Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

Good morning. I call this hearing of the Assembly Committee on Human Services to order. I would like to start today's hearing by welcoming assembly member Aarons, who is filling in for assembly member Celeste Rodriguez, and assembly member Rubio, who is filling in for assembly member Jackson. Once we have established quorum, we have 21 measures on the agenda, six of which are consent. Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition.

Each witness has two minutes to testify. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, and the position on the bill. I also have to note that we're accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. Lastly, I would like to address disruptions during the hearing. Conduct that disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct this hearing is prohibited.

If disruptive behavior occurs today, you will be removed from the hearing room by the assembly sergeants. We do not yet have a quorum, so we'll start as a subcommittee. I believe file item number one, Assembly Jackson is here. So you may come up to the desk and present, file number one AB 2083 when you are ready.

Thank you very much, mister chair. I wanna start by thanking the committee, and committee staff for, assisting us with this. We'll be accepting, the committee amendments. Here to present AB 2083, the Moreno Valley Parish Childcare Special District, which authorizes the creation of a regional childcare special district serving Moreno Valley and Paris to coordinate the development and expansion of childcare programs and facilities, including options that support families with nontraditional work hours for a term of five years. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Do we have any members of the public who should testify in support of this bill? Please come forward. Seeing none, any members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill or any primary witness in opposition? Say not bringing it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. A comment from the vice chair.

So I had my staff work on this, and they did reach out to Riverside County. And, they had mentioned that your office had never reached out to them, and they were concerned about it causing an extra fee for the local residents in the community for this. So I'm not gonna be able to support it today. But I do thank you.

Absolutely. Appreciate it.

Are there any other cons or questions from committee? If not, I'll invite the author to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. We do not yet have a quorum. So when when it is established, we will, take it up for a vote. It does enjoy a do pass rank recommend due a recommendation of do pass. And, I do think it's a creative way to address childcare for your locality and it's for your local locals to decide how it's done. Alright? Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Let's go on to file item number two. AB 1579 by Assemblymember Ramos. So you may begin when you're ready.

You're too good.

Whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, mister chair. And I would like to start off by accepting the committee amendments. And thank you and your staff for, working with our team on this bill. Today, I am I am presenting AV fifteen seventy nine, which aims to expand the current children's crisis pilot program to include additional CDSS approved crisis residential models. At its inception, the children's crisis pilot program was set to build a comprehensive, replicable crisis continuum system for youth within the highest needs.

And today, that vision still remains, But it's out of reach in so many areas in the state of California for our youth. In practice, not a single agency in the state of California has been able to successfully set up a children's crisis residential program. The inability is not because counties and providers lack commitment, but because the current model is not working. Across the state, CCRPs have proven financially and operationally unsustainable due to staffing requirements and cost structures.

As a result, CCRPs have effectively stalled the development of crisis continuums.

AV fifteen seventy nine seeks to remedy these issues by increasing access through flexible, functional, equivalent, clinically appropriate residential options, expanding the children's crisis pilot program to include services such as short term residential treatment programs or psychiatric residential treatment facilities. Counties and providers can implement programs that are clinically appropriate and sustainable without compromising safety or quality care. Simply put, this bill is an expansion aimed at ensuring that every child has timely access to the right level of care in the least restrictive settings possible.

We are asking for flexibility with purpose, not a compromise on quality. AB 1579 ensures counties can fully utilize available funding and move forward with viable models and build the crisis response systems that our youth need today and what was envisioned when the state set forth a commitment to fund this pilot program.

With me to testify on the bill today is Joan Miller, deputy director of Family and Children's Services, and Leticia Galen, chief executive officer of Seneca Family of Agencies.

Alright. Thank you very much. Whichever witness wants to go first. You have two minutes each, please.

Good morning, chair chair and members. On behalf of the San Francisco County Human Services Administration, Family and Children Services Division, I am here in strong support of Assembly Bill 1579. The goal of the children's crisis continuum pilot program was to increase capacity for crisis care for foster youth and to build a system that is replicable across California. However, the current statutory language limits residential crisis services to a single model.

The children's crisis residential program, which has proven financially and operationally unstable and unsustain excuse me, unsustainable for the eight pilot counties, including San Francisco.

Without passage of AB 1579, counties will remain unable to provide a critical component of a true crisis continuum within the pilot, a short term therapeutic residential option for foster youth in crisis, leading to continued overreliance on hospitals and emergency departments. AB 1579 provides a practical solution by expanding allowable program types while giving Pilot counties the flexibility to implement the approach that best meets the needs of the foster youth for whom they are caring.

This flexibility is not a departure from the pilot's vision. It is what makes the vision replicable statewide. Importantly, this does not lower the standard of care.

CDSS approval remains required, and the bill preserves the accountability structure needed to serve youth with the most complex needs. It also requires any com comparable program to demonstrate the capacity to safely stabilize youth in crisis through enhanced staffing, stronger clinical support, and coordinated system involvement. Lastly, San Francisco County, along with most other pilot counties, lost significant implementation time under the existing statutory requirements.

AB 1579 also provides the additional time needed to fully utilize our pilot grant funding rather than losing those resources due to delays beyond our control. We strongly support this bill and respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Chair Lee and members of the Human Services Committee. I'm Leticia Gayyean, and I serve as CEO of Seneca Family of Agencies. Seneca is a nonprofit agency providing intensive and comprehensive behavioral health, education, and placement services for children and their families across 19 counties in California. Seneca was a proud cosponsor of the original Children's Crisis Continuum Pilot Program legislation. And we've been partnered with both San Francisco and Monterey Counties since the grant awards in 2023.

With our partners, Seneca has worked diligently to operationalize every component of the continuum. Despite that, we have not been successful in executing on the vision of the children's crisis residential program model due to the regulatory challenges. Indeed, there is not a single children's crisis residential program in the state, even outside of the pilot program. While we await longer term solutions for that license type, counties are unable to stand up the very services the pilot requires, even as the need for crisis care grows. Yet, there are viable solutions.

AB 1579 neither eliminates nor changes the intention of the crisis residential component of the pilot program. Instead, it ensures it can actually be delivered. Providers like Seneca are already providing crisis residential levels of care using the short term residential treatment program license. AB 1579 preserves accountability of the providers and protection of the youth. The state must still review and approve the program design.

The providers must demonstrate that what is built is still highly individualized, offers enhanced staffing ratios, and is functionally equivalent to the crisis residential program the pilot required. Without AB 1579, the pilot program will not fulfill its intent simply because we are letting licensing barriers get in the way of the services available to young people who need them most. We are committed and ready to actualize what is envisioned, a comprehensive, responsive system of care for youth with the most complex needs.

AB 1579 allows us to do just that. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of file number two? AB 1579. This number is from microphone, name, organization, and your support.

Good morning. Adrienne Shilton representing California Alliance of Child and Family Services, proud cosponsor in support.

Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Good morning. Brian Bagley, City and County, San Francisco, family and family and children services division, and I strongly support.

Good morning. Megan Salazar with Just Advocates, a proud cosponsor, and we strongly support.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the city I'm sorry. On behalf of the board of supervisors for the county of Fresno and also here on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in proud support. Thank you.

Alright. Before we go on to opposition, we do have a quorum now. So, madam secretary, I'm gonna ask you to call the attendants so we can establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Alright. And thank you to some way Arons and Rubio for subbing in today. Thank you. Now let's move on to opposition to the bill. If there is any primary witness in opposition, please come up to the desk.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Chantal Johnson, and I am the directing advocate at the Youth Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy advocacy organization that works to transform foster care and juvenile justice systems so that young people and families receive the support they need to thrive. We are respectfully opposing AB 1579. The bill fundamentally departs from the original intent from the children's crisis continuum pilot program.

That program was designed to fill a gap in care for youth experiencing behavioral health crisis with small short term community based settings specifically tailored to stabilize youth and return them to their families settings as quickly as possible.

AB 1579 moves us away from that vision. It allows pilot funding to be used for existing facility types such as such as short term residential treatment, programs and the and potentially psychiatric residential treatment facilities, settings that were never intended to serve as substitutes for crisis residential programs. These facilities are either not designed for acute crisis stabilization or are far more restrictive and institutional than what youth need in a moment of crisis. Critically, the bill removes key safeguards.

Children's crisis residential programs are small, serving just four youth at a time with a ten day maximum stay and a twenty four hour mental health care.

In contrast, these facilities this bill would allow can be much larger, have no meaningful limits on the length of stay, and may not provide the same level of specialized immediate crisis care. We are deeply concerned that this bill would effectively incentivize greater reliance on large institutional settings, settings that can be disruptive, isolating, and in some cases, harmful to youth while diverting resources away from community based solutions that we just know are more effective.

If the challenge is financial viability and we've met many times with the sponsors, the solution should be to invest in making these crisis programs work, not to lower the standard nerve care or abandon the original model altogether. For these reasons, we join a coalition of partners from the National Center for Youth Law, Disability Rights California, and the National Health Law Program who all respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you so much.

Alright. Thank you. Now do we have members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come up with the microphone. Alright. Seeing none, I'm gonna write back to committee for questions, comments, or motions. Alright.

The bills are moving and seconded. Any questions? If not, I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you so much. And this is an opportunity to bring some solutions to counties and give them options to get drastically needed resources to our our youth that are out in the state of California. I ask for your aye vote.

And I appreciate the bill. The author bringing this bill forward and your commitment to working with youth. I know you'll continue to hear all sides and work on this issue. The bill has been moved by someone Rotagipa and seconded by Elhawary. Madam secretary, please call the roll on file number two.

[Roll Call]

6-0. That bill is out. Thank you, Assembly Member. We will leave the roll open for absent Members. Next, we'll do file item number 3, AB 1628 by Michelle Rodriguez. Alright. Whenever you're ready, Michelle.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of California's most vulnerable newborns and mothers.

One second. Assembly Member, you might wanna put your mic a little closer to you. And if we're gonna ask the room to hush for a second. Alright. Go ahead.

