Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Welcome. Welcome, everybody, to the committee. Yes. Are we That's my job. Thank you. Welcome to the Assembly privacy and consumer protection committee. Our vice chair should be here soon, but we will start as a subcommittee. The committee has been advised that Assemblymember Patterson will recuse himself from participating or voting on AB 1856. And we have 24 bills on the agenda today with eight bills on the consent calendar.

So thank you to our Republican colleagues for their, help and being efficient today. To effectively manage our time, rules are the usual two witnesses in support, two in opposition, two minutes for each witness on both sides. If I lose track of time, I'll make sure one has equal time. And then anybody else in the room will be called up to give support or opposition, name, organization, and position.

If you do not have a time to provide all of the wonderful things you wanna say to us, please go to our website.

Our portal allows for full letters and comments. We all review those, and we look forward to hearing more from you. With that, we will begin, as I said, as a subcommittee, and we are going to accommodate assembly member Wilson first with AB 1798. That's right. Wallis is here, but we have agreed to accommodate miss Wilson first.

But mister Wallis is right after miss Wilson. When you're ready.

Well, good afternoon, madam chair and members. Thank you so much for the flexibility and being able to present early. I'm honored to present AB 1798. Today, more Californians than ever are turning to genetic testing to better understand their health. These tools allow individuals to detect risks early, pursue preventative care, and make informed medical decisions.

This is exactly the kind of proactive health conscious behavior we should be encouraging. But instead, our current system creates risk and uncertainty. That is why my bill, AB 1798 prohibits life and non health disability insurance insurers from using nondiagnostic genetic information to deny coverage or encourage premiums. The bill also addresses the growing role of direct to consumer genetic testing, which is considered nonmedical and is not currently used in underwriting.

It prohibits insurers from seeking or using genetic information that individuals obtain on their own, ensuring that consumers remain in control of deeply personal data they choose to explore for their own health.

At the same time, AB 1798 is carefully balanced, and this type of policy is already being implemented in states like Florida. It does not prevent insurers from accessing medical history or asking about family history. It simply makes clear that genetic data, whether obtained directly or indirectly, cannot be used to make underwriting decisions. In other words, insurance can insurers can still evaluate risk, but they cannot rely on that data that is uniquely sensitive, speculative in nature, and often uncertain.

It is extremely important to note that genetic data is fundamentally different than traditional medical data.

As emphasized by the American Medical Association, it often reflects only a possibility, not a diagnosis. Many genetic markers indicate risks that may never materialize. And in many cases, the science is still involving or correlational, not causational. Thank you to the opposition for their thoughtful engagement. I'm committed to continuing collaboration as we move forward.

We all agree that people should not pay more or be denied coverage because of who they are. Then we must also agree that they should not be penalized for what is written in their DNA. Ultimately, this bill is about balance. AB 1798 ensures that genetic testing leads to better health. It protects privacy, promotes early detection, and reinforces trust in both our health care and insurance system.

I would like to now induce introduce my two witnesses, Craig Moll, a scientist at UCSF working on gene editing therapies and a fellow with the Global Brain Health, as well as Miguel Basesas Basesas. Did I say it right? Yes.

Okay. Good. Chief deputy legislative director for the California Department of Insurance.

going first? Miguel or first?

Are you

Okay. Good

afternoon, chair, committee members. My name is Miguel Bastidas. I'm the chief dep oh, sorry about that. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Miguel Bastidas.

I am the chief deputy legislative director for the California Department of Insurance here under the leadership of insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara. With me today is Beverly Brand, assistant chief counsel for the department's policy regulation and approval bureau to help answer any technical questions that you may have. As a proud sponsor of AB 1798, commissioner Lauer would like to thank Assemblymember Wilson for her leadership in authoring this important measure, which protects California's genetic information and life and disability insurance underwriting.

California should never have to fear that genetic test results will be used against them when they apply for life or disability insurance. Instead, individuals should be encouraged to get tested early and to to take proactive steps to protect their health.

Doing this not only helps individuals stay healthier, also leads to healthier risk pools for insurers. Federal law already prohibits genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment. AB 1798 extends that same logic to genetic tests in any form that predict the potential for disease and are performed in the absence of symptoms or disease. Genetic information is distinct from traditional underwriting factors because it is immutable and most often suggest a remote chance of future diseases rather than a reasonably anticipated risk.

It also distinct in that it reveals deeply personal and private information about the patient and the patient's family.

Genetic tests often cannot reliably predict whether a disease will actually occur or at what age, and therefore should not be used to penalize individuals who are currently healthy. California law already recognized that certain genetic traits must be protected. Insurers are currently and rightfully prohibited from refusing to insure, sell, or renew life or disability insurance or try charging higher premiums for individuals who carry genetic traits associated with Tay Sachs, sickle cell, thalassemia, or x linked Hemophilia.

This bill strengthens consumer privacy, promotes fairness, supports genetic research, and empowers individuals to make informed medical decisions without sacrificing their financial security. I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and assembly, committee members. My name is Greg Moll. I'm a scientist at UCSF. I work, in developing gene editing therapies, and I also work as an Atlantic fellow to help ensure equitable access to new technologies. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Wilson for her leadership in, offering this bill.

And, as Miguel said, sequencing and genetic testing are at the cusp of providing amazing benefits to people and patients, and are becoming a standard part of clinical care. Sequencing can be used for diagnosis, early cancer screening, and even to identify which medicines will work for a given disease. Just last year, a baby was healed with a personalized gene editing therapy for the first time, and this is just the beginning. The NIH is currently piloting using newborn whole genome sequencing as a standard screening tool.

JINA and Cal JINA allow life and disability insurers to use genetic information for underwriting.

This disincentivizes patients to get life saving potentially life saving genetic testing. Genetic discrimination is a major barrier preventing people from getting genetic testing. A study from the MedSeq project found that twenty eight percent of people who actively decline sequencing cited genetic discrimination fear as their primary reason. I've spoken to gene carriers and their family members, many of whom have refused to participate in clinical research or get genetic testing due to these fears. We can close these loopholes while maintaining a robust insurance market.

Florida, France, Canada, and Australia do not allow life and disability insurers to use genetic testing and underwriting. All of these countries and Florida have robust insurance markets that have not been destabilized or hurt by this policy. In several countries, insurers have actually voluntarily imposed a moratorium on themselves. The opposition has said that AB 1798 will cause increased prices, market disruption, and information asymmetry that will undermine their ability to underwrite. These claims are exaggerated.

The data are clear. Family history is sufficient for insurers to price risk. Genetic data is probabilistic, not diagnostic in the absence of symptoms. The opposition also proposes solutions including not solely relying on genetic testing or based on sound actuarial principles, but these amendments would make the law unenforceable and leave existing insured practices unchanged. We need strong, clearly enforceable genetic discrimination protections to remove barriers for patients so they can access life saving care and accelerate innovation.

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

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support of this legislation? Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Scott Sadler on behalf of the ALS Association in support.

Thank you.

Sarah Nasito on behalf of the California Chronic Care Coalition and GeneDx in support.

Thank you.

Sumaya Nahar here on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Chad Mays with California Life Sciences in support. Good afternoon. Moira Topp on behalf of Biocom in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this bill? Come on up. We may need one of these seats, if you guys don't mind. Thank you.

Hi.

Hi. Good to see

you. Good afternoon, chair and members. Matt Powers, the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies. Our members write the life disability income and long term care policies that AB 1798, would impact. Thank you to the assembly member and staff for their sincere time and and work with us, but we must remain respectfully opposed as as amended.

This is a difficult issue that goes to people's health and personal information. Insurers want people to get access to genetic testing, improve their health, and live longer. We're aligned on that. Where we differ is how this information is treated. We do not see genetic information as fundamentally different from other health data used to assess insurance risk.

We have concerns that genetic information is especially sensitive. Sorry. Excuse me. We have heard concerns that genetic information is especially sensitive because it's predictive and may never manifest. This is also true of many other tests used in underwriting such as cholesterol, weight, glucose, and blood pressure.

Like genetic testing, these are all predictive of future risk, and they're permitted under the insurance code and subject to strict consent standards. Furthermore, the appropriate use of this information has improved predictions of mortality and morbidity and supported a strong affordable life and disability market in California. It's also important to clarify that our focus is on clinical physician ordered genetic tests, not direct to consumer tests like twenty three and Me or Ancestry, which are not taken for medical purposes.

We've offered amendments to take those completely off the table, and that leaves really physician ordered tests and research testing, and we're open to limits on research testing. However, clinical grade tests ordered by a doctor to assess and manage medical risk, a part of an applicant's medical file, should remain available, we believe.

If a physician orders a test that is material health information, it can predict it can predict risk, rule out conditions tied to family history, and support better underwriting outcomes, often enabling coverage. Insurers are in the business of writing coverage, and accurate information supports that goal. Finally, even though individuals, with higher sorry. Excuse me. Finally, even with, individuals with higher medical risk can access coverage through group insurance and guaranteed issue products that do not require underwriting.

This bill is about medically underwritten policies for carriers that need more insight into their long term financial risk, often over decades. And as part of that, we are asking to preserve access to an applicant's medical file. With that, I'd like to turn it over to my counterpart, doctor Deb, representing ACLI.

Good afternoon to the chair and the committee members. My name is doctor Deborah Van Domelen, and I have been a medical director in the insurance industry for over fifteen years. My training is in family medicine with degrees in public health and genetics. I'm here on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers.

