it. Thank you.

Alright. Any other questions or comments, members? Seeing none, I'll invite the author to close.

Yes. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Alright. Thank you. I, again, also wanna reiterate how important this work is. Food security is so critical right now. We I've seen time to time even in other states that work requirements are a smooth conservative talking point, but it is a smooth way to actually kick people off of services who actually desperately need it.

So I would also like to be added as a coauthor to this bill, and I will be recommending an aye, an aye recommendation for this bill. Can I get a second for this bill? Can I get a second for the there you go? Alright. The bills have been moved and seconded by Assemblymember Solache and Assemblymemeber Elhawary.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this bill.

File item 14, AB 2299. The motion is do passed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee?

Lee, aye. Castillo? Calderon? Calderon, aye. Elhawary?

Aye.

Elhawary, aye. Jackson? Solache? Solache, aye.

Tangipa?

That bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you. Alright, members. Let's run through some of the bills we only heard as a subcommittee so we can bring motions to them.

Madame Secretary, should we do them one at a time? Should we go through them? Alright. Let's start with the consent calendar.

Can I get a motion in a second for the consent calendar? Second. Alright. Consent calendars are moved and seconded.

[Roll Call]

Four to zero. That bill is out. I'm going to present actually my bill first because I our witness, I understand, has to leave urgently. So I'm gonna present the bill. Assemblymember Castillo, can you take over?

Yeah. Alright. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and members. I'm presenting AB 2213, which reconstitutes the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative. First, I'm accepting the amendments, including analysis, which are very thoughtful and very thorough, starting at page eight.

CalFresh currently serves 5,500,000 people, and it is proven to be 1 of the most effective programs in tackling food insecurity. If it wasn't for safety net programs like CalFresh, an additional 2,600,000 people would be living in poverty.

But with the passage of HR1 and its unprecedented cuts and draconian eligibility restrictions, every CalFresh family is expected to be negatively impacted. Amid devastating federal cuts, the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative will build much needed state reserves to maintain investments in food aid.

The bill will create a council represented by the State Treasury, the Department of Food and Agriculture, social services, as well as labor and workforce development to implement initiative and develop financing options. The initiative will prioritize funding to organizations that serve communities and food deserts along with the food cooperatives and independent grocery stores, among others.

Funding sources may include new market tax credits, federal and foundation grant programs, as well as financing from private financial institutions. It is estimated that roughly a quarter of California families experience food insecurity. More and more families are struggling to afford their groceries. Over the last five years, grocery prices have surged by almost 30%.

The Federal Government's trade war is causing problems to rapidly increase and hurts local farmers. Without safety net programs, roughly 2,600,000 more Californians would be in poverty. The bill creates another tool for California to preserve our efforts to combat food insecurity and invest in all of our communities. With me today in support is Arnold Sowell with NextGen California.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. My name is Arnie Sowell, and I am the executive director of NextGen California. NextGen is a nonprofit organization that focuses on economic climate, environmental food, and racial and social justice. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2213, the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative. First, I wanna thank Assembly Member Lee for bringing this bill forward.

It's extremely timely. It's comprehensive. And the, and the legislation aims to improve healthy food access, eliminate food deserts, better link state the state agricultural sector with regional food systems and combat food insecurity. Secondly, I just wanna say that this bill has a personal aspect to me. And that is that fifteen years ago, I was the policy director for speaker John Perez.

And Speaker Perez is the author of the original California Healthy Foods Financing initiative. And, later in the, the testimony, Mayor Cames, was one of my colleagues in the speaker's office who actually worked on the original, in the original bill. That being said, the reason why this bill is coming forward is because there's still more work to be done. The problems of food access, food deserts, and food insecurity still persist in our state.

And as a matter of fact, despite California's agricultural abundance, an estimated 3,000,000 Californians live in communities without reliable access to fresh, affordable, and healthy food.

In these regions of our state, often, food offerings at, convenience stores as well as, food offerings at, fast food restaurants, are what constitutes the opportunities for folks to access access food because full service grocery stores are much too far away. And this adds to the financial strain for families as well as it increases the incidence of diet related disease. It is well documented that these disparities are not evenly distributed.

Low income communities, rural and tribal communities, and communities of color are far more often to lack full service grocery stores. And as Assembly Member Lee indicated, at the same time all this is happening, the CalFresh program is being devastated by federal actions, and an estimated five point five million Californians could result in, and, and lose, are on CalFresh and could, could lose their benefits.

AB 2213 is a a necessary legislative solution, to meet the moment we're facing. By reviving the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative, this bill creates a coordinated cross agency approach to expand food access, build out our food systems, and invest in resources in underserved communities, leveraging federal, state, philanthropic, and private funding, develop a more sustainable strategy for eliminating food deserts and tackling the issue of food insecurity. I respectfully ask that the committee move this bill forward with an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any members in the hearing room of the public in the hearing room that are in support? Please state your name and your position.

Yes. Yesenia Robancho with End Child Poverty in California in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello. Kelly Mac Millan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Russell Manning on behalf of California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, in support.

Josh Wright on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks in support.

Mary Kames on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Oh. I was like, you tricked us there.

Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room in opposition? None? Okay. I'm gonna bring it back to the committee.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Again, as mentioned earlier in in Miss Calderon's bill, Mister Lee and I spoke earlier at one point about this, this priority, and I also wanna coauthor this bill.

I think it's imperative that we prioritize these dollars and and the SNAP program and to ensuring that, you know, folks don't go without food. So with that, thank you to the author for, for this bill. Thank you. And with that, I'd like to move it.

Thank you. I wanna thank the author for the bill, and I wanna thank your witness here for your testimony. Thank you so much. And I'm gonna ask you to close.

Alright. Thank you so much, Madam Vice chair. This bill is a great foray into what I think resolving a big paradox in the state. California is the breadbasket of the nation, if not the world. The trade war, of course, made things so difficult on the world stage, but, yeah, we have such a strong agricultural economy.

We saw people literally work in the fields or miles in the fields who go hungry, who starve. And it is really important that we access our powerful economic might as well as our state resources to really connect people to fresh food that has grown in California. And so with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. The bill was motioned by Solache, second by Jackson. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item 12, AB 2213. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [ROLL CALL]

Six to zero. That bill is out.

We are gonna move to file item, 14, AB 2230. Avila Farias. Careful there. And thank you, Assembly Member. Please present your bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. ICE enforcement has created fears across California impacting both citizens and immigrants alike. AB 2230 protects two critical spaces, voting rights and centers and childcare center facilities.

This bill prohibits immigration enforcement from entering or surrounding area locations ensuring people can vote and that children can learn without fear. California is home to 10,000,000 immigrants, many of whom are US citizens and are eligible voters.

At a time when there is a growing concern about intimidation at the polls and aggressive enforcement tactics, we must act to protect fundamental rights and community safety. No parent should fear losing their child to enforcement actions, and no voter should be intimidated from participating in our democracy. AB 2230 ensures that these spaces remain safe, free, and fear free, and from intimidation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room in support? Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room to testify in opposition? State your name and your position.

David Bullock in opposition. I'm with the SFP Alliance. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions from the committee? Comments?

I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward.

And I just wanna echo that. I think in this time where we're really, seeing our community struggling and, for those of us who have seen that firsthand with our, community members who, are immigrants, ensuring that they feel safe, that our community members feel safe, whether they're an immigrant themselves or related to someone, especially looking at the child care facilities and polling places. It matters. So thank you.

You can close.

Chair and members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. The bill was motioned by Calderon, seconded by Elhawary. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item 13, AB 2230. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Elections Committee. [ROLL CALL]