California's most vulnerable newborns and mothers who need our support. I'm honored to present AB 1628, the Keeping Infants from Danger Act, which extends California's safe surrender window from 72 hours to 30 days, providing mothers with the time and space necessary to make safe, informed decisions during one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives.

California has long been a leader in compassion driven, evidence based policy, and AB 1628 builds on that legacy. No woman should be compelled to make such a life threatening, life altering decision while still recovering physically, emotionally, and mentally from childbirth.

We understand that postpartum depression, medical complications, and emotional distress do not get resolved within 72 hours. And in fact, for many mothers, the most difficult moments arise days or even weeks after delivery. It's essential that our laws reflect that reality.

This is a lifesaving measure that meets mothers where they are, offering support instead of limitation and ensuring newborns have the opportunity for safe and secure future. AB 1628, a Women's Caucus priority bill, maintains full confidentiality for mothers while strengthening protection for newborns statewide.

By updating this law, we reduce the risk of unsafe abandonment and ensure that in moments of crisis, a safe and lawful option is accessible. Joining me today to offer testimony is Obed Franco on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association.

Alright. Go ahead. Two minutes, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Obed Franco here today on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California. I'm testifying in support of AB 1628, the Keeping Infants from Danger Act.

We would like to thank the author, the author's staff, the Chair, and committee staff for their work on this important and sensitive issue. California Safe Surrender Law has been in place for over two decades and has created and was created to prevent infant deaths by providing a safe, legal, and confidential option for surrender.

This measure builds on that foundation by extending the surrender window to 30 days, recognizing that medical recovery, postpartum conditions, and other challenges do not always occur within the first few days following birth.

Fire departments across the state serve as designated safe surrender sites, and personnel are often among the first to receive these infants. These departments understand the responsibility that comes with that role and the importance of maintaining a system that is accessible, confidential, and focused on safety.

Providing additional time helps ensure that individuals are able to access this option when it is needed while, while maintaining the protections that have made the safe surrender program so effective. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association in support.

Great. Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the committee for questions or comments. Alright. Do you wanna... Okay. Go ahead, Vice Chair.

I just wanna thank the author for the bill, and I'm proud to be a co-author of this bill. As a mental health professional, I think it's important to allow more time for new mothers to, you know, get through a certain phase that's a crisis and extend that time to avoid them having regrets later of something. So thank you.

Alright. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Well, thank you, Assembly Member Rodriguez. I know this is something you were very passionate about, and you talked to many of us very early on. So I appreciate you working on the safe surrender sites and extending the timeline.

So this does enjoy an aye recommendation from me, and it has been properly moved by Assembly Member Ahrens and seconded by Assembly Member Castillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on file item number 3.

File item 3, AB 1628. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

6-0. That bill's out. We'll leave the roll open for Absent Members. Alright. So we'll now go to file number 4, AB 1634, Davies.

Alright. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. And I just wanna say thank you for having the consideration for letting me go. I have a feeling that plane took off. So but that was very kind of you. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I rise today to present AB 1634, relating to the Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids license plate program.

Members, this is a bill that has passed through this committee unanimously twice, and our colleagues in the Senate has passed the same bill through their Human Service Committee twice. We worked diligently with the committee this year to simplify the funding formula. But otherwise, the language is largely consistent with prior versions.

This bill places emphasis on funding programs aimed at unintentional injury preventions, intending positive and equitable outcomes. Many of the injury categories addressed by the bill, such as vehicular safety, drowning prevention, and gun safety, disproportionately affects low income and marginalized communities.

AB 1634 increases strategic funding for child abuse prevention, childhood injury prevention, and child care by doing two key things. First, it updates the DMV pricing of kids specialty license plates, which has not been adjusted since 1992 and is far below other specialty plates. Increasing these fees should significantly grow the child health and safety funds.

Second, AB 1634 allows legacy specialty license plates owners to use the four kids' plates symbols to personalize their plates, bringing in new revenue to support kids' safety programs while also benefiting environmental programs supported by legacy plates. But at its core, this bill addresses long standing equity and how kids plates funds are distributed. Currently, statute does not guarantee that all 58 counties receive their fair share.

AB 1634 utilizes that existing 58 First 5 County Commissions to help distribute funding for childhood injury preventions and child care providing recruitment and training at the community level. At the same time, AB 1634 ensures the Department of Social Service Child Care Licensing Division and the Department of Public Health Injury Prevention Branch continues receiving funding to carry out their critical work.

Members, we also made important structural improvements in response to concerns raised last year. Last year's analysis repeatedly referenced funding being tied to counties opting into receiving these funds based on the survey which created barriers to access. That structure is removed in this bill. Instead, funding distributed to all 58 counties, ensuring every community can benefit. We also address concerns about complexity.

The previous framework included multiple layers like the 75%, 17%, and eight apportioned structures, population thresholds, and participation triggering, which made programs difficult to administer. This bill replaces that with a clearer structure, including defined allocations, such as 22.5 to the 58 First 5 Community Commissions with straightforward distribution formulas.

Equity is no longer conditional. Previously, access depended on whether counties opt in, which risked leaving some communities behind. Now the analyst reflects a system where funds are distributed to all 58 counties, ensuring consistent statewide access. At the same time, the bill preserves accountability.

The Department of Public Health continues its oversight role, with oversight and accountability reported annually, ensuring programs integrity remains intact. Finally, the bill strengthens the funding model overall. It's not only modernized outdated fees, but also expands participation, generating more total resources to support child safety, injury preventions, and child care.

This bill takes a structure that was conditionally complex and uneven, and it makes it automatic, simpler, and statewide. With me today to testify and answer technical questions about the bill is Steve Barrow, state program director of the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health, who also helped craft the original 1992 kids plate program. Thank you.

Alright. Two minutes each witness, please.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. I was on the team working with Jackie Speier when she was in sitting in your seats. When we created this program, we created it originally because there was no childcare licensing division in California.

And then we successfully used this funding stream to do that. The problem is over the years, the Department of Motor Vehicles could not raise the price of these to keep the more money coming into the program because it's in statute law. So this bill corrects that. It doesn't take it out of statute law.

But it allows for the pricing to go from 1992 levels up to the 2026 levels as other specialty license plates. Yosemite plate, save the whales, and all that. It will double the amount of money. It also takes advantage of partnering with a very important other specialty plate, the legacy plates, by allowing them to personalize their plate with the four symbols, the heart, the star, the plus sign, and the handprint, which you see on the road.

So you'll wonder what is that plate? Well, these those are kids' plates. When Jackie Speier created this program, we had no money in the pot. And people said, oh, it's not gonna raise enough money to do anything strategically good. We raised over $90 million just by the vehicle owners buying, choosing to buy this plate.

So this bill increases the amount of money in the in the fund by bringing the pricing up from 1992 to 2026, partnering with the legacy plates. So that builds our chance to now rebuild and bring in more money for child abuse prevention, childhood safety programs, childhood injury, and also to help recruit new childcare providers at the local level, which right now, there's not enough money and there's no attention to that.

We use the First 5 County Commissions because they're in all 58 counties, and they're made up of people at the at the local level that understand their communities. And you're probably familiar with the First 5s in your districts, and this will allow them to have money to put into, like, swim lessons and safe child sleep suffocation prevention, burn prevention, also to...

If I could ask you to wrap up, please.

Yeah. So the bill raises more money, creates a much better structure of how we're distributing the the money, and also keeping the childcare licensing we built with the original program intact and increases the Department of Public Health's ability to do more childhood injury prevention. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote. I know this program inside and out. So if you have any technical questions, I can answer them.

Thank you. Alright. Next witness, please. Two minutes, please.

Oh, no. No.

Alright. You only had one witness. Okay. Alright. Do we have any members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come to the microphone. Any primary witness in opposition? Any members of the public who wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Alright. I'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly Member Elhawary.

I appreciate the intent. I have a kid's plate myself. I have a heart on mine. I think right now we're in a deficit, and it's just really tough to think about redirecting funds outside of state agencies. I think maybe in the future, we could look to that, but I just wanted to share that. That's why I'll be laying off today.

Alright. Any other questions or comments?

Can he respond to... Can I respond to that?

I didn't, I did not hear a question directed, unless, Elhawary, you have a question you wanted to ask them. So just wanna be fair to other Members. Okay. Assembly Member Tangipa.

To the author, could you respond to the fees on this?

Respond to which?

To issues in the deficit or anything when it comes to a financial impact.

You know, the thing is is that right now, this money was only meant to be strategic money to help with child abuse, childhood injury, and childcare issues. And by increasing the amount of money, it allows us to keep the licensing program intact.

There's gonna be more money than they need for administration for their role. And so the extra money, we had to figure out, okay, how do you put this into work at the at the local level, community level? And so the First 5 commissions were chosen to utilize the money.

It's not really going outside and and wasting money. This is bringing in money. Let me give you an example. At the local level, you give a local community $60,000. They can have they can help 400 children get swimming lessons for drowning prevention. You give them $50,000. They can help with the local infant sleep suffocation programs.

So that right now, they don't have money to put into that. So it is keeping the administration whole that we built with this with this program. But at the same time, we're raising more money to go out to help with child safety programs in all 58 counties. Right now, not only 25 of the counties get any of this money.

But just very, very quickly. And to the author, there I believe that there is no impact to the general fund when it comes to the raising of these fees.

This is voluntary money.

Correct. This is voluntary. Just like all the other specialty license.

Yeah. Vehicle owners choose or don't choose to put a specialty plate on.

So the only increase would be on the individual paying for it, not on the deficit that the future projections of the state of California are in. Correct?

Anytime you have a specialty license, you're gonna be paying for it.

Thank you. I'd move the bill.

Question to the author is then is to clarify and build upon that point. Are you changing the appropriation of money that this fund gives to the Department of Social Services in this bill?

No. No. It matter of fact, it guarantees that the administrative... There's a bunch of administrative issues that kids place is always funded within the Department of Social Services. This bill puts in statute a guarantee for going forward plus any COLA that the legislature decides to provide for them. So it guarantees that the childcare licensing that we help build stays intact.