Underwriting, the process by which an insurer looks at reviewing medical records to determine risk and appropriate pricing has actually lowered the cost of coverage for the majority of consumers and allowed more families to afford protection.

But that math unfortunately falls apart when individuals who are at the highest risk for premature death are forced into the lowest risk pools. It only takes a few of these people of higher risk put into the wrong pool to undermine that system. United States lacks a purchase mandate that exists in many other countries that were previously listed. And those mandates allow that risk to be spread off a spread over a large enough pool that it is not necessarily a problem for policy owners.

That does not exist here.

As well, this industry is highly regulated. We follow unfair discrimination laws. We follow direct to consumer genetic testing privacy, which I believe came out of this body, and we follow HIPAA. We never access sensitive information without consent. Insurers are committed to respecting and protecting that private information of our policyholders and our applicants, but genetic information is not, from our perspective, any more sensitive than the histories that we see of addiction, mental illness, and STDs in medical records.

What this bill does is give special status to a subset of consumers at the expense of others who may not have the discretionary income to afford the rising cost of food, housing, gas, and life insurance. So I thank you for your time today.

Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition to this bill? Name, organization, and position, please? You're all by yourself.

Good afternoon. Sherry McHugh representing the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors respectfully opposed unless amended and look forward to continuing work with the author. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Seeing nobody else in opposition, we'll bring it back to the committee. Questions, concerns, comments? Assemblymember Irwin?

Yeah. I'm I'm trying to understand how and and I wasn't here right at the beginning of your presentation. How do the insurance companies get the genetic information? Who is it that actually gives it up? It couldn't be doctors can't give it up.

Right? Or and I thought volunteer like, you couldn't be required to give the give the information to

the insurance company. Into play is the insurance companies have access to the medical file. And within the medical file, a patient could note that they took a test that was a direct to consumer. The doctor could have ordered a genetic test, and so that is how they find out about the genetic test.

And so what we're saying is that the doctor who has the primary is the primary care physician who's assessing the risk of the information that they're getting through testing is the one who should be assessing that risk and noting that.

And they have they still have access to that information, but they can't look and see that there's a genetic test, take those results, and then assess risk based on that. They have to use the doctor's assessment of that risk, not the genetic test itself.

Okay. I I didn't realize they they can have access to the entire medical record. Exactly. Leona Richland. And the the genetic test, if it's if it's a commercial one, you don't necessarily share the results with your

What happens is now in the advent of, AI tools within the medical field, you are, your doctor previously before AI would write what he thought or she thought, they thought, what was medically relevant. They might not note the '23 and me or something like that. But with the event of AI, it's actually being recorded, and that whole transcript is included. So if the person mentioned it, that would be a part of the file.

And they could, they do not right now, use genetic information at all in their underwriting.

So what we're saying is we wanna hold the line that you won't be able to at all.

Alright. And and I I I don't know who made the argument, but, yeah, I can see that if the insurance companies are using this genetic information, it's definitely a disincentive to testing because all sorts of things could show up. I don't know if that's

It was by he's nearby if he wants to

He's waving behind you.

Yes. If you wanna speak to that. Art.

Oh, yeah. Oh, okay.

Yeah. There have been several studies where it depends a little bit on the genetic test and a lot on the education level of the patient, but it's anywhere from ten to forty percent of people who decline sequencing cite genetic discrimination fears as their primary reason.

And I would like to note, if I can through the chairs, that as a reminder, genetic testing is not just about you. It's about your family. And so someone else could be discriminated against because they are related to you within that underwriting process because now your genetic material is being used and you happen to be related to somebody. They don't have that genetic testing but could be aware of the familiar relationship and be able to do that.

They do not do that now, but those are the types of things that we are guarding against.

And and the the industry just wants information to more to charge patients.

We're looking to accurately assess the risk.

But but for but for a hundred years, you've been able to accurately assess the risk of people just based on their their physical health. Right? Or or their parent what what happened with their parents?

Right. We what what I would say is family history is critically important and has been something we've had access to in the past. And it was probably what we would call the first genetic test before we even knew what a gene was. But there are restrictions on our access to family history and how we are allowed to ask those questions, especially in our application process, which can be somewhat problematic and solely relying on that.

But there is additional risk what I'd say, and I know there's concern about what is association versus causation, what is a predictive test versus a diagnostic test.

And what I would say is that in the underwriting process, we are looking at things holistically. If somebody has a genetic marker for increased risk, whether that's cancer, Alzheimer's, many different things, we look at it in what are they doing to prevent it, how is the rest of their health, and so it's not one piece of information. Just like when I had a clinical practice, I would look at that as well. But it is important from a predictive standpoint.

For instance, if I look at certain tests or whether it's cholesterol, People don't die of high cholesterol.

They die of the ramifications of it down the road, the heart attack. And so we're looking at genetic testing as the same type of predictive tool that it's not guaranteed 100. But there are many places where if we look at somebody who has lung cancer, only ten to twenty percent of people who are heavy smokers end up with lung cancer. If we look at end stage liver disease, only ten to fifteen percent of those people end up with or or it's from heavy drinking.

So if you look at, unfortunately, for a condition like ALS that is very devastating.

If you look at the pathogenic, the known pathogenic genes and mutations, they can be fifty percent, seventy five percent, sometimes ninety percent predictive that they will manifest that disease down the road. That is five to 10 times the predictive capability of other other health information that we use on a regular basis.

I've got I don't mean to interrupt you, Assemblywoman, but I have a quorum, and today, I might lose it. Okay. Okay.

But So

So if we can just call the room.

M Here.

Erwin here. Lowenthal?

Here.

Lowenthal here. McKenner.

McKenner here. Ortega.

Here.

Here.

Ortega here. Patterson. Here. Patterson here. Pellerin.

Petrie Norris. Ward. Wicks. Here. Well sorry.

Sorry. I'm sorry. Wicks here. Wilson. Here.

Wilson here. We have

a quorum. Okay. Back to you.

So I I would just say, like, it for me, insurance is about spreading the risk over a large number of people. And now what you would have is if you saw that somebody, you know, is has is eighty percent likely to have Parkinson's, you certainly wouldn't insure them. So you're going to end up with, you know, a a number of people that have high probability of Alzheimer's that are are not gonna be able to be insured or or, you know, certain types of cancer.

So that's my concern. I think it goes away from the idea of of spreading the risk.

But let me,

of all, say one thing about the purpose of underwriting, which is what I my medical expertise and how I apply it. And the purpose of underwriting is to stratify the known risk, which we're required to do appropriately because the actual insurance that's being purchased is to cover the unknown risk between now and in indefinitely into the future. So that's the important to think about. And unfortunately, there are people, although I think there are assumptions at the number of people that cannot get insurance the traditional way.

first

There are many, many conditions that we ensure.

We may charge them a little bit more than the discounted rates. We charge the extremely healthy people, but most of them can get coverage. If they do not want to disclose that information, as mentioned by my colleague, there is guaranteed issue. There are employments. There are simplified issues.

You probably hear on the radio companies like Ethos Ladder who have a very different underwriting model and a different product model that may be more conducive to people who cannot access insurance other ways.

Through the chair, I'd like to note though and pass it over is that we don't disagree given the example that she talked about ALS. But that would be through your doctor who ordered that genetic testing and determine that risk and then note and did a diagnosis or noted in the file that there is a risk for this, so I want you to do x Y Z. They can actually use that information from the doctor. It's the test they can't use on its own to underwrite.

But the information that the doctor writes about it that where the doctor has assessed the risk and what treatment options they're giving or what medicine they should be taking to push that out.

All of that is known to them and and allowed to be used by them. And I'll

turn it over to our experts.

Oh, I just wanna say from a technical standpoint oh, my apologies. From a technical standpoint, when you look at underwriting, it's to fairly differentiate risk between the different classes and to reasonably anticipate risk. So it's not just stratifying it down to the most minute level. Right? You're trying to be fair across classes and as you ultimately spread the risk. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Oh, miss McKenna. Yes. Good afternoon. I have a couple of questions. Given the historical disparities in health care and insurance access, do you, ensure genetic data isn't used in a way that disproportionately harms certain communities?

I think we we go where the data takes us from the standpoint of we are not looking for ways to have outcomes differentially harm populations. But let me take it out

of the You might have to move the mic.

I know you wanna talk to the assembly member, but we need to get you on the record.

There are conditions outside of genetics that affect different populations differently. And we still have to understand that hypertension can affect different communities differently, certain types of cancers. As a woman, I'm more likely and I've had breast cancer. So, I know that's part of my underwriting when I apply, but that doesn't mean just because it can affect different populations differently that I say, well, you can't consider breast cancer as a risk because it is going to affect women more than men.

And so, I think it's we're not looking at the genetics.

We're looking at what it tells us from a disease and what the future holds and how what kind of life expectancy we can have. So, hopefully, by doing that and following the science, we are getting past some of the it's more of a consideration of disparate impact, but it should be minor. It shouldn't be major.

Well, with the excuse me. In the medical field, there's so much built in systemic racism that it's something that, like, our community would not trust. I mean, I'm I'm with my colleague. If a doctor is ordering this, that's one thing. But to to do genetics and then have you guys underwrite it on that, I think that's a way to to to kind of weed people off out of insurance.