That's one of the important parts of our childcare system to keep people's children safe. But if you're a 100 families looking for childcare in California, right now only 28 of the families are gonna find childcare. So this puts money into a practical place in all 58 counties to help the communities recruit new providers so that we will have a bigger pool of providers for working parents than we have right now. So no, it doesn't.

Well, reflecting the language that's submitted to me, that is not true because you're halfing the appropriation to CDSS. It goes literally half of, you're halfing the amount that goes from CDSS to other entities. That is in the language today.

No. The language that we worked out with your staff over several weeks, and there was a lot of good give and take, the amount of money that the Department of Social Services gets, they will get half or more of the new money. You gotta remember the pot right now is this...

Right. But this is the hypothetical. Right. And I'm, I'll allow the author to close before I say those. But if I wanna correct the record is that this is a stipulation that there is the revenue growth, and you're saying in the numerical, in the raw amount of money, this is your argument that there will be more in general. But the appropriation itself, the formula, you're halfing the amount that goes to CDSS.

No. It's...

That is in the language that is in the bill that you submitted.

The language that we worked out with your staff over weeks. And appreciate all the work that...

But I just wanna, I wanna clarify. Now I'm not asking a question. I'm clarifying that this is the bill in print today. So I just wanna correct for the record that this is a change in formula. So I just wanna correct that. Assembly Member Tangipa, you brought up a very good point that this is...

Changes the formula on a bigger pot. It doesn't change your formula in the current system.

Again, I wasn't asking a question. But, again, I'm clarifying that you're talking about the raw numerical dollars will change, but the percentage of its allocation has changed as well. So the bill itself, you've changed the allocation of the percentage. Alright. Are there any other questions or comments from Committee Members? If not, there was motion, yes. Bill was moved and seconded. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. I really appreciate that. And, and with my colleagues, again, this is this bill is really bringing more income, more revenue to help our children. And one of the biggest things the last few years, which was a good thing, that the flavored tobacco ban basically was dropped because we got rid of it.

But that was where a lot of funding was going to, these groups. And now with us being able to partner with these other groups together, it's going to be bringing in much more revenue, and it's also been going to go to different types of crisis that we can deal with our kids. Right now, we're watching childcare not being supported.

We're watching daycare not being supported. A lot of these, again, and probably what closest to my heart is the drowning prevention. When, if you're not aware of it, the number one death of children is from infants to five years old. Number one death. Number, the second, the number two death is from six years old to 14.

There are so many children and kids out there that don't have the opportunity to have swimming lessons, to be able to save themselves, to know CPR. And this is one of the top things that it does. And we're talking about children's lives, and we know what's happening here.

So I would ask that she would consider this. Again, this is not costing the taxpayer anything. It would be more revenue because of us partnering together that will come forward. Even if you wanna give it a one year and see how that works.

But to deny right now when we have a debt, when there's a deficit and they're cutting every program for our kids, this is one that actually will allow the taxpayers on their own to actually help fund. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, Assembly Member Davies, for presenting this bill. This is a bill we've had a lot of back and forth on on the staff level as well, but the crux of the issue is in the formula. I wanna correct the record that there have been very similar bills that have come through here about license plates and allocations of money. That is true.

Many similar these bills all die in Appropriations or held in Appropriations, unfortunately. But I do think this is a well intentioned bill. But the reality is what you are doing is, yes, you're increasing the or changing the structure, increasing the fee. But it is, at the end of the day, a reallocation. And this is something that has been an issue where we worked out, and it changes.

It halves the amount of money that goes as our CDSS, which goes to other programs, and then into private nonprofit organizations, which is the crux of my issue that we have been trying to work out for a while. And so that is why I'm not supporting this bill today.

This bill has a no recommendation from me. And also just to carry on some themes, even from this committee, I have heard before we are concerned about funneling money to private organizations. This came up when we talked about school and parent advocacy organizations, and we had all this issue come up.

And this is a similar theme that comes up over and over again. So that is why I'm issuing a no recommendation on this bill. Hope that we continue to work on this issue and try to figure a path forward on this issue, but I cannot support this bill today. The bill was moved and moved by Assembly Member Tangipa, second by Assembly Member Castillo. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

File item four, AB 1634. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Transportation Committee. [Roll Call]

The bill's on call. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Alright. Next is, I think, Assembly Member Stephanie Nguyen with file item number five, AB 1643.

Alright. Whenever you're ready.

Let me get this right here. Great. Thank you. Mister chair and members, thank you for allowing me to present AB 1643. I would like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill.

We'll be accepting the committee's amendments. I'd like to begin by clarifying that this bill does not, does not force all parents going through a separation into child support. Instead, it it's meant to simplify the process for those parents who voluntarily open a case because they are unable to reach a mutual agreement. AB 1643 helps reduce childhood poverty in California by streamlining the application process for child support services after a court hears and finalizes an order.

In the last five years, California's child poverty rate has increased nearly threefold, jumping from 7.5% in 2021 up to 18.6% in 2024.

We know that child poverty may have negative effects on children leading to academic underachievement causing behavioral problems and as well as social and emotional issues which may carry into adulthood. Child support has been one of the most effective anti-poverty programs for children, helping to keep 1,400,000 families out of poverty throughout the nation. Unfortunately, California has one of the lowest utilization rates of the program in the country.

This bill increases participation in California's child support program by Enrolling Custodial parents into child support services once a court finalizes a support order unless they opt out. Currently, after a court finalizes a child support order, the custodial parents must go through an additional process requiring them to submit a form to their local child support services officer to register for the program and begin receiving payment.

AB 1643 modernizes this process by instead requiring the court to directly transmit the order to the child support services officer to initiate payment unless the custodial parent opts out. Committee amendments clarify the opt out process by requiring the custodial parent to be notified that they have ten days to opt out and by opting out does not affect future participation amongst other provisions.

Joining me today is Michael Smitsky, Executive Director of California Child Support Association, and Dalen Fredrickson, Director of Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services, to speak in support of the bill and to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Before we go to your witnesses, just wanna clarify your accepting committee minutes. Okay. Great. Alright.

Whoever wants to go first, two minutes each, please.

Chair members, Michael Smitsky on behalf of the California Child Support Association. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Cal CSA represents California's 47 local child support agencies serving all 58 counties with a membership of more than 6,000 child support professionals dedicated to improving outcomes for close to 1,000,000 children and families in the Golden State. When cost of living is taken into account, California has among the highest poverty burdens in the nation with nearly 7,000,000 Californians lacking their resources to meet basic needs.

Child poverty is also alarmingly high.

At a time when other human re- Human Service Programs are under increasing strain, child support remains a critical resource and often compromises a significant portion of household income and creates economic stability for children. Research also shows that formal child support is associated with better educational, behavioral, and social outcomes for children, including stronger reading and math performance. That is why AB 1643 matters. Child support matters. California's child support program remains underutilized.

Nationally, the program reaches about 1 in 6 children, while in California, it reaches only 1 in 9. With this level of need, we should not be leaving one of our most heavily federally funded support programs underused. AB 1643 is a balanced step to help close that gap by ensuring more children receive the support they deserve while preserving parental choice.

Across California, more than 6,000 child support professionals are trained to work directly with families, understand their circumstances, including families that may be experiencing family violence, and respond to their needs on a confidential case by case basis. The child support program also provides families with access to a broad range of services, including legal support at low or no direct cost, which can be far more accessible and affordable than trying to navigate similar proceedings outside the program.

AB 1643 is a measured practical bill that helps connect more children and families to a critical support system at a time when they need it most. Thank you for the opportunity to share the impacts of the bills, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Next witness, please.

Chair, Assembly members, thank you. My name is Dalen Frederickson. I am the Director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services. AB 1643 is urgently needed because California's child support program is one of the most effective anti-poverty tools, yet it remains significantly underutilized. For families at or near the poverty line, child support represents an average of 41% of their income.

In Sacramento County alone, in our county, our department is sending more than $11,000,000 home to families every month. This is money. These are dollars that that, put food on the table that put, gasoline in the car, and that put shoes on children's feet. Research shows that child support child support reduces child poverty to by 5 to 9%. Over the past decade, California's child support program has transformed.

We have shifted to a holistic family centered approach, an approach based on right sized sustainable orders and supportive problem solving. For example, nationwide, half of all child support orders are entered by default, meaning one parent did not participate in the process. Years ago, Sacramento County mirrored that same pattern. But by emphasizing engagement of both parents, in Sacramento County, we have cut the default rate to 25%. We're committed to working with both parents to make the program sustainable and work for families.

Despite all the improvements in the program, the program remains underutilized. Fewer than 1,000,000 families statewide are utilizing child support services. If California just matched the national average per for participation, we would have more than 1,500,000 cases in the program. So there's significant underutilization of the program at a time when the program is performing better than ever. Many parents simply don't know our services exist.

They assume the court will enforce their order or they feel intimidated about enrolling. Others are discouraged or pressured by the other parent. This is why AB 1643's automatic enrollment feature is so important. It removes the stigma. It reduces intimidation.

It ensures parents receiving support by operation of law rather than requiring them to initiate a personal, difficult personal decision. At the same time-

And if you could

the bill preserves Yes. An easy opt out for parents who don't need assistance. AB 1643 strengthens families, reduces poverty, and does so without increasing cost to state or taxpayers. So I urge your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Now do we have members of the public who should just find support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone at this time.

Nacio Guerrero, Director for the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board member in support.

Natalie Dillon, Director of the Colusa, Sutter, Yolo Regional Child Support Agency and board member for the California Child Support Association in support.

Liane L. Peck, Director for Solano County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board president, in support.

Crystal Quinns, behalf of the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls, in support.

Good morning. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the County of Solano and also on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Joaquin. Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors in support.

Michelle Rubalcava on behalf of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support.

Amy Giselle, a parent receiving support in support of this bill.

Abraham Mendoza, Director of San Joaquin County Child Support in support.

Patricia Bartlett, Director of the Yuba County Department of Child Support Services in support.

And we got one more.

Chair members, Jael Dantes on behalf of Alameda County in support.

Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come to the desk if you'd like.

Good morning. Hello, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, Policy Advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and a member of the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition, which represents 30 plus organizations. The Western Center and the coalition have an opposed and less amended position on AB 1643. We wanna thank the author and sponsors for offering amendments to the bill.

While we appreciate the amendments provide more clarity about the process and ensure more information will be shared with child support oblige parents. Unfortunately, the amendments do not entirely resolve our concerns. Our main concern is that the structure of the bill still provides that opting in to child support enforcement services is the default. As revised, the bill will increase parent participation in the registry and provide an opportunity for parents to request services. It is therefore not necessary to deem all registry submissions as applications for enforcement services.

Even with the amendments, the bill undermines parent choice.

Although services provided by local child support agencies are invaluable to many families, many parents may prefer to have more informal arrangements in order to preserve family dynamics and not create unnecessary tension, or they may not want their co-parent to be subject to the mandatory enforcement practices used by local child support agencies, which can include wage garnishments and tax refund offsets. Lastly, they might not want to pay the annual service fee, which is required.

We also opine that deeming all child support registry submissions as applications for enforcement services does not comply with federal law, which requires a parent to affirmatively apply. Lastly, the amendments do not resolve our concerns about parents with sensitive individual circumstances who may not want to disclose them in the portal.

We don't believe having a checkbox about domestic violence in an unstaffed portal is effective or safe, and it does not comply with best practices. The best way to address concerns about potential DV or other sensitive issues is to allow parents the choice to opt in so they could do so on their own terms. We appreciate the engagement with the author's office and the sponsors, and we hope to continue these conversations. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Now do we have any, members of the public which testify in opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone.

Yesenia Robancho with End Child Poverty California in opposition.

Koy Saeteurn on behalf of Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in opposition unless amended.

Now I'm bringing it back to the committee for questions, comments. Alright. Bills are moving seconded. Any question or comment? Oh, okay.

Alright. Yeah. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. I wanna thank the opposition for being here as well too. I think at the end of the day, we look at this. When you've got parents who are going through a separation or divorce, the children are always the one that everybody looks to.

Right? And many times when there is mediation that goes on and the parents are able to figure that out, that's always the best case and that's always fantastic. In this situation, we are not forcing anybody into child support if they're going through a separation in any ways. We're engaging in the fact of being able to offer more services, making it easily available. As somebody who speaks English as a second language, as somebody who's always afraid of paperwork and going through the whole government process.

Fortunately, now I'm at the point where I can ask the questions. I can fill out the documents and and know the pathway, but you've got a lot of families that are fearful of completing extra paperwork, that are fearful when they have to engage in situations such as this. And what we're trying to do is make it more simple. Childhood poverty is a thing. Is this the whole part of the reason why why there is childhood poverty?

No. But it is a small portion. When there's a single mom, single father that has custodial over the kids and they're not receiving that extra income, that plays in a role that plays a role in this child's upbringing. That plays a role in this child's ability to be able to get fed, have a roof over their shoulder, be able to do all those activities that we see other kids be able to do, and that pulls into their adulthood as well.

What we're trying to do is make sure that this family, the single parent, has the resources and services that he or she needs to be able to make sure this child or their children have an opportunity to thrive.

And so this bill this is in the right direction, and this is part of the reason why we wanna be able to continue to help these families that are going through a situation, which is the probably the worst part of their life when they have to go through this with their parents and see their parents go through this with that. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, I wanna thank y'all for bringing this bill forward and working with our committee to do quite substantive amendments on this one. I think we're getting all the right direction. I know you continue to engage everyone, all stakeholders, in this issue. But, ultimately, what we're trying to do is take the friction out of the child support, all the child support systems. And so I think it's really a good thing that we're working in the right direction, and we're collaborate on that.

And so I hope that I continue to move forward with this issue. I do have a do pass as amended recommendation today. And, again, I wanna thank you for working collaborative with the committee. So, the bill was moved by somebody talking about second by Assembly Castillo. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

File item five, AB 1643. The motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Lee?

Lee, aye. Castillo?

Aye.

Aye.

Castillo, aye. Calderon? Elhawary?

Aye.

Elhawary, aye. Rubio?

Aye.

Rubio, aye. Ahrens?

Ahrens, aye. Tangipa?

Aye.

Tangipa, aye.

6-0. That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Alright. Next, we'll go to Assembly member Solache.

You have file number 6, AB 1708.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, mister Yeah. Thank you, mister chair and committee members. It's a big week this week. Cal Cities is in our Sacramento Building representing so many cities throughout California. And, you know, also, I miss, sitting as a sub, mister chair, on this committee.

So I was, hoping that it would be a sub for today's meeting.

But You set a good precedent for us and what everybody is saying.

We can't we can't do it upgrade all the time. So happy that they're that they were chosen today. With that, again, I'm grateful to you and the committee for the I'm grateful for to you and the, committee for the great work on on our bill. AB 178 seeks to improve the existing homeless housing assistance and, prevention program known as HAPP by ensuring that smaller jurisdictions have the opportunity for more meaningful engagement, strengthened regional collaboration on homeless solutions.

Currently, only 14 of the state's 483 cities can access HAPP funding directly, and there's no statutory requirement for direct HAPP recipients to equitably and meaningfully engaged for allocate funds to smaller cities in our region.

As a result, many cities, mid sized cities, lack a clear path and resources even as they invest significantly local dollars to address homelessness. After working very closely with stakeholders and the Housing Committee, AB 178 was amended to address concerns around funding uncertainty to ensure that any changes are not too burdensome. This work and engagement will continue as we move forward. I especially wanna thank my local cities of Lakewood, Paramount, and Bellflower in my district for helping us take stakeholder feedback and development amendments.

Cities are in the front line ensuring that they bring dollars from their general fund dollars to ensure that our in house community are dealt with not only in a humane way, but also in a responsible way.

I would also like to emphasize, that not nothing in AB 1708 requires allocation of funding for smaller cities. That measure simply requires the region to do this analysis and consider, how we can better support smaller cities willing to do their part of regional solutions.

As we continue to advocate to renew investment in HAPP, AB 1708 builds a framework that ensures, that is a future program round so that we can more fully, integrate smaller cities as active partners in regional coordination and planning. As the state continues to demand meaningful results in addressing homelessness across California, there needs to be a stronger support framework to help smaller cities continue serving their unhoused residents.

I am proud to deduce, our amazing and wonderful city of Lakewood, mayor Cassandra Chase to my right and city of Moreno Valley mayor Ulises Cabrera to my left to testify in support.

We also have Caroline Grinder, who will from the League of California Cities available for any technical questions.

Great. Two minutes each, please, and whoever wants to go first.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. I am Cassandra Chase, mayor of the city of Lakewood, and I am honored to speak in strong support of AB 1708 sponsored by the League of California Cities. In Lakewood, homelessness is personal. Our city has committed real resources to this work.

$75,000 for two part time homeless liaisons, nearly half $1,000,000, $500,000 annually for shelter beds at the Bell Shen shelter and year round prevention through Project Shepherd, which helps vulnerable residents with food, utilities, and housing stability. We are committed. What we lack is consistent direct access to state funding that lets us sustain and grow what is working. AB 178 changes that. It requires regions to engage directly with cities like ours to assess gaps and to identify funding pathways.

For smaller cities, this bill creates a clear, transparent process to apply for and access state resources. That mechanism does not currently exist. Homelessness is a regional challenge. The response must include every city. AB 178 positions us as full partners in that solution.

And with additional state support, Lakewood can deepen our work with service providers and ensure our unhoused neighbors receive consistent meaningful care. The city of Lakewood respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 178. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Hello. Honorable chair and members of the committee. My name is Ulysses Cabrera. I'm the mayor of the city of Moreno Valley out in the Inland Empire, and I'm here in support of AB 1708 sponsored by the League of California Cities. In Moreno Valley, we have taken a proactive approach to addressing homelessness, investing significant city resources, and pursuing every available local state and federal funding opportunity.

From 2019 to 2025, the city invested approximately $1,400,000 in our general fund and $500,000 in community foundation funds for homeless services. In addition, we've sustained ongoing services through federal funding, allocating about $22,000,000 from 2019 to 2025 from programs such as CDBG, community project request funding, emergency solutions grants, and emergency rental assistance program. Those investments are making a real difference in Moreno Valley. In 2025 alone, the city reported a nearly 30% reduction in our homeless population.

We have focused on community identified solutions deploying proactive outreach, partnering with local nonprofits, and investing in public safety.

The city maintains an internal quality of life operations team that conducts twice weekly outreach in collaboration with the Moreno Valley Police Department, the Riverside University Health System, the Salvation Army, and the Path of Life. Additionally, the city convenes a monthly homeless task force that brings together internal departments and key community partners to coordinate outreach, align services, and strengthen collaboration. We have also prioritized long term solutions through programs like our homeless to work program, which is supported by wraparound services through the homeless assistance program.

This ongoing partnership with the Salvation Army is crucial to the community and help an unhoused individuals overcome barriers to employment and permanent housing. In our recently adopted operating budget, the city council approved two full time positions dedicated to leading the city's homeless initiatives.

But even with these investments and strong partnerships, there are limits to what cities like ours can do without reliable access to state resources. While programs like HAPP are critical, cities like Moreno Valley do not have a clear pathway to receive those funds. As the legislature considers future investments in the HAPP program, it is important not only to sustain funding, but also to ensure the program is structured to maximize its impact for all jurisdictions, not just the largest ones.

For these reasons, the city of Moreno Valley fully supports AB 178 and respects respectfully asks for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. And you're up here for technical okay. Technical assistance. Now do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Well, I might need another hour this part.

Alright. Alright. The commentary comment hour starts now. There we go. Name and organization, please.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the city of Santa Cruz in support.