So I'm I'm very skeptical of that. Let's see. You told us about underwrite underwriting. I think assembly member Erwin asked you about this. Isn't it true that underwriting has always been involved managing uncertainty?

Why should genetics be treated differently? And and another thing, when you mentioned breast cancer, ten years ago, when you're when you got if you got insured ten years ago, I'm sure the insurance company didn't underwrite you to have breast cancer ten years ago.

They didn't. And I think that brings up an excellent point that we encourage as an industry people to apply for insurance as early as possible so they are as healthy as possible to get the best rates. Because as you get older, you are more likely to manifest health conditions or have risks identified. But we can't, therefore, ignore those risks when they do come up later when we're trying to put people into those appropriate groups that the insurance, laws require us to do.

Well, I actually really think that this thank you for the bill, assembly member. I would love to be a coauthor. We do have to make sure that those those deep systemic racism, we're trying to weed that out of the health care, and I don't think that this helps. I mean, I think that you guys opposing this the way that you wanna use genetics. I don't think that that helps us at all.

I think that they should have guard we should make sure that there's guardrails.

Oh, and and I think there are guardrails that we're continuing to talk about. We are not at all saying there should be no guardrails and it's the wild, wild west. There are many ways that we see there are risks related to genetic information.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Okay. Oh, mister Patterson.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Question regarding I clearly don't have life insurance or well, I do have term, but when you're applying, is it you know, in a person goes out, maybe gets a blood test or uses now one of the services out there that perform blood tests and, you know, maybe a practitioner will go through it or maybe AI will go through it. But, are those is that kind of information right now requested by insurance companies, through this process, Through the application? I

think the simplest answer is it depends on the type of product. So if the insurer is medically underwriting that process, then yes, they are going to ask for your medical records. This is all standard practice. That could include a genetic test currently. They may ask you to take, blood pressure.

They send a phlebotomist to your house, take, blood pressure, do a blood draw. So it really depends on the type of coverage that you're seeking. I think that's one of the points that we we try to make is that there's a variety of different, options in the marketplace for different people that are differently situated. But if you're applying for life insurance, we want symmetry of information is what we're calling. We wanna know what the applicant knows.

And otherwise, there could be adverse selection. If there's a very high likelihood of you developing any disease that we we're not aware of, you may take out more coverage, that affects the risk pool. So I think that's really what we're arguing for is that, we want to continue to have access to the medical record. The assembly member earlier was asking about, you know, direct to consumer, '23 and me. We're fine to take that off the table.

That's those are not we we we recognize those are not, solid clinical tests. We're We're fine to take off the table. But if your doctor's ordered I mean, some similar to what the some of the women is saying, putting the doctor in the driver's seat. Yeah. If the doctor has ordered the test and that is in your medical record, we think it's appropriate to be able to see, to to see that.

I think there's a subtle distinction.

And I know when the doctor orders it, he's opining or they're opining on this information, and then that's the information that they can use, not the exact genetic testing. And he noted, symmetry, informational symmetry. We already limit what insurers, can use when fairness demands it. We say right now through California law that you can't use characteristics like race, sexual orientation, even if those things are Sec even those things are statistically relevant, because they're civil rights issues and they outweigh, purely actuarial considerations.

And so we're saying genetic information is the same thing, and we know now that genetic information does not necessarily lead to diagnosis or or it talks about the probability, but it's really the assessment of the doctor that determines based on other factors what that should be.

And they are currently relying on that information, and, and we're not stopping them from relying on the information. So they have access to the file, but they don't have access to the genetic testing, and they can't base their underwriting on that. Only the doctor's opinion surrounding that genetic testing.

Yeah.

If the question was whether or not the we see companies or the department sees companies using the procedure in current law to actually request genetic tests. There's an informed consent procedure and some privacy protections under the law, and the answer to that is no. To extent, we've seen it, not that we see everything, of course, through exams. It's been, accessed through the medical records.

So the legislature did put in place an informed consent process, but that specific to genetic testing, of course, the authorization for medical records, there's consent to that as well.

Yeah. I think we're

we're okay to, you know, concede on the point that we won't require a genetic test. So we wouldn't ask the applicant for that genetic test. So our our position is based on what's in the medical file. So what the doctor has then ordered.

Okay. So, excuse now I'm a little confused. So your bill right now, under current law, you can get access to the medical record that might include some genetic assessment or something by the doctor.

It would you can get access to, the medical file. And if it includes genetic testing, they have full access and can use that today under current law. If if They're they're not requiring it, but they can. K. And so what we're saying is you can access the opinion of the doctor who's assessed that, but just the genetic testing, you can't make you can't underwrite based on genetic testing.

It has to be based on the doctor and what the doctor says around that, not the genetic test. So you will no longer have access to genetic testing, just the doctor's assessment of that genetic testing.

Yeah.

Okay. Is that

all I wanna make sure.

Yeah. That's accurate. You can use

it if it's actuarially sound. It doesn't mean that in certain instances, they might use it in the department and the exam might look at it and say, hey, that was not okay. Right? But

Just fair.

There there's no legal, nothing in the statute. No legal I

missed the opening presentation. So is this an actual prop going on right now and not to talk to her?

We have so many bills. We cannot repeat all the presentations. We appreciate people coming

in and out. Problem is becoming an issue. And so that's why we brought the bill because it is becoming an issue. So we don't want it to be more than what it is right now. We wanna stop it and then roll back a little bit.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing and hearing no further debate, I will just say I wanna thank you for this bill and actually I'd like to be added as a co author as well. Thank you.

And I feel like I have McInner as co author. I've never

said that. You know, I'm a rare disease mom. I have many people in my life who have benefited just so much from genetic testing. And in many ways, even the opposition said in life saving ways, you know, these tests for especially rare disease patients getting a diagnosis can lead to treatments that otherwise one may never know about unless we can actually diagnose, these individuals.

And I will tell you that a physician family member of mine who has, breast cancer history, you know, was opting not to get genetic testing for this exact reason because she didn't want the discrimination that may come with it.

And I love her so much. And I said, I want you to get testing because I know it might save your life one day to know what you should be doing and how you should be reacting in the medical field. And so I I believe the data because I've known it firsthand. And so this is just really important that we help people have the protections to go get the care they need to live longer and healthier lives.

And in the end, it will mean less payouts, so it will be a win win.

With that, would you like to close?

Absolutely. Thank you for the discussion and the, questions from my colleagues and those who support and even the opposition. We've had great conversations. And if we continue to refine the bill, I'm always happy, to do that. We have led the nation in recognizing that innovation must be matched with responsibility.

As genetic technology advancing advances, so too must our safeguards. We are standing at the intersection of innovation and policy, and the choices we make today will shape how Californians experience the future of medicine. AB 1798 ensures that future is one of trust, access, and protection, not fear. With that, I thank you and respectfully ask for a high vote.

We have

a motion and a second. Please call her up.

Item number two, AB 1798 by Assembly member Wilson. The motion is do passed to appropriations committee by. Aye. Okay. Aye.

Masito, Brian, De Mayo, Hoover, Erwin. Aye. Erwin, Aye. Lowenthal. Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. McKenner. Aye. McKenner, Aye. Ortega?

Aye. Ortega, Aye. Patterson. No. Patterson, no.

Pellerin, Petrie Norris, Ward, Wicks. Aye. Wicks, Aye. Wilson. Aye.

Wilson, aye.

That bill has seven votes. It will stay on call. And that with that, we're gonna take up the consent calendar. Do we have motion on the consent calendar? Motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

has seven. We'll leave it on call. And thank you, mister Wallis, for help, I guess, accommodate, assembly member Wilson. I appreciate your patience.

Anything for you, madam chair.

We have a motion Second. And a second. Wait for your witnesses. And I think we may need to move our interpreters as well so that everyone has access.

Great. Okay.

Perfect. Wanna make sure that our interpreters were in the right place, and they are. With that, when you're ready, mister Wallace.

Good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. I have before you today assembly bill twenty one ninety, which takes an important step towards improving website accessibility in California. First, just wanna thank the committee for its hard work on this bill and for the thoughtful analysis. We appreciate the effort that's gone into refining it and accept the committee's proposed amendments. The challenge before us is clear.

Today, approximately 96% of major websites still contain accessibility barriers. That means nearly one in four California adults living with disabilities face real obstacles when trying to access essential online services like banking, health care, and employment opportunities. AB 2190 offers a thoughtful and balanced path forward. It establishes clear accessibility standards based on widely recognized WCAG guidelines, encourages businesses to take proactive steps to address barriers, and provides protection for those acting in good faith.

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

We've engaged extensively with stakeholders across the business and technology sectors as well as the disability rights community and have provided updated language that we believe addresses many of the concerns that were raised. We're continuing that dialogue and look forward to their feedback as we work to further strengthen the bill. I think it's a practical and long overdue framework. It reflects California's long standing leadership in advancing disability rights while supporting responsible businesses and ensuring broader access in an increasingly digitally reliant world.

Here with me to testify and support are Mary Anne Haas, the first blind delegate to attend the California Republican Party convention, and Tim Elder, elected president of the National Federation of the Blind California.

Thank you. I don't know who wants to go first, but You

can go there.

Okay. Is it Mary Anne?

Go for it, Mary Anne.

There you go.

Good more good afternoon, everybody. I'm Mary Anne Haas. I was born blind, and I use adaptive technology, screen reading software. And I had several problems with accessibility. Luckily, I have people that will help me if I need help with buying something.

But we know that it is more and more that stores are closing. And even if stores are open, for a lot of blind people, it's difficult for them to find and get those to those stores to buy stuff. So they have to buy things online. Equally important is it for people who live in rural areas that are blind and that may not have any sighted companions like I do. So this is why I really would appreciate a yes vote on this bill.

Thank you so much, Mary Anne, when you're ready.

And, hello. My name is Tim Elder. I'm the president. I'm the elected president of the National Federation of the Blind of California, the largest organization of and for blind people here in the state of California. I represent hundreds of thousands of blinds, low vision, and deaf blind individuals.

And by my day job, I'm an attorney and litigator and helped draft some of the language in the bill today. So I really just wanna highlight three points for you as you consider this very important civil rights and ADA compromised bill. The current law is not currently sufficient to promote compliance. I hear from many of our blind members, like Mary Anne and others, that, they're having problems with the Internet.

Anything from booking an appointment to get a dog grooming, to picking up coffee to go, it increasingly is a digital issue.

I personally, experienced many websites and even some barriers, including last night, just trying to book the Capitol Corridor train down here. We don't wanna file lawsuits every time we encounter a barrier. It would make us all professional litigants, which I don't recommend. My second point is if we leave the status quo in place, we're going to see that.

We're going to see the continued use of these serial plaintiffs resorting to unethical lawyers who are often extorting monetary settlements that don't have any remediation within these settlement agreements.

Instead, we are proposing this solution, which would promote proactive compliance and focus on actual fixes. The third point, we really need to go upstream because of the nature of the way that, technology has changed. The coffee shop, the barber shop, they're not building their own websites. They're licensing templates and outsourcing platforms, from Internet resource providers.

And often, those frontline ADA businesses that are getting hit with some of these lawsuits, even if they wanted to fix their coffee shop website, they can't because it's it's under the control of the platform resource provider.

We don't think that's right. We think the purse the entity that holds responsibility for remediating and the ability to control the fixes should be the one who holds and shares some of that liability. My community vigorously supports AB 2190. It's a reasonable strategy to help modernize California's civil rights protections while providing a carrot to businesses that want to comply and increase their customer base.

So, I appreciate that some in the business community really support this bill and that others have some concerns that I'm committed to work, with them and anyone, on additional language, as we continue to make this, a a success story and follow-up in the true bipartisan nature of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

So happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Anybody else here in support of this bill? Name, organization, and position.

Good morning. Tramel Watson with Disability Rights California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses in support, do we have opposition on this bill? Come on up. There's two chairs.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Thank you so much, Annalee Augustine, here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We first would like to thank the author and his staff and witnesses and stakeholders involved. We sincerely do appreciate multiple meetings we've had on the topic, and they have offered amendments that we are reviewing in detail to be as thoughtful as we can about this process given that this is such a critical issue. We are respectfully opposed unless amended to AB 2190.

We appreciate the goal of improving website accessibility and support clear and workable standards that help businesses address barriers and avoid shakedown lawsuits in this space. As drafted, we see AB 2190 as risking increasing litigation without providing the meaningful or achievable compliance pathways. We have four main areas of concerns that we are committed to continue working through with the author and stakeholders. First, we wanna make sure that the affirmative defenses offered are workable and feasible for businesses.

We also wanna make sure there's an appropriate timeline for remediation.

We're gathering feedback and given the technical complexities involved with these compliance issues, we wanna make sure that whatever is in statute is workable for the businesses to make sure that they can same accessibility goals. We also wanna, address pass through liability for resource service providers who might not have control about the web content. And then also, we are concerned about the new pathway for intentional discrimination to be added if a business does not remediate between within forty five days.

Again, very much appreciate the author and stakeholders here, and we are very committed to working through these issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition to this bill? Name, position, and organization, please.

Good afternoon, chair members. Reiterating Jose with Tecna reiterating all the concerns from CJAC.

Thank you.

Hello. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association. Respectful opposition.

Thank you.

This got ran over. Laura Bennett on behalf of California, Chamber of Commerce. It was last amended.

Thank you. Seeing no additional opposition in the room, we will bring it at back up to the members.

Move the bell.

Motion and a second. Thank you. Assemblymember Erwin.

Just I'll just I know we're trying to rush, but I one quick question. How how I guess I don't understand. How is there more liability with this bill when it offers a cure than there is with the current situation where you have where we see a lot of predatory lawsuits. So what what is it that makes this bill how how does this worsen the situation? I think go ahead. Sorry.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. Great question. I would offer one example of public disclosure of issues that businesses for for the first pathway right now for affirmative defenses, a business would have to disclose the accessibility issue that they find. And so publicly offering an issue that they are working on, that could give more information to attorneys that are trying to then go after businesses. So that's one example, that I would see as an answer to that.

Tim, do

you wanna respond? Yeah. Yeah.

So I I would say that, the the the first affirmative defense category that which involves the publication of a DAR, a disability access report. It's sort of like a a notice, like, we are fixing these things. It's it's analog to the physical construction that, we currently have under California, physical access requirements where if the business posts a notice while they're sort of working on something, they get, some period of immunity while they're in good faith fixing those things that they've identified in their notice.

This is the equivalent of that in the the digital space. I don't think it would increase.

I also think that it was an alternative to affirmative defense option so no one has to no one has to publish it to get the affirmative defense. They could opt for the the subsection b pathway where they take a bunch of things and are not publishing the DARS but are getting the affirmative defense to a different set of requirements.

So I don't think it would, in fact, increase, the the the DAR report provision was really meant for small businesses that are operating primarily in California, where they're not going to be as concerned. Right? Because they're getting immunity if they publish that notice.

So in my opinion, it doesn't increase, litigation.

And I I really do like the goals of this bill. I will be supporting it, but I I hope you continue to work with the opposition and make sure that this does not increase liability as as they have expressed concern about.

Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Anybody else? Seeing no further questions or comments, I really wanna thank you Assemblymember for wading into what is a hard area of legislation, and I think, doing so with the disability rights community at the front and center, which is so critical to getting this right. And none of us it was I loved I don't have to remember your name, so I'll call you counselor. Counselor, I loved what you said about courts aren't great for anybody.

I absolutely agree. I actually said that earlier in judiciary. Even the lawyers don't wanna be there. So I think, you know, everybody wants their just to be access. And so if that's what we achieved through this bill without costly litigation on small business, but giving the disability community what they need, which I think, Mary Anne, you did such an eloquent job of articulating, our lives are so dependent on online access right now.

And so this needs to be meaningful because if you can't read a website for whatever reason, we have to fix that, and yet we should be giving businesses the opportunity to do exactly that. And I think modeling this after physical, laws that have been in place for a long time is a really elegant way to do it. So with that, I'm happy to support it today. Would you like to close? Member Wallace.

I will use the chair's comments as my close. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion and a second.

Item number one, AB 2190 by Assemblymember Wallace. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations committee. Bara Kayhan.

Aye.

Bara Kayhan, aye. Macedo. Aye. Baraayhan, aye. Baraayhan, aye.

Macedo, aye. Brian DeMaio, Hoover. Aye. Hoover, Aye. Erwin?

Aye. Erwin, Aye. Lowenthal?

Lowenthal, Aye. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, Aye. Ortega.

Aye.

Pat Patterson? Aye. Patterson, Aye. Pellerin?

Petre Norris. Ward Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson.

Aye.

That bill has nine votes. It's out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Assemblymember Carrillo, you've been waiting patiently. Come on up.

And let's give everyone a minute to clear if you don't mind. Can someone give

me a minute?

When you're ready, assembly member.

Thank you. Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill twenty seven twenty one. Before I begin, I want to thank the chair and her staff for working with my office and proposing amendments, which I'm accepting. And this amendment's brought focus and clarity to the bill.

Thank you. Members, I'm here today to present Assembly Bill twenty seven twenty one, a measured common sense bill sponsored by United Local Eleven that simply directs hotels to disclose via public notice on-site, visible to hospitality workers and guests in the reservations they know of or should be aware of with US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Members, I also want to emphasize this is a Latino caucus priority bill.

Public notice by hotels visible to hospitality workers and guests shall remain prominently displayed for the duration of the reservation with a notice clearly identifying the agency with the reservation and the length of the reservation. This bill does not ask hotels to take sides.

It asks for transparency. Clear, neutral disclosure protects hospitality workers and guests without requiring businesses to endorse or oppose any public or any policy or agency. We did not put hotels in the middle of politics. The actions of the Federal Government did that to all of us when they started targeting our workforce and misusing hotels as facilities in violations of US oversight laws. We listened constructively to a point raised that an earlier draft of the bill applied too broadly by targeting all federal agencies.

With much appreciated and valuable assistance from the chair and staff, we took commitments to ensure the bill brings transparency to the federal agencies we are rightly concerned by rather than all federal agencies. The core concern is the presence of federal operations that may impact the workplace environment. A uniform standard gives workers and guests awareness when those agencies are on the premises. Hotels are already navigating complex regulatory environments every day.

This is a straightforward workplace notice requirement similar to existing labor postings, not a mandate to engage in political disputes.

We're not boarding any hotels by asking them to print and post a visible notice. We're not specifying the front location or signage of the notice. We're asking them to give a heads up to the people that keep their businesses profitable. California has a long standing role in setting balance, work focused standards. This bill is narrowly focused on transparency and safety, not target individuals or viewpoints, and should be understood in that context.