Horacio Gonzales on behalf of the city of Pico Rivera in support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the city of Encinitas in support.

Isha Ayer on behalf of the city of Redwood City, the city of Carlsbad, and the city of Thousand Oaks. Thank you in support.

Juan Munoz Guevara with the city of Lynnwood in strong support.

Sylvia Solis Shae here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica, city of West Hollywood, and the city of Oroville, all in support.

Anessa Lassosi with the City of Moreno Valley in support.

Chair members, Luis Sanchez here on behalf of the City of San Bernardino in support. Thank you.

Brian Mohan on behalf of the City of Moreno Valley in support.

John Peraza, city of Moreno Valley, full support.

Carla Mead, vice mayor, city of Buellton in full support.

Kelly Ramirez, City Council member, city of Gilroy, support.

Bindu Mukhamala with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in support.

Angel Galatia, city of Moreno Valley, in support.

Jeremy Bubnick, direct. I'm sorry. Jeremy Bubnick, City of Moreno Valley support.

Michelle Ruelkava on behalf of the city of Chula Vista in support.

Lana Jimenez, City of Moreno Valley in support.

Patrick Foy, City of Redondo Beach, in support.

Jack Werson, City of Ventura, in support.

Palo Beltran, City of Lakewood, in support.

Koissy Tern Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.

Thank you. Well, Moreno Valley, you're rolling in deep today. Senator Jackson would have been proud. Yes, sir. Alright. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Please come up to the desk or microphone, whichever you prefer. Witness to opposition? Okay. Do we oh, okay. Yeah. Go for it.

Hold on.

Good morning, Nicole Kurian, and on behalf of the office of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Alright. Do you have any other members of the public who wish to, voice our opposition to the bill? Any other opposition? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee.

Any questions or comments? Alright. Any questions, comments? No? Alright.

Or, okay. First, Assembly Member Tangipa then vice chair, Castillo.

I just wanna thank the author. I think when we're planning some of these smaller municipalities, need some help. And so they should be factored in and, you know, it's crazy to think that 300,000 is considered small, but it is for California. You know, for a lot of the other states, it's the largest city in that state. So again, just thank the author, and I appreciate you bringing the bill.

And I just wanna thank the author for the bill. I see the support here. And one of my cities in my district, which is 1% of my district, is the city of Grand Terrace. So I'm gonna just name Grand Terrace. And, you know, it's a small little part, and I feel they always get overlooked. So thank you.

Alright. I'll invite the author to close.

Thank you, mister chair. And I think there's no better evidence in Moreno Valley and Lakewood as two prime examples of the work they're doing literally in their cities to be a partner with the state, to be a partner with our region. And I think the the whole conversation of of the spirit of this conversation is how do we bring equity to all cities and specifically those that are doing the groundwork.

This week, when I saw the governor, I I literally said, we need to ensure that, you know, we bring equity to the cities that are doing the work, and we we we support them and not punish them for doing the work. So I wanna just commend all of these throughout California for doing that, and we wanna be partners with our big cities as well because this isn't a regional problem for all of us to address.

And we need to, again, without a doubt, bring that humane perspective, our own house community. And as a local mayor myself, this is also a personal commitment to ensure that our small cities get their fair share of support as they combat and and deal with this issue directly, and and again, bringing that humane perspective. And again, to the HealthSays, thank you, and thank you all for your support. Looking forward to an aye vote today.

Well, thank you so much to the offer bringing this bill forward. It does have an I recommendation for me today. And I did, of course, already see this in housing committee, but I didn't voice my comments at the time yet because I want to save for this time.

I do really appreciate this, because I do think as someone that represents the large city, San Jose, that I would guess is, and also smaller cities that do not or are not eligible for HAPP, I think it is important that we look at the results first, not just about the large cities. The large cities themselves, yes, do need a lot of support, and we should be supporting those.

But homelessness is not exclusive to small large cities alone. And, I think as you have two great witnesses today talking about the programs you do locally, I mean, that those expenditures are, percentage wise, quite significant of your budget. And I think HAPP, rightfully so, should be open to competition in that sense. I mean, there's no guarantee that Lakewood will compete better than Los Angeles or San Francisco, but it's still all in there.

And I wanna point out that, you know, I understand the opposition's concern that this is a very limited pool of money that opens up more subscriptions, so it's become oversubscribed, and that is true.

But we also have to fight for in the budget because in the current governor's budget, there is no HMO money right now. And many of us in this room are fighting for the HMO money to come back. And I think having the advocacy of our big city mayors and our small city mayors altogether of all sizes probably boost the the success of us bring HAT back.

So I think this is a good way to approach the pro approach the program, but also approach our large fiscal question too. And I think in the future, you know, we'll continue working on this program so that more cities get the support they need.

But, you know, these are I wanna acknowledge the opposition's concern that is just mathematically true, but doesn't mean that this is not a good idea. So, it does enjoy an Irako for me today, and I'm happy to support it. It was, moved by somebody talking about and seconded by somebody Castillo. Madam secretary, please call the roll on AB 178.

[Roll Call]

Right. Five zero. We will leave the role open, perhaps, to members, but bill is up. Good. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Next, we'll go to Assemblymember Sharp Collins. Understand there's a transit issue, so we're gonna let sharp Collins come up. Alright. Whenever you're ready.

morning. Yes. Good morning. Good morning, chair and members. Today, I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2395, a bill that fosters equity throughout the state by increasing access to the state child support debt reduction program.

California carries more than 6,000,000,000 in government owed child support debt, much of which is actually, exacerbated by the 10% interest rate on which is one of the highest within the nation. People get into these types of debt because the parent paying child support must repay the government assistance their child receives. The result of this government reimbursement comes at at at the expense of a child that will actually lose this money, meaning the parents will be losing the money for which they can actually provide.

This can be a harmful situation as as the child is already eligible for government assistance due to their custodial parents' income. The debt reduction program was created to assist these low income families who have become paralyzed by their debt situation.

However, the program lacked the uniformity as local child support agencies have varying methods of administrating the program. This causes some parents to miss their opportunity to participate in a program that could assist them in providing for their child. My bill will ensure that local child support agencies have readily available program contact information, establishes a clear timeline for processing cases, and allow parents in the opportunity to to contest agency action.

So with me here today to testify and support is Rebecca Gonzales, policy advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Koi Sethern for from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, reading a testimony on behalf of Demi Hampton from Van Nuys, California.

Before I turn it over to them as well, please note that we are in ongoing conversations with with the California Child Support Association who are in opposition, and we do believe that we can find some type of middle point as we continue to move forward to work on the bill.

And I appreciate that, Alderman. Alright. Two minutes to each to each witness, please.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzales. Once again, we're the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are cosponsor of this bill under the umbrella of the Truth and Justice and Child Support Coalition. This bill creates enforceable statewide standards to ensure the existing debt reduction program and child support truly helps low income parents who qualify based on their income and assets to settle their government owed debt.

For over forty years, California has required parents who receive CalWORKs to repay those benefits by intercepting their child support. Families receiving CalWORKs generally only receive a $100 for one child or $200 for two or more children of their monthly child support while the rest the while the government keeps the rest. When noncustodial parents cannot afford to pay this debt, as was mentioned, California adds a 10% interest rate, and, low income parents are $6,000,000,000. They owe $6,000,000,000 in government owed debt.

Past studies show that 95% of this government owed debt is uncollectible, and the bulk of the state owed arrears are owed by parents with extremely low incomes.

In many of the cases, the children are now adults, and the parents are in their fifties and sixties.

This bill improves the existing program by ensuring statewide uniformity and improving access and removing barriers by requiring publicly available statewide standards that could be enforced through the department's existing complaint resolution process, report requirements to evaluate the uniformity and effectiveness, require all local child support agencies to post the application to the program on their website, have a designated phone number or email and send a notice to parents who are potentially eligible, require applications to be acted upon within set time periods, and requiring repayment options be provided to applicants based on statewide eligibility and repayment standards.

Lifting the burden of government owed child support debt from parents has shown to reduce employment barriers, improve housing status and credit scores, and more importantly, improve parent child and co parenting relationships. This bill is a common sense improvement of existing program, which creates uniformity so parents are able to benefit from the program equally regardless of what county they live in. For these reasons, we ask for your support of this bill. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Our next witness, please.

Hi, chair and committee members. Koissy Tern, legislative advocate for the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. We're also cosponsors of AB 2395, and I'm reading, Demont Hampton's, testimony. Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is Demont Hampton, and I live in Van Nuys.

My child support obligations began in 1995. And over time, because I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt just got so high that I felt like I was stuck in a hole. My children are in their thirties, and I had over a $100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Also, all of my arrears were assigned to the government and not owed to my children.

Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Every month, child support garners $50 for my Social Security. It was important me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program.

It wasn't until I went to neighborhood legal services that an attorney told me about the program. At first, I couldn't get even get a copy of the application. When I asked my child support caseworker about it, she told me that in order to apply, LA child support had to first audit my account, which it could take up to a year. After the audit was complete, child support sent me a copy of the application. I returned the application and took three more months to receive a response.

When my application was approved, they told me that I had to make a plan payment within thirty days. They would not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I made the payment. Luckily, I was able to make the payment and sign the agreement. And today, all of my child support debt has been resolved. AB 2395 will help other people like me resolve old and burdensome government old debt, child support debt.

It will make sure people know about the debt reduction program. It will make sure there are clear rules to follow to and apply and qualify. And it will make sure that people do not have to wait for months and months to get the relief they qualify for and move forward in their lives. Respectfully ask for your aye vote

Alright. Thank you. Now do we have any members of the public who wish to to sign support of the bill? Please come up with the microphone.

With End Poverty California where sponsors of the bill is well in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now do we have any witnesses opposition to this bill? Please come up to yep. Please come up to the desk or microphone, whichever you prefer. Alright.

Two minutes each, please. And, whoever wants to start, you can get started.