The bill's intent is not to identify individuals, but to inform workers about operational conditions that may affect their safety. Thoughtful rollout can ensure disclosures remain general and identify only the agency without compromising anyone's security. This bill does not regulate the actions of the Federal Government or create long term burdens even if federal policy changes. The notice outlines is minimal and consistent with existing policy and obligations. For these reasons and more, I respectfully ask for your vote on AB 2721.

I have with me today Juan Munoz with UnitedHealthcare Local eleven to testify and insights as to why this bill is needed and what problem it is solving for.

Just just to clarify, I heard you accept the amendments, but staff did not. Did you accept the amendments?

Yes. I did.

Perfect. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. When you're ready.

Great. Thank you so much, assembly member. Good afternoon, chair Bauer Kehan, vice chair Macedo, and members of the committee. My name is Juan Munoz, and I'm here on behalf of Unite Here Local Eleven, proud sponsor of AB 2721, representing over 32,000 hospitality workers. Our members are largely women, immigrants, and people of color, and they are the backbone of California's hospitality industry.

AB 2721 is a simple common sense consumer protection bill that aligns existing law requiring businesses to disclose information to consumers. It does not regulate federal law enforcement. It does not regulate consumers. It regulates hotel activity by establishing a uniform disclosure requirement on contracts for two specific federal agencies. Today, when hotels enter into arrangements with federal law enforcement, workers and guests are left in the dark.

Our members have raised serious concerns about the presence of federal agents in hotels, including safety risks. In some cases, conditions are serious enough that workers must be allowed to refuse unsafe work. Hotel workers did not sign up to work in environments with armed agents or situations that can escalate quickly. They deserve to know the conditions of their workplace before they walk in, and neither did the public.

Families on vacation and people traveling for work did not sign up to stay somewhere with an undisclosed federal law enforcement presence.

Hotels already notify guests when the pool is closed or a restaurant is unavailable. It is only common sense that people should also be informed when there is a federal law enforcement presence on-site. Without transparency, communities are left trying to figure out what is happening in real time, leading to confusion and fear. Clear, neutral disclosure ensures everyone has the same basic information. Most hotel workers in California are not unionized.

Many are hired through temporary staffing agencies with fewer protections and less information. They are often the most vulnerable and the least informed. People should not have to walk into a hotel in the dark about what is happening inside. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this bill? Name, organization, and position, please.

Hello, madam chair. And

Is the mic on? I can't tell. Thank you so much. There we go. Cool.

Hello, madam chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support.

Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses in support, do we have a witness here in witness or witnesses here in opposition? Come on up.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Armand Feliciano on behalf of the California Hotel Lodging Association. CHLA understands the intent and the rationale for AB 2721. However, CHLA is opposed respectfully opposed to the bill for the following reasons. Number one, CHLA believes that this bill contradicts the right to privacy.

Even if the bill does not state that the hotel must disclose personal information of their guests, Complying with AB 2721 is likely to violate one's right to privacy under the California Constitution. Second, the hotel operator knows or should know language remains problematic. How would the hotels know if a guest is a federal employee without violating their privacy rights? Hotel staff would be forced to ask about occupation before a guest can reserve or check-in into a room.

And if AB 2721 passes, their employees subject to these are likely to conceal their information.

Third, CHLA sees a lot of liability on this bill. So if the if the hotel fails to comply, the AG, the DAs, and city attorneys can bring actions against the hotel. Second, if the hotel does comply and provides the notice and a mass demonstration takes place, Some of them are peaceful, some are not, and hotel guests gets injured, staff, properties are damaged, they're likely to be sued.

And then you still have the California constitution right to privacy, which is a lot broader than any protection there is today. Also, AB 2721 as proposed to be amended, it is a slippery slope.

Right? Once you head down the road of publicly disclosing hotel guests, this bill sets a precedent that other groups can be singled out as well. Nobody wants that. To close AB 2721 as amended is unlikely to resolve the issues it is attempting to address and could lead to many unintended consequences. So for these reasons, we respectfully urge your noble.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in opposition to this bill name, organization, and position? You're just gonna be here all day and all night.

Right here.

Laura, but on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back up to the dais. So member Erwin?

Alright. I guess we're starting at this end again. I Aye, completely agree with the the goal of of this bill, which is to warn employees that that might have concerns, about ICE and so I understand that. I I just don't understand how it will work. How does it if reservations are made a week ahead of time, are you asking people if if it's if they are with ICE?

If if guests are coming in, are you asking if they're with ICE? I'm I'm I'm just concerned about some of the privacy issues. And, also, will will ICE be disclosing? How

We're not a practice. I don't think that the requirement is to ask who the guest is or who they are with. I think it's just based on what we've seen on the streets. When anybody can make a reservation whether online or by a phone call. Right?

But when you see them, the agents, the way that we see them on the streets and what we see it on television and everywhere, I think that that's when the hotels would be required to post a notice, just a single piece of paper, notifying guests and their employees that there is a process of these federal agents specific to ICE and customs, so that they know that they have this guest staying there, so that they know how to react.

So if so if so it's not, oh, somebody in plainclothes is coming in. Are you with ICE? It's more that you see the presence of ICE as they're checking in or if they're on the streets

and they can wear masks. I'm sorry. If you see them wearing a mask, that's what they're doing. Right?

But so it's so it's more that you that that you see the presence as opposed to trying to discern when somebody is trying to make a reservation whether they are with ICE or not.

No. It's just when you see their presence.

And if I may just clarify something the opposition said. So from a legal perspective, the known or should have known standard, which is one that is a well established legal concept, has never required the affirmative obligation to seek information. I've never seen that. I don't believe the court would ever interpret it that way to the point of the assembly member. It's merely if you have knowledge or if it's so obvious that you can impute knowledge.

Alright. I I I think I had misunderstanding about whether you had to to check all the the guests whether or not they were with these agencies.

No. That that is not the intent.

Okay.

Mister Hoover?

Just to follow-up on that. So, you know, I guess where I'm struggling is I mean, the amendments obviously say should have known. So when should, the hotel have known? Right? And who's making these decisions?

So for example, in a lot of cases, you young employee, right, at the front desk who is are they gonna be put in a position where they're trying to make a determination that this person is federal law enforcement? Is this simply going to change the practice of federal law enforcement to make their reservations sort of, you know, in in a more secretive way so as not to be detected?

I guess I'm trying to see what the the full scale results of this policy is actually gonna be.

Well, I would prefer that they change the way they operate, because if again, with what we've seen, it's just they don't even care if it's a citizen that they're going after. But going specifically to the bill, to your question, if it's a young person at the desk, they would we would imagine that management would have to provide them with guidance on what they're supposed to do when these events happen.

And, again, if they're trying to be sneaky, they're gonna be checking in in the middle of the night. You will be seeing them being prepared to do their operations, you know, whenever they're ready to do that. And it is clear what they look like and what they will be wearing as they deploy.

So that's when they should be posting that notice.

Okay. I think just to oh, go ahead. If you'd like to

I was just gonna say one additional common thing is is when the hotel enters into contracts for a room block of of rooms. So that would be another

That would be a way you could detect something. I think just for the opposition, you know, my question is, is there a concern that this is gonna increase liability in term you know, for for hotels and businesses? Second question would be, you know, hotels are very, I would say, careful about protecting the privacy of those that are staying in their establishments. Is this sort of breaking that precedent sort of a a legal requirement to break that precedent?

I I think overall, it just puts the hotel in the middle. Right? This is there it's a place for rest and real relaxation. And this notice, right, if mass demonstrations happen and it's not peaceful, people get hurt. It's a lot of liability that they're looking at.

They're likely gonna get sued. Right? I got hurt in your hotel because you posted this notice. And now they came, and then we got hurt, and nobody wants that.

Yeah. I I do I do remain concerned about also the safety of the officers, right, and the law enforcement professionals as well. And then, you know, there's also work that is done by these federal agencies that are not that is not enforcement related, that is not immigration enforcement related. Right? So whether they're participating in some other type of enforcement on human trafficking or something like that, this is obviously going to be a huge problem to notify the public, you know, that they are there.

So I think for those reasons, I won't be able to support the bill today, but, thank you for the conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam. Oh, okay. Mister Radterson. I was trying to call him out of

the house here.

Thanks. Well, mister Hoover took the last line, so what I was gonna say, so I'll take take quick. But, yeah, I mean, I have a whole range of concerns. You know, obviously, I have a lot of respect for you. And I and I know what you're trying to do, but, you know, ICE and and customs and border patrol do a lot more than just immigration enforcement, including, you know, human trafficking, smuggling of children, you know, things like that.

And so so I'd hate to, you know, for for reasons that I think you're doing this, Phil, you know, tie up those things. I don't wanna tie any of it up, but even if just what you're trying to do gets accomplished, all those other things are gonna be impacted that I think are important mechanisms of those agencies. And feel free to respond if you want, but that was just sort of my

take on that. Just say that what you bring up is legitimate work that these agencies do. But, again, that's not what we've seen. I'm all for following the law, doing their job the way that it's supposed to be done, not just, throwing out people into an unmask, by band, a marked band, because that's just what we are seeing. I do respect the work that they are supposed to be doing, but, again, there is just no way to tell, when this administration will follow the law.

And that's my my intention with this to protect our communities. Thank you.

Madam vice chair.

Thank you, madam chair. And I just really wanna kinda separate things for just a second and talk specifically about the hotels. Hotels don't want to be political. They're in the hospitality business. So I understand the goal you're trying to achieve, but I think we have to to think about the hotel specifically.

And let's talk about the patrons of those hotels that aren't ICE agents. You know, I'm let's just say I'm a mom on a road trip with my kids. I'm at a hotel. I get there. I made a reservation on my phone really quickly, you know.

So, you know, I'm not gonna get my money back for that hotel because I see that there's agents there that I'm worried for the safety of my kids. And then it just in general, I think it's it's just going so far past the point of privacy that when we check-in to hotels as legislators, we want to have the kind of privacy that we can have a safe space for the night, that we can disagree with the work that they're doing.

But I do think it's very important to note, especially with the upcoming big events that we have in the state of California, that these agents might be here in the capacity, like my colleague talked about, with sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and all kinds of things. And there is coordination with federal agents on that. So I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done to get to what you're trying to do, which is to prevent there being violent situations or unsafe situations.

But I think this bill actually could create more unsafe sit situations. Because with that post, what about people that don't have the choice? They have to stay there for the night. If there's protests outside or things like that, I think it's just putting a spotlight on an issue that out in the public, people have absolute first amendment right to express their disdain for what they're doing. I don't believe hotels are the platform to do that and then to expose them to this type of risk.

And then to your what I'm understanding is, essentially, if I'm an ICE agent and I check-in in plain clothes and you don't post that, but then I leave the hotel the next day, you know, in full gear, there's a gray area there.

So I guess unless you spell out in the bill that they show up or they have the reservation ahead of time like you mentioned, but, you know, I travel all the time and I show up in sweatpants, doesn't mean that that's how I'm gonna you know, I'm there maybe in professional capacity. So I can I totally sympathize with what you're trying to do to protect a community of people that you're very passionate about? And I I I know that about you, so I think that's great.

I just think we need to separate the two and focus on the issue that we're putting hotels in that they did not ask to be a part of this fight.

That's a fight that we need to fight here in the legislature. They need to fight in the federal administration, but I don't think this the hotels are the platform to do it, to protect our communities, and to protect the people that just wanna have a safe night's rest at a hotel. So I won't be able to support today. And I do ask that you engage with the hotels to try to figure out something that you would be comfortable with as would they. So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I'm stepping in while the chair is to to to go to another committee for a moment. And, typically, the chair would speak last, but I was about to speak in my capacity as a member of this committee. So I'd like to speak very briefly, if that's okay. I just wanna say to the Latino caucus, to you, mister Carrillo, to the members of Unite Here that you should feel heard.

This is a moment in history that is deserved. California and its citizens overwhelmingly has felt under siege. The good men and women that are working in these hotels, environments, and throughout the state that are powering the economy here in the state of California have felt under siege. Their families have felt under siege.

We have, as a state, had to litigate against the Federal Government because of the actions that have been taken by ICE, And there is a complete and total lack of trust that exists between the state and the Federal Government on those things within communities, certainly in the community that I live in.

And I come from the hospitality industry, by the way. I am a restaurateur as most of you know. And, you know, absolutely, I'm supportive of this, and I think that, all of us should be listening to our colleagues in the Latino caucus that have made this a priority because this is causing an immense amount of consternation for the community, and we should all be concerned about those things. I'm very proud to be supporting the bill, and I'd like to be added as a co author.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you for those kind words. And and, again, it's just that I feel my obligation given my personal history, where I come from, and what we are seeing across the state and across the nation, really, where this federal administration just does not even care if you're a US citizen. It's just based on the color that I have, my accent, and I feel like it is my obligation again to protect our immigrant communities. And for that reason, I respectfully ask for a nine vote.

Thank you. I think there are still a few more comments.

I'm sorry. Assembly member Ward. I'm gonna say that horrible classic line. I wasn't intending to speak, but I was certainly moved by, you know, kind of this, you know, very disconnected debate that was happening over here in my my my immediate left, your right.

And I think what's lost is that what we know is happening today out in community is a lawlessness and a unaccountability, and a beyond imposition, but a real infringement on individual civil liberties that is pretty consistent in the reporting and and display that we're seeing not just here in California but across our country.

And if the issue is, well, I'm sympathetic, but, you know, I think that I wanna see is, like, somebody be able to come here and, you know, just have a decent night stay and feel secure. I can imagine when individuals who are lawful citizens are getting tackled in airports, are getting harassed outside of a hotel, outside of their school, and we're seeing this consistency of behavior that is leading any individual who doesn't look like me to fear that they are gonna be inappropriately targeted.

Your bill is one that is providing for safety for community. Because if you are aware that there are individuals who are acting lawlessly, are not accountable, also staying in that presence, who is I think, is of reasonable concern that you're staying the night there with your kids and you wanna go downstairs for the free breakfast and you're gonna get tackled. Right?

So you need to know that somebody is there in a place that you need a safe and secure night's rest, that there is the potential of a threat here for you to be able to make that choice. And because that could be lost on others, that's for them to reconcile, but it's not lost on me. And for that reason, I strongly support your bill here today.

Any other comments? Excuse

me. Assembly member Petri Norris.

Thank you, mister chair. And I apologize that I I missed part of the bill presentation was presenting a bill at another committee. But I believe the opposition or the opposition has raised concerns about the fact that providing this kind of notification Could actually have the unintended consequences, sabotaging human trafficking investigations and other covert operations. Have you thought about that? And how how do

I think that this really

goes way beyond just what we're seeing here in the state. I mean, we have a precedent that is telling nations that are qualified for the World Cup not to come and celebrate. I mean, that is coming from our Federal Government. We have the president targeting some nations that rightfully qualified to participate in this worldwide celebration, which is the World Cup. And he's telling don't come because we're going to arrest you.

I think that that's what we're facing, which is much more concerning in my view. The consequences that are brought up by the opposition, I I I fully understand. I mean, there's losses happen all the time. But what we are seeing happening is just who is really going to protect us.

Well, that's what I'm trying to do, protect our communities, our workforce for being able to do their job in a safe manner and for guests to be able to know that there is going if there is gonna be agents there, there will be some activities that are not gonna be safe.

The hospitals, the the hotels, they understand the concern about the liability. But what about these things that are happening on the streets? Who's responsible for that? Our Federal Government is not doing anything. What I'm trying to do simply is protect the workers and our communities from being at a place where they can enjoy a stay.

Assemblymember or take up.

Hi. You know, to answer that question a little bit more in terms of the the human trafficking piece, none of nothing in this bill prevents the hotel industry from continuing to do their work. All this bill does is ask for notification so that employees who go to work and guests know what they're they're up against and know what to do. That's all it is is notification.

It's the least that we can do, and I'm actually quite surprised that we don't have more businesses supporting this because the economic havoc that's happening in our communities is not just to the people, but to these businesses when, you know, our community is afraid to go to leave their homes, let alone go to work if ICE agents are being held in that hotel.

So it's simply a notification. We're asking that these corporations, hotels just notify those who are staying and those who are working so that they can make a plan for themselves. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Well, thanks again. If this is a cue for my closing message

It isn't. I or any other comments from the dais? Wanna make sure that we're exhaustive. Okay. Now, assembly member, you may close, please.

Well, thank you again. I I I did my closing just before all the comments, and I appreciate the the support. And, again, all along, what we're trying to do through electing our caucus is to protect our communities, protect our businesses, and, I just respect Ras RHNAi both. Thank you, mister

Thank you, Assemblymember Carrillo. Is there a motion on on? A move. It's been moved by Assemblymember Wicks, seconded by Assemblymember Pellerin. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 12, AB2721 by Assemblymember Carrillo. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Barakahin, Macedo, Brian DeMaio. Hoover. No.

Hoover. No. Erwin? Aye. Erwin, Aye.

Lowenthal.

Aye.

Lowenthal, Aye. McKinner. Aye. Ortega. Aye.

Patterson? No. Patterson, no. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Petrie Norris? Not voting. Petrie Norris not voting. Ward?

Aye.

Ward Aye, Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye. Wilson.

Okay. That's six votes to two. We're gonna keep it open.

Thank you, mister Short. Thank you, members. Thank you.

I wanna wait for

Mister Ward?

her since she's

Move the bill. 2027.

This is Assembly bill twenty twenty seven by Assembly member Ward.

Thank you for that quick motion and second. We'll be as brief as you like. Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm proud to present the, AB 2027 for, and I really appreciate staff's thoughtful engagement with the bill. This bill addresses a growing gap in our labor laws as artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in the workplace.

Today, worker data is powering the AI economy, and employers are increasingly collecting detailed information about how workers perform their jobs through surveillance tools, software systems, and day to day workflows. That data is then being used to train AI systems, which could replicate, automate, or replace those same workers. In other words, workers are being asked, often unknowingly, to train their own replacements. And while California has been a national leader in protecting consumer data, we have not yet extended similar protections to workers in the workplace.

This bill, AB 2027, establishes clear and reasonable guardrails.

First, it limits the collection and use of worker data to what is strictly necessary to administer the employment relationship. Second, it prohibits employers from using worker data to train or deploy AI systems intended to replace workers. And third, it prevents the sale or sharing of worker data to third parties for the purposes of job automation.

The bill also ensures that vendors are held to the same standard, and companies providing workplace technologies cannot use worker data to train their own AI products or share that data with others to automate jobs. These protections are necessary because the impacts are already being felt across industries.