Okay. Chair members, Michael Smitsky on behalf of the California Child Support Association. First and foremost, I wanna thank the author and the sponsors for their willingness to come to the table. Cal CSA and our professionals are committed to getting the cope program correct, and we look forward to future conversations. Just, I think, two things for the committee, during discussion. The Department of Child Support Services is working on a debt management program that encompasses uncollectible debt and cope.

It includes cope because, that is actually a decision that is broader than, what was required under the legislative mandate. So they are working on that, and we would like the opportunity to have some more of that data as we proceed in that. And I appreciate the consideration of, extended implementation dates, to reflect some of that data. I also wanna ask the committee to keep in mind the families on the other side of these cases.

So while the bill focuses on state owed arrears, changes in the space do not occur in a vacuum.

Many parents who are raising children without consistent support are already making impossible choices to cover rent, food, transportation, utilities, and school needs. In many cases, they go into debt to provide for their children, and the creditors that they rely on are far less forgiving than the child support program. For that reason, policy in this area must be balanced carefully so that efforts to address obligor hardship do not unintentionally disregard the hardship of parents and families who have been waiting for support.

Here today, we have Amy who is a parent receiving support and a mom, and she will add some comments as well. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Amy Gasol. I'm here representing myself as a mother. I am speaking out in opposition to AB 2395. This bill is written entirely from the perspective of the obligor. I did wanna share that any compromise of arrears is a direct financial hardship for the family receiving support. With full pass through now in place, arrears go directly to the parent raising the child even when they're adults. When you make it easier to compromise debt, you are not helping families. You are asking them to take yet another financial loss after years of being undersupported.

The arrears affected by this bill typically come from years of noncompliance. And by the time we get to debt compromise, many of these children are adults. Unfortunately, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that children child support and debt loss debt child support debt loses its purpose once children turn 18. In the world of parenting, that couldn't be farther from the truth. When the support didn't show up for years, I didn't get a 75% discount on my bills.

I didn't get a compromise on my rent or on any other things that I needed to do to support my children. As the primary parent for two children that live with me, including one adult and one minor, consistent support, including arrears, raised my income to help me qualify to finally buy my first home. Our home provides the stability we need for a successful future. It also allows my eldest the option to live at home while they continue establishing themselves as a responsible adult.

Collection on arrears is the long term recovery for the years I spent carrying the financial burden alone.

This bill to enhance the ease of applying and qualifying for a compromise threatens collection on arrears that would be paid directly to the family. This bill also proposes to make optional also proposes to make it optional for debtors to be compliant with their current obligation even on past due arrears.

By making compliance optional for a debt compromise, AB 2395 sends a message, you are actively creating the new creating a hardship for families and signaling to obligors that they can ignore their current duties while fishing for a discount on their past ones. I spent years dealing with a parent who ignored every agreement or order until a real consequence was on the line. This bill rewards that disengagement.

It punishes the proactive parent while handing yet another free pass to one who chooses to ignore the financial responsibility for years. AB 2395 is a legislative hardship for families. With the implementation of pass through, arrears now go directly home to families, including myself. As written, this bill is a direct hit to the financial integrity of the household and overlooks the receiving parents' perspective entirely.

The debtor had yet the debtor had years to be proactive is now asking for a fresh start at the expense of the hardship and the stability of the family.

I could ask you to wrap up, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Receiving parents and their children shouldn't have to face further financial hardship today because the other parent chose not to be present for decades. I urge the committee to reject this bill, prioritizing the parent who did the work, carried the burden, and continues to support their children into adulthood into adulthood must be their number one priority.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you so much. Now do we have any, members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone.

Ignacio Guerrero, director for the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services and California Child Support Association board member, in opposition unless amended.

Leanne Peck, California Child Support Association board president, oppose unless amended.

Dalen Frederickson, director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services, oppose unless amended.

Thank you. Now we'll bring back to the committee members for questions or comments. Senator Rubio?

Yes. I do have a question about their rears. I was unaware that that it does go back to the family. Is that correct? So Okay.

So let me just be clear that for this bill you you wanna do it? Yeah. Go ahead.

If I can address that. So people who are formally on CalWORKs, recently, they are passing those through if they could collect that debt, but not for people who are currently on CalWORKs.

If you're currently on CalWORKs, only a $100 goes to the family for one kid. 200 goes to the family for two kids, and the rest, becomes owed to the government. So, you know, over time, people have had a lot of debt. Only recently did they start rightsizing child support orders, so it really is based on what people could pay. So over the years, this debt has just grown and grown and grown.

No. But I'm not asking about the debt. I'm asking about barriers.

The formally. So formerly. Yes.

So So formally and currently, I wanna make sure that Yeah. That we're not excusing to to the the witness's point Yeah. That by excusing it, now we're taking some of those arrears from the family members. And, you know, I I agree with, you know, trying to help people, but if it's hurting the to the point that the mom was making is, you know, hurting her after she did everything possible to make sure that she raised her children.

And then now, you know, that money is not going to to her or to her kids,

if if you don't mind. So the debt reduction program already exists. It exists right now, and they try to help you know, they try to figure out how people could get a handle on their debt, maybe pay a portion of it, and, you know, make it so that, you know, that's there could be, hopefully, some contribution.

This bill really just puts uniform standards on it because there are counties operate it differently, and we don't want people to have a different experience depending on what county they live in. And so as you heard about Demont Hampton, he was going through this existing program.

It took a very long time for him to figure out a settlement to his debt. He did eventually. So we just want this existing program to work better. May I And we're talking about very low income debt.

Let me ask the opposition. Yeah.

Part of the advantages of how the program is currently established is it does allow, flexibility with a case by case basis. Part of child support that I think is nuanced, you know, across our cases is that a lot of times, we have the flexibility to approach things on a individualistic case by case basis. And I think that's critically important to understanding the fundamentals of each family dynamic as they come across.

So I think in principle on some of the concepts of standardization, we would be in favor. There's just ones that we'd like to work on behind the scenes about making sure ensures that there's a local flavor in context to each one of these cases.

Okay. So so, again, the concern for me is, you know, understanding what what our our witness is saying is if that is going to be taken away, and I understand the $102,100 doesn't matter really because that money's owed to them. And it is really unfair that that, you know, if there's there's money gonna be taken away. I'm substituting today, by the way, just to be clear.

But I I am interested, though, in not putting more of a burden on the parent that has done the right thing because we all know that, unfortunately, we have those people that are not paying child support, and then all of a sudden, we're gonna come and rescue them, you know, years and years, you know, years afterwards while the the the money should have rightfully still have gotten to the kids. Even if they're in their thirties, that money belonged to them. Right.

So I don't wanna put extra burden on folks. But if if you're saying that and I trust assembly member Sharpe Collins that this can be worked out so that there is no, you know, unintended consequence, if you will, of taking money from those those parents that are taking care of the kids. If that do you think that that can be worked out?

I believe we can work with the author and the sponsors to come to an agreement.

Okay. Well and we're very close here. It's just, like, a matter of time To get the amendments in, but I do think we're very close.

We're often two sides of the same coin.

Yeah. I know. And that's why I'm asking because I were not used to seeing both you know, I'm like, wait. What's happening here?

We would like we would like to work together to do what's in the best interest of the family, whether they're together or separated.

And Right.

In this case, you know, we we understand the parents receiving support have a fundamental concern. But we also at the same time, we don't wanna put obligors in a position where they can never escape out of that circumstance. So we're very, very mindful of that. And the child support program increasingly has become more family centric and is approaching cases in that way. We spend more time per case now than we did five years ago by significant margin.

And and thank you. And I appreciate that, though. You know? But, again, my always my, you know, my concern because I've seen so many cases where where, the the parent is not receiving the child support or they'll send a $100 and it's like, oh, you know, and the parent is supposed to be grateful for that small amount of money. Kids eat every day and, not just once once in a while.

And, again, my concern is to make sure that that, you know, some of these cases as well are not just all of a sudden being bailed out because they were responsible, to their children and or to their families and, you know, prior to this hardship. Right.

So If I can say one last thing on

Absolutely.

So just to just to make it sure clear that parents who are currently on CalWORKs, it is the the practice or the policy of the state that they only get a $100 if it's one kid or $200 if it's two kids, and the rest goes back to the government to pay back for benefits. So that's the way the program runs in California right now. I think both both of us, the Cal CSA and Western Center, would love to see full pass through. That is our ultimate goal. Right. That all child support goes directly to the families.

But but if there's no pastor, though, and it's being sent back to, you know, to the government You know, is that gonna decrease the pot of money that's available for CalWORKs because now we're not receiving the the

I guess I don't think families should pay for CalWORKs. I think families who are owed child support should get their child support.

Well but right. But then Yeah. The they are on CalWORKs. Right? And we are in a tough budget situation, and we're cutting CalWORKs.

So Which is yeah. Why we're not doing full pass through this year, but we'll come back. And I think we'll both come back, actually.

Well, I just wanna make sure that, you know, I hear you, and I wanna make sure that parents are not put in that situation because of you know, we're trying to And I understand the hardships, but parents that support the kids go through hardships as well. So thank you. Appreciate it.

Alright. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So I'm gonna review. Do we have any questions or comments from committee members or motions or members? Alright. I will ask the author to close then.

Thank you for the robust the robust conversation, Assemblymember. I really do appreciate that. I would also like to acknowledge to my witness that I do hear you as well. And we will continue to work at this so that way we we can move forward. So with that, you know, Assembly Bill twenty three ninety five is about making sure that government works for for the people to make their lives just a bit easier.

And I'm saying that again because I wanted you to know that we're gonna continue to work together to get this right to make sure that families can have exactly what what what they need to have. So thank you, chair members, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote..

I wanna thank the author for working on this important issue, and you heard a lot of good robust conversation today that I do have a lot of faith that working through the different committees too, they're gonna continue to work together to try to find a solution out there. So I do appreciate the the questions raised today on this issue. I do have an I recommendation. The bill was moved by Assembly Aarons and seconded by Assemblyman Ahwari. Madam secretary, please call the roll on this bill.