Workers in call centers, logistics, and tech are increasingly being asked to document their work in ways that are later used to automate their roles. And as history has shown, the impacts of technological displacement fall hardest on low income and marginalized workers. This bill is about fairness, dignity, and economic security. It does not ban artificial intelligence in the workplace. It simply ensures that innovation does not come at the expense of workers being used as a free resource to train the systems which replace them.

We also recognize concerns by stakeholders in the committee regarding implementation definition and scope, and we're pleased to adopt, author amendments to be able to address those issues. So we recommend, remain committed to being able to work with these stakeholders who have legitimate concerns to ensure that the proposal is both effective and workable. We've always here in California led the way on setting responsible standards for emergency technologies. AB 2027 continues that leadership by ensuring that AI- that as AI advances, our workers are protected.

With me today in support are Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation and Shane Guzman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

Please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hello, mister chair and members of the committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, a proud cosponsor of AB 2027, an integral part of the labor fed's package to create human centered guardrails around the use of AI. Every day, there's an article published about the looming threat of AI induced job loss. These articles often include anecdotes from big tech executives acknowledging this very fact. The CEO of Entropic has previously predicted that unemployment can spike up to 20% in the next five years.

And just recently, the head of Microsoft's AI division said in an interview that white collar work, for the most part, could be automated in the next two years. Whether these anecdotes are mentioned for the sake of creating a sense of inevitability, the goal of widespread automation is clear. But what's conveniently left out of these talking points is the fact that these tools still rely on workers and relies on their information.

As the assembly member mentioned, data is gold in the AI economy because of how necessary it is to train and develop these AI systems. And as we all know, these systems are only as useful as the data that they're trained on.

So if the goal is to quickly automate for a corporate profit, data from the very workers they are trying to replace is extremely valuable. And we believe that workers should not be forced to train their AI replacements. For example, call center workers have dealt with forced AI integration for years. By listening in on countless worker conversations, AI agents are now able to draft scripts and even answer calls. I'm sure many of the members of this committee have already interacted with an AI agent over the phone.

Beyond call centers, reports have recently surfaced where academic editors were forced to train and edit the work of assistant editors only to find out they were actually training an AI system capable of fulfilling the role of the academic editor themselves, leading to a reduction in pay. As these systems continue to learn from workers, everyday Californians grow increasingly vulnerable to deskilling and replacement. With nearly every job in the knowledge industry being impacted by AI, workers have no escape or protection.

And with emerging robotics, thousands of jobs could be at risk. AB 2027 establishes, nation leading protections, and for these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Mister Gusman.

Thank you.

Mister chairman, members of the committee, Shane Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, proud cosponsor of this bill. Also on behalf of the Amalgamated Transient Union, the Machinist Union, the Utility Workers Union of America, the Engineers and Scientists of California, and Unite Here, all in strong support of this measure. Workers need the the provisions in this bill. In our view, a worker doesn't leave their right to privacy at the door when they come to work. We believe that the provisions of this bill reasonably protect those rights.

Also, it's incredibly exploitive to use worker data to train their AI replace- replacements. At the very least, when they're training real life replacements, they get paid to do it. And so- so this is explainable on so many levels, and it also sort of compounds the negative impacts that we already find in the workplace as AI is continuing to grow as a workplace tool. We have impacts on safety, productivity, and employee morale.

So we really need guardrails like this, and- and we strongly urge your aye vote on this bill.

Okay. Thank you, mister Gusman. Are there any other folks here to speak in favor of this bill, name, organization, and position?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of Tech Equity Action in support.

Jason Hanel on behalf of ASSA California in support.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Sherita Moore with Hernando Strategy Group on behalf of Communication Workers of America District Nine in support.

Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

It's now time for opposition witnesses. Please come forward. If you may need to slide the microphones down or one of those microphones down, Mister Guzman. Thank you for being here. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition to AB 2027. We appreciate the author's willingness to work with us on amendments. We also appreciate how the analysis acknowledges that the line between AI that replaces worker and AI that assists worker is not always clear.

We think that's exactly the right framing, and bill's prohibition is too broad to make this distinction. First, the bill defines personal information by incorporating the CCPA's definition, a framework designed for consumers, not the employment relationship. This definition is extraordinarily broad, capturing everything from productivity metrics to shift schedules. In practice, virtually all data generated through the course of employment qualifies. Our members have shared concrete examples of what this would mean.

Employers could not use injury and ergonomic data to build safety tools, could not use workflow data to improve scheduling or benefits delivery, and could not develop internal AI tools that help employees work more effectively and safely. Second, this bill's prohibition on using worker data to train AI to replicate or automate a worker's job provides no framework for distinguishing between AI designated to eliminate positions and AI that simply improves how work gets done.

The analysis acknowledges this tension, noting that automation and replication can genuinely benefit workers by allowing them to focus on more meaningful aspects of their job. A scheduling tool that learns from workforce data or a safety replicating a job function as written. Third, the bill does not clearly exempt AI models already trained on worker data.

This creates a retroactivity problem that may be impossible to audit or remediate. Many vendors do not disclose the full composition of their training datasets, making compliance verification impractical. Without a clear safe harbor for tools already in use, employers face substantial and unpredictable litigation exposure if passed. For these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 2027. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Eric Lawyer speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. First, we understand the concerns that motivated the author and sponsor. However, we remain concerned this bill could limit or outright prohibit the use of tools already used by public agencies to improve delivery of services, mitigate disaster risk, strengthen the social safety net, and empower the public workforce to grow, develop, and replace rote tasks with more meaningful work.

While we appreciate the efforts by the author and sponsor to narrow the bill, we do not believe the amendments address our core concerns.

As amended, the bill could continue with severe restrictions for the use of for the use and training of AI systems and raise even more complicated interpretation questions, including how should public agencies navigate a law that was drafted that was drafted for private sector commercial interactions? How should any employer interpret a privacy law through the lens of the workplace, effectively defining employees as consumers? How do the definitions of personal information specifically apply to this bill? For example, the definition of PI includes characteristics that protect the classifications.

How could a public agency train an AI system to root out implicit bias if it can't use characteristics of protected classifications?

Public agencies have adopted AI to supplement the public workforce, not replace it. Some use AI systems to generate automatic outreach to employees for overtime if there's a shift vacancy. This tool, would be prohibited by the bill as it's trained with worker PI and replicates existing work. Public agencies also use AI to to accelerate permitting, streamline public benefit enrollment, and improve accuracy of water use detection, to name just a few. We believe in the in the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of artificial intelligence.

We believe in protecting workers from mass displacement. We believe it's critical to protect the privacy of the public we serve and public employees. We have zero interest in replacing public sector employees with machines. We do believe in using new technology to better serve residents of California and improve conditions for the public workforce. AB 2027 would go too far in limiting these technologies, and for that reason, I respectfully ask for no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there members of the public that are here to testify in opposition or voice their opposition to the bill? Name, organization, and position, please.

Good afternoon. Yarelie Magallon with Political Solutions on behalf of the Business Software Alliance in opposition.

Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County representatives of California, and the California Special Districts Association, all in opposition.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon, chair members. Jose Torres with TechNet in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers. We align our comments with those provided by the lead testimony in opposition, in opposition. Thank you.

Hi. Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Hospital Association. Respectful opposition.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Let's bring back to the dais.

Comments, concerns, Assemblymember Irwin.

You know, I of course, understand the goal. Nobody wants to be using their data to train their replacement. But I but one of the things that was brought up by the opposition, and you and I have spoken about before, but I would like you to, address is-

How do you differentiate between a basically, data that is being used to train your replacement and data that's being used for a tool that is going to make you more effective at your job. And I'm like, specifically thinking about maybe a surgeon and diagnostic tools that or, you know, or using I think it's the DaVinci, using that data to refine how you do surgery. So how do you see how do you see that line?

So the short answer is no. And I think, you know, a more broad generalization of, I think, what we do wanna be able to see going forward, and I think we all should agree, is that AI can be a useful tool to be able to supplement the engagement of especially high level professionals like that, but really any professional, any worker that is out there as well.

If you have, say, a job that requires, you know, writing a lot of reports. That could help facilitate, you know, a lot of your job activity, a lot of those hours spent writing those reports so that you can maybe go on there and do other areas of your job duties as well. That might be a little more interesting to you or be able to make some diversity in in your work experience but not necessarily replace your job to a degree.

And I don't think anybody would wanna be able to see, especially as we know today, an AI system fully replace that surgeon from performing your work.

We would need to have that. I think that we see improvements there when you have, you know, both the professional as well as, you know, that AI or other computer assistance there sort of working in tandem. I think I think, you know, working in tandem, you can have reductions in errors. So, I think that is the goal there.

I think to your question, how do we make sure that you know and what defines a use of that information and how do you necessarily tie that to whether or not that was the connection or the consequence, I guess, the impetus for somebody's job loss.

I think that's gonna be something that's gonna be have to be vetted on a case by case basis to see whether or not the intention for the introduction of AI in a workplace then resulted in that individual's loss of employment.

So, it's tricky. I think that's the way you're explaining. Like, how would you how would you enforce this? At what point do you really at what point do you enforce okay. At this now we are using your data to train to automate your position.

Still and let me underscore as well too. And the reason why we decided to shift towards the definition of personal information within the CCPA is because it already excludes aggregate data information that is out there, information that is publicly available. Right? And so, workers already, I think, to the opposition's point I'm sorry. Employers already know.