[Roll Call]

Four zero, that bill's out, and we'll leave the roll open for ops members. Thank you. Alright. Next, we're gonna go assembly member Schiavo, and then I see Assemblyman Patterson is here with us. So it'll be Schiavo then Patterson.

Alright. Assemblymember Schiavo, you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members. I am proud to be authoring AB 1914 this year, which will require local governments to include child care in their planning efforts. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments. Thank you. And just say, you know, affordable access to child care supports a healthy child's development.

My first job actually out of college was working for a Head Start program, a tribal Head Start program, and there was a lot of new brain research coming out at the time talking about how important early childhood education and support is on a lifetime of development. And so we want to make sure that parents can go to work and school and help businesses in our economy thrive and have a safe place for their kids.

But millions of American families are struggling to find just affordable, reliable, quality childcare that they can depend on. And although California has made significant investments in child care in recent years, the supply demand gap persists. One in seven children who are eligible for services actually receive those services. This means that 1,800,000 children who are eligible are not receiving childcare services.

Without access to childcare support, a single mother of an infant who is a school age child in California will spend 61% of their income on child care. As the cost of living continues to rise and threats to cut funding from federal government programs continue, we are faced with additional barriers to affordable child care. That's why it's increasingly important to examine child care accessibility as communities plan for growth and infrastructure needs.

To address the state's child care crisis, all levels of government must be involved in prioritizing planning for their communities and child care needs. Instead of relying solely on ad hoc solutions to address child care accessibility, AB 1914 is a promising strategy to promote greater consistency and consideration for child care in earlier stages of local planning while preserving local discretion.

Requiring local governments to develop a child care plan is crucial. It supports economic development by enabling workforce participation. It attracts families and talent. It promotes healthier, family friendly communities, and it aligns land use with community needs, ensuring equitable access and reducing traffic, integrating child care facilities near homes, jobs, and transportation.

As we saw from the fires in Los Angeles, it's also really critical that we include child care in disaster planning and resilience strategies to ensure that children are cared for before, during, and after disasters so they have access to safe, healthy learning environments.

Today, I have with me Shelley Mazur, vice president for ECE advisory and state policy at the Low Income Investment Fund, and Sacramento City Councilman and Chair of the Sacramento County Head Start Board, Eric Guerra. Alright.

Thank you very much. Two minutes each for your witnesses, please.

Good morning, Chair Lee, committee members, and staff. I am Dr. Shelley Mazur. I'm the vice president of advisory and state policy at the Low Income Investment Fund. LIIF is a national CDFI with the vision that everyone live in a community of equity, opportunity, and well-being. We seek to achieve this vision by investing in affordable housing and childcare facilities as we recognize that both are essential community infrastructure.

Both make it possible for local communities to maintain economic diversity and stability for families. We are pleased to sponsor AB 1914 to ensure cities and counties recognize the role that childcare facilities play in communities and that to promote access to care, cities and counties need to plan. We're grateful to Assemblymember Schiavo for authoring this bill, to the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls for being a cosponsor, and to staff for working with us to make some clarifications.

As a former city council member myself, I'm committed to helping build communities by building the supply of childcare. We believe that, like housing, childcare supply building requires planning and that cities and counties can support that through including child care in their general plans or by creating a separate child care plan.

Along with the rest of the country, California is facing a child care crisis exacerbated by the lack of facilities, workforce shortages, and inadequate funding. We have a multifaceted problem that requires multifaceted solutions. AB 1914 offers one by engaging cities and counties in further planning for the needs of their community by planning for childcare. My own city, Redwood City, has included childcare in their general plan since 2010 as the city continued to plan for growth in both housing and its economic base.

This legislation would not require jurisdictions to build childcare, rather to work with the community to plan for and support childcare facilities and programs.

Across the state, we are seeking ways to increase the supply of childcare through work with cities. Planning for child care is one piece of a complicated puzzle, and we ask for your support.

Thank you, Chair and members. Eric Guerra, Councilman for the City of Sacramento and Chair of the Sacramento County Head Start. Child care functions as a core public infrastructure that enables workforce participation, economic stability, and healthy child development. This legislation presents a necessary policy response for California's persistent child care shortage. And across California, families face significant barriers when attempting to secure reliable and affordable childcare.

Many regions lack sufficient licensed providers, forcing parents to join long wait lists, reduce work hours, and leave the workforce entirely. As a legislative staffer here, I faced those two year long wait lists when we were having our first child as well. That's why the City of Sacramento and every city should have, in their guiding document, the general plan, the conditions of childcare.

In the city of Sacramento, we've included it in multiple areas under workforce development from cradle to career, understanding that it's also an important part of our economic development. Second, also new development in commercial corridors and ensuring that when we're growing as a city, we're planning for the needs that families will live in communities and will inevitably need childcare near transit options as well.

And also the requirement that multifamily housing developments have, as part of one of their consideration factors, the need to respond to childcare. And also our land use section, when we require public and neighborhood serving uses, we require the consideration of pharmacies and grocery stores. We should also be including childcare. Childcare needs work as a region.

Here, people live in West Sacramento, but they work in the city. As a parent, you look for childcare close to home or close to work. This is why every city should have it in their general plan. AB 1914 addresses the structural gap in the state, and we urge your aye vote to make sure that every family and every parent has the ability for accessible, affordable childcare. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have members of the public who wish to testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Crystal Quinns on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, proud cosponsor of the bill.

Melanie Dodson, CEO, Executive Director, 4Cs of Sonoma County, in support.

Deneen McLeady, CEO of Thriving Families California, in support.

Alright. Any other members of the public in support of the bill?

Pamela Campos, San Jose City Council member, in support of the bill.

Alright. Do we have any opposition to this bill? Any members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the bill, please come up to the microphone. So now I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments. Assemblymember Ahrens, do you have

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this bill forward. I think it's so critical that, you know, we address child care and these issues, and want to thank our San Jose council member, Pamela Campos, who's been working with me on raising this issue much more forcefully, especially in our Silicon Valley where we feel the affordability crisis and the childcare crisis, I would argue, more acutely than other areas given our high cost of living in our region.

And I would love to be considered to be a coauthor if you'll have me.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Yeah. I just want to thank the author. I'm in respectful opposition to it. And mainly, it's because I just believe it paints with a really broad brush. And I believe the City Council member has stated, if a local city and a local jurisdiction wants to implement it into their general plan, they have the ability to do so right now.

I've been meeting with a lot of cities and other local municipalities where we have similar bills like this that require, whether it's farmworker housing or different types of housing. And now the cities are getting pushback when they submit their general plan. They're saying, well, the state is telling us to put this type of housing in, but we have zero farm workers. And yet now it's noncompliant.

And that's the same thing where I see that there are other cities that, again, if they can consider it, they should be able to do so right now.

And what I'm hearing quite a bit is a lot of cities and other local municipalities and jurisdictions are potentially going to file a lawsuit against the state of California, taking the route of unfunded mandates. And I just believe that this puts another one.

While I understand the need when it comes to childcare, I think we should provide funding from the state, incentivizing and looking at it to allow these other local municipalities to do so and adopt that style instead of just telling everybody from the statewide, like, you will implement this into your plan if it really doesn't fit the regional needs.

And so that's just the way I think about it, since I represent such a large diverse area. We've got to give some of the cities a little bit more freedom to make the right decisions for them. So thank you.

Alright. If there are no more questions or comments, I'll let the author close.

Thank you so much. I think, you know, last I checked, there are kids in every community who might need child care. But I think this does have a lot of flexibility, and I understand your concerns that you're raising, but this has a lot of flexibility. It can either be in the general plan or a separate plan that can be identified as a child care plan. But, you know, what we're finding is that it's just not happening.

Communities are not choosing to do it, except for one great community over here that we found in the whole state.

But, you know, as was discussed at our last hearing, Assemblymember Stefani talked about how she pushed for childcare to be in a development that was happening in San Francisco. And the only reason that happened was because Catherine Stefani thought it was a good idea and pushed for it, but it was not part of a larger plan. It was not part of a larger discussion. And I think we just have to be really intentional about this.

This is something that costs people more than their mortgage, childcare.

And people make huge life decisions based on whether or not they can afford childcare. You know, in my own case, my ex husband was transitioning jobs, and we chose at that time for him not to work because it was too expensive to pay for childcare, and better for him to just go back to school and take care of our little one. And, you know, that sets families back. It gets to an affordability issue for all of us.

And so this is just asking for a conversation to happen, for there to be thoughtfulness and intentionality about it to see what is the need, and it leaves freedom for every community to decide what makes sense for them, but really make sure that there is actually a discussion, that people are brought together to talk about what the needs are and that there's a plan behind it.

So respectfully request an aye vote, and thank you.

Alright. Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I know you took a lot of amendments and did a lot of conversations in the previous committees to work on this point where now there's minimal or no opposition to it formally. And I do really want to commend you for this even though it has been quite difficult policy wise or politically wise. I don't think it's a difficult policy.

I do think as our cities grow and California grows, it is necessary and vital to plan for human infrastructure growth just like we plan, of course, for housing, for health care and fire and all these things. The human infrastructure of taking care of our kids is so important, and it really ensures, and I hope this little bipartisan kind of push, that California is pro family and pro child, because we are not intentional about being pro children, pro family.

That, you know, belies everything else on housing growth or population growth if you're not supporting families. That's fundamental to it. And that's why I think this bill is so important, that it makes cities, as you said, be intentional about planning, not just for new people in general to come in, but also what is the human infrastructure to support them, not just the jobs and not just the home part, but also, like, what happens to their children.

Right? Because I think too much of that's seen too starkly in terms of jobs and housing and balances or like that. So I really do like this bill. I would like to be a joint author with you and to help you get this all the way through to the end because it is a novel but very much needed approach. And we are looking for a motion and a second on this one.

Alright. The bill is moved by Assemblymember Ahrens and seconded by Assemblymember Elhawary. This enjoys an aye recommendation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on this bill.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that roll open for absent members. But that bill is out. Thank you.