CCPA, as you know well, has been law for several years, know how the interpretation of what that personal information is and whether or not that had occurred. And then does that link actually is that is that, justify is it, are you able to justify that linkage, between a subsequent employment, action on your employment?

Alright. Thank you.

Questions, comments, concerns from the dais? Okay. Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you wish to close?

Thank you. I wanna, again, thank our committee staff and members as well for a lot of dialogue that we have over the weekend. You know, we know this isn't just hypothetical. This is something that is increasingly happening on a regular basis. And in fact, just today, I would highlight that Reuters, had an article that was, documenting how, a major company within our state, who I will not call out by name, but they are now tracking employee keystrokes and screen activity to train AI models.

And it's underscoring that employers are already moving to be able to turn an everyday worker behavior into data that they can be able to use for automation. This is a major company that's within the technology sector. Horribly and ironically, the development and the support and the innovation that we have right now are some of those employers the employees that are most at risk, and we actually see that with the job losses happening across the state.

So as a model for where we hope California can be able to set the conversation going across the country, we wanna make sure that this basic worker protection, is in place that is gonna make sure that people aren't unnecessarily training the replacements, that they're not, seeing a massive shift in the labor market right now, and that we are focused on making sure that AI can collaboratively and positively be introduced into the workplace that's gonna respect both the workers' rights and also the innovation and the efficiencies and productivity that comes from AI integration.

With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay. There has- thank you so much, Assemblymember Ward. There's a motion by Assemblymember Wicks, seconded by Assemblymember Pellerin. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 15, AB 2027 by Assembly member Ward. The motion is do passed to appropriations by Bauer-Kahan? Macedo? Bryan? Demaio?

No.

Demaio, no. Hoover?

No.

Hoover, no. Irwin?

Aye.

Irwin, aye. Lowenthal?

Aye.

Lowenthal, aye. McKinnor?

Aye.

McKinnor, aye. Ortega?

Aye.

Ortega, aye. Patterson?

Not voting.

Patterson, not voting. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Petrie Norris?

Not voting.

Petrie Norris, not voting. Ward?

Aye.

Ward, aye. Wicks?

Wicks, aye. Wilson?

Aye.

Okay. That is at 72. We'll keep the roll open for absent members. We're gonna go to AB 1837 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzales. Welcome, mister Gonzales.

Welcome. Welcome. You may proceed, sir.

Thank you, mister chair and members. First, I would like to thank you and the chair and the committee and the staff for their collaboration on this bill as it's been ongoing. I will also be accepting the committee's amendments today to add a seven year sunset back into the bill with a two year prohibition on the last two years for any new program to start. Add additional privacy protections into the bill and additional, parameters on how the reports on privacy impacts must be evaluated.

With these amendments, AB 1837 will extend the sunset on the authority for public transit agencies to use forward facing cameras to enforce parking violations of public transit only lanes.

The authority first came into place in 2021 for San Francisco and has been expanded into the rest of the state. We know this technology works and has helped address key issues of public transit efficiency and public safety by disincentivizing parking and stopping in transit lanes. In San Francisco, these cameras have cut transit delays by 20%. Agencies like LA Metro in my district have just started using these cameras and have been experiencing the same benefits.

AB 1837 also ensures that the extensive privacy protections laid out in the authority can't continue.

Video evidence of violations must be destroyed sixty days after a citation has been paid. Any video images don't contain evidence must be destroyed after fifteen days. Any video image can only be used by enforcing for enforcing these parking violations. If we let this authority expire, our transit lanes will be clogged back up, reducing transit efficiency and public safety. It is essential that our buses continue to move efficiently and safely throughout our cities, and Navy eighteen thirty seven ensures that we can keep doing just that.

This afternoon, primary witnesses in support of this bill is Matt Robinson, legislative advocate with California Transit Association, and Mark Vukovich, director of state policy with Streets for All. Take it away.

Good after good afternoon, chair and committee. Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. Yeah. This bill is simple, especially after the amendments. This bill just extends the pilot program that's already been working since, 2010, and that was then expanded in 2021 to keep bus lanes and bus stops clear so that transit can actually function as intended.

Really, the only difference between a bus and just normal congestion is the lane that it's in and a lot of cities that have decided that can have a dedicated lane, and we can ensure that bus line is clear so that people can move efficiently in the dense urban places that utilize bus lanes and and buses to to operate. So this AV eighteen thirty seven addresses this with a proven targeted solution.

This camera based enforcement program is consistent, scalable, and doesn't require pulling limited law enforcement resources away from higher priority needs, ensures that bus lines are used for intended purposes, which is just moving people efficiently. I also wanna mention as well that this is really critical for,

bus operators. The actual drivers is the other word for that. Those people who are often very stressed out by people who intruding into their lanes or intruding in front of the buses where they feel like they have a a moral obligation to keep themselves and the people inside the bus safe. So we think this is a really high ROI policy that maintains public transit as a an an important tool, that benefits millions of Californians each year, especially those that rely on transit the most. So respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you,

mister chair. Matt Robinson with the California Transit Association. Again, proud to co sponsor this bill with LA Metro, AC Transit, and Streets for All. Really appreciate the committee staff's work with us. Took the time to really learn about the program, offered some amendments that I think make the privacy protections in the in the law even stronger than they already are.

As Mark noted, we have used these cameras successfully for more than twenty years now to help improve the services for both our our bus operators, driving the buses, but also those riders that have, difficult times often navigating from where the bus may have to stop if the vehicle's parked there, over to the curb or to the transit stop.

I would note that in state law, we are required to report, to the legislature, on any privacy issues that have come up for any of the programs underway or that have been in place, going back to 2005. While the committee analysis notes that our reporting has been a little bit light and hopefully the future reports will be more detailed in this regard, we have had no issues, that have been raised, through any of those reports by any of the agencies.

And as noted in the analysis, our our data retention, our protection policies are extremely strong, and we look forward to making them stronger if this bill moves out of your committee. With that, respectfully ask your aye vote.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much, mister Robinson. Okay. Are there any members of the public that are here to voice support for this bill name organization position?

Good afternoon. Steve Volick on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation and Cal Act and Support. Thank you.

Mister chair, Brendan Raupicky on behalf of the San Mateo County Transit District, the city of Santa Monica, Monterey Salinas Transit District, and San Francisco MTA in support. Thank you.

Okay. Now it's time for opposition witnesses. Are there anyone here to testify in opposition to this bill? No. Seeing none, is are there any members of the public here to voice opposition to this bill?

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember McKinnor.

Yes. To the author, I thank you so much, assemblymember, for bringing this bill. One of the things that's very important to me this year is to slow people down and stop with we have a lot of car accidents, death by car accidents, and we wanna make sure that we're slowing that down. And so I thank you, and I would like to be a coauthor of your bill. Yeah.

Thank you.

Mister Hoover.

I just wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward. Happy to be a coauthor. I think it's really gonna assist our transit agencies and enforcement and also, you know, keep people safe. So thanks thanks so much.

Mister Patterson,

I'm gonna support the bill today. I do you know, typically, when these bills come through committee on enforcement by camera, I don't you know, the high the speeding ones and things like that and lights, I don't really I don't love those. You know, these are parking, issues, but I really wanna you know, if you guys can work a little bit on the data retention.

I know that you took some steps already, but, you know, if there's really no need for the retention, beyond the enforcement of that infraction, it'd be great if the data was basically eliminated. But, but I'm happy to support it today.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Patterson.

Okay. I think that does it for up here. Oh, excuse me, mister DeMaio.

It it's it's it's slightly off topic, but the the transit and bike lobby have hijacked our transportation system. And I know that there's some good intentions, but the execution has been a disaster. In in San Diego, they implemented something called BRT, Bus Rapid Transit, and they've been issuing a bunch of citations and fines. It has not improved the flow of traffic, and we have a bunch of empty buses with very little impact on the on very little beneficial impact on the transportation system.

So I'm not in favor of enforcement in a broken system.

I think we need to tell our transit and bike, advocates to get back with the transportation, decision makers and come up with more thoughtful policy. Your bill obviously wants to use technology, to implement, and that there's nothing wrong with that. But I I can't support enforcement for a policy that I think there's a lot of people on the ground that are very upset with right now, particularly in my community in San Diego, who have lost parking for small businesses in areas that are already, struggling with parking. So I'll be, laying off the bill today.

Thank you, mister Maio. Mister Ward.

So what I know from the bus rapid transit lane, which runs through my district, is that it is, increased in ridership significantly since the pandemic. The buses are full, especially during our rush hour when we want to have reduced congestion on on our roadways.

It has reduced, the time that it takes to get from San Diego State all the way to downtown by seven minutes, because we've had that dedicated bus rapid transit line that has increased access to other opportunities in the North Inland area as well as in the South County.

And, for respect to our bicycle lanes, while individuals continue to be slow to adopt because we don't have a full fully integrated and connected bicycle route on the routes that we do have, we've seen a near tripling since bicycle lanes have been installed, which has also enhanced a number of safety, features, which is important because people aren't getting killed. And that is also something that, you know, can't, is is hard to be able to measure, when you're thinking about some of this other traffic information.

So I wanted to make sure the record was clear, and I'm happy to support your bill.

Okay. I think that does it for up here. All debate having ceased. Would you like to close, mister Gonzales?