Alright. Next, we will go to Assemblymember Patterson's file number 10, AB 2171. AB 2171. Alright. Whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you, Mister chair and members and for sticking around on a Thursday, now afternoon. Appreciate it. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2171, which is a bold but very important bill. Unlike other bills that share similar bold, goal, this bill creates a narrow exemption within both the CalFresh program and California Food Assistance Program to prevent the use of these funds for sweetened beverages and candy.

Given the opposition from a number of industry groups, including many people I respect, I it might have been easier for me to walk away and be done with it. But I would say that very few things are more important to me than our health and especially individuals more likely to have negative health outcomes. We talk a lot about this in health committee, actually, something that I had an opportunity to learn about myself, which is social determinants of health.

Some things pointed out by some opponents or in the analysis are that there are other reasons individuals qualifying for SNAP have worse health outcomes. When it comes to dirty air, we don't say, hey. You know, let's sit idly by. When it comes to lack of access to water, we don't sit back and say, hey. You know what? Let's not address this. When it comes to redlining, lack of quality schools, we don't sit back. We act.

And this is an issue where we need to act. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable death. A 2014 study by the Mayo Clinic found that SNAP participants have a lower dietary quality than income eligible nonparticipant counterparts. In other words, people that qualify for SNAP but are not on SNAP actually have better dietary, they have a better diet.

And just the following year, actually, 74% of CalFresh recipients themselves say they support removing sugary drinks from the program. A 2026 study just this year by the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that policies just like this re quote, reduce health disparities between income groups while reducing health care costs. And in 2020, they said SNAP restrictions would substantially decrease obesity and diabetes.

A systemic review of seven studies showed that all seven confirmed that removing sweetened beverages from SNAP would lower its consumption, and six of those studies showed a significant decrease. California has been pioneering some of the most forward thinking policies to increase healthy foods in our communities, and we've done that in a bipartisan manner.

Why? Because we all recognize that unhealthy foods have negative impacts on not only the health of individuals, but society in general. During COVID, California started offering free breakfast and lunches to every student. Why? Because it might be the only meal kids eat.

Two years ago, we banned toxic artificial dyes. And just last year, we banned ultra processed foods in school lunches. In both cases, I was one of the first Republican co authors of those measures because unhealthy foods have an impact on so many things. The legislature has been very clear. We need to strengthen our food supply and ensure that children in particular have healthy options.

California's work in this area has been bipartisan and landmark with members on both sides of the aisle supporting bringing more access to high quality, nutrient dense foods. The foods covered by this bill are sweetened beverages and candy, which have little nutritional value and negative health impacts. I'd like to close by saying, you know I mean, just on a personal story, and I understand, you know when I was growing up, there was a time where, at the time, we called them food stamps.

And I was on those. You know, my family was on those growing up.

And so I understand about the, you know, the discrimination that can occur, you know, as a result of use you know, using these products and this is how some people look at it. It's a critical program, but let's not continue to feed individuals these sugary beverages with that program. With me in support, I have Timothy Madden on behalf of the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology and Ryan Spencer from CPMA.

Thank you, chair and members. Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology in support of AB 2171. Our support for limiting sugary beverage sugary drinks and candy in Food Assistance Programs is rooted in the preventive medicine model. Using public policy as a tool to lower the risk of chronic health chronic heart conditions before they require medical intervention. There's little debate on the impact of sugary drinks and candy on a person's cardiovascular health.

Regular consumption of sugary beverages and candy is strongly linked to stroke, heart attack, heart failure, as well as irregular heart rhythm, not to mention diabetes and other conditions. For children, limiting sugary drinks and candy early can prevent the development of long dietary habits that lead to early onset heart disease. Over the years, speaking with cardiologists, they share seemingly daily conversations with patients facing significant cardiovascular challenges.

After having a heart attack or facing a major heart procedure or even just seeing their cardiovascular health slowly worsen, they ask what they can do to improve their health. As the discussion centers on eating habits, sugary beverages, and candy consumption is commonly a major contributor to their condition.

It's the habit that is leading patients to these cardiovascular challenges. If patients can create better eating habits, the long term benefits are undisputable. AB 2171 is an opportunity to help create better habits that will lead to a longer healthier life. We urge your aye vote.

Alright. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Mister chair. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association, CPMA, in support of AB 2171. Podiatrists have a direct and often urgent perspective on diet related diseases. They treat the downstream consequences of poor nutrition every day, particularly in patients with diabetes. High sugar consumption contributes to poor glycemic control, which significantly increases the risk neuropathy, chronic wounds, infection, ultimately lower extremity amputations.

These are not abstract outcomes. They're life altering, and in many cases, preventable. From a clinical standpoint, foot health is inseparable from metabolic health. Elevated blood glucose impairs circulation, delays wound healing, and reduces body's ability to fight infection, conditions that disproportionately manifest in the lower extremities. As a result, dietary patterns, especially excessive sugar intake, directly influence whether a patient maintains mobility or progressives towards disability.

We believe AB2171 will help address many of these downstream health issues, and prevent subsidizing products known to undermine health and drive chronic disease. In doing so, this bill supports healthier choices, reduces long term health care costs, and helps prevent the very complications podiatrists are working to treat. For these reasons, CPMA is proud to support AB 2171 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Now do we have members of the public who should testify in support of the bill? Please come up to the microphone in support of the bill. Okay. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Please come up to the desk.

Alright. Two minutes each, please. Whoever wants to start first can go first.

Good morning. Or is this on?

Yeah.

Okay. Good morning, chair members. Whitney Francis with Western Center on Law and Poverty. While we support the author's goal of improving health outcomes, we do not believe AB 2171 will help our state achieve that goal. The SNAP program, known in California as CalFresh, is our state's most important anti-hunger program serving over 5,000,000 Californians.

Data shows that being enrolled in CalFresh improves health outcomes and reduces health care costs for low-income people. This is because the program is already addressing the top barriers to healthy eating, affordability, and access to nutritious foods. Research shows that policing the food choices of low-income consumers does not improve dietary outcomes, meaning this bill will fail to achieve its intended goal. It will also make CalFresh less effective at reducing food insecurity while creating stigma, confusion, and shame amongst recipients for simply being poor.

Looking at other states that have already passed these SNAP food restrictions, the implementation has proven to be complex and costly.

This is administrative time and money that we should continue to prioritize for the critical HR1 implementation to minimize the harmful impacts of the administrative cost shift and time limits that we know will result in millions of Californians losing CalFresh benefits and going hungry. Furthermore, AB 2171 directly conflicts with the existing state law which reflects California's commitment to recipient dignity and equal treatment of those using CalFresh by stipulating that the State Department of Social Services shall maximize all available food choices for CalFresh recipients.

Beyond the legal conflict with state law, implementing this bill would require CDSS to apply for a food restriction waiver from the USDA. There's currently a five-state lawsuit that was filed against the USDA this March challenging the Trump administration's authority to approve these waivers. In fact, the USDA has consistently refused to approve SNAP food restriction waivers under all previous Republican and Democratic administrations due to their questionable effectiveness, feasibility, and legality.

AB 2171 would put California in the position of pursuing a waiver that has been rejected by a every previous administration and is currently being litigated in federal court. For these reasons and more, a broad coalition of CALFRA stakeholders oppose this bill, and we respectfully urge your no vote on AB 2171.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Guadalupe Lopez, an independent grocer. For over three years, I have provided families with access to quality and affordable food. I stand in opposition AB 2171.

This proposal is a benefit restriction bill, not a nutrition education bill. If we want healthier communities, we might must start early by teaching children that food is nourishment. Education creates a lasting change. We can teach our kids that a snack can be an apple, a carrot, or a banana, not just chips or candy. Product definitions are too bland for a retail operation.

A drink is prohibited if five grams or more of sugar is added, but allows drinks that have over 50% use with far more sugar. It creates real challenges for grocery store. Our checkout systems do not identify levels of fruit or levels of sugar. They simply scan product categories. There is no clear definition of candy.

This will lead to confusion, delay, and customer disputes every single day. Business will face costly system updates, training, compliance, and even losing our license. But the main question, will this improve health? From my experience, the answer is no. What works is education and incentive programs.

My store implemented the first incentive program in Santa Clara County, double up food box, now part of the GASNIP fruit and veggie program. I have seen firsthand how it works. The SNAP matching dollars encourage families to buy more fruits and vegetables. Today, families can receive up to $60 a month in matching funds. It may not seem like a match, but for struggling families, it can mean the difference between food on the table or going to bed hungry.

This program improves health and a straightened local economies. If we truly want better outcomes, we must invest in education and the spending center programs, not impose restrictions that create a stigma and confusion. Lasting change doesn't come from the meeting choices. I respectfully urge you to reconsider AB 2171. Thank you.

Thank you. And welcome to the Capital, Lopez. Alright. Members of the public who should testify in opposition to the bill, please come to the microphone.

Josh Wright with the California Association of Food Banks in strong opposition. Also giving me too's for Courage California, Grace Social and Medical Services, Series Community Project, Saturated in His Love, the Can Manufacturers Institute, and the Public Interest Law Project.

Yesenia Robancho with End Child Poverty in California in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair & members. Jason Bryan on behalf of the National Confectioners Association. We're in opposition. Thank you.

Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in opposition. Thank you.

Amanda Kirchner on behalf of County Welfare Directors Association in opposition.

Thank you, Chair members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions in opposition.

Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in opposition. Thank you.

Koy Saeteurn with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. People should not be dictated like the communist Soviet Union in strong opposition.

Good morning or afternoon. Sherry McHugh representing the American Beverage Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Triffa on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition.

Marisol Rivera representing Consumer Brands Association in opposition.

Thank you, Mister chair. Jackie Onis with the California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Elise Landon with Dairy Institute of California with an opposed unless amended position to narrow the definition of candy.

Mister chair and members, Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California in opposition. Thank you.

Alright. First, did I see someone Rubio had a comment? Anyone else?

Thank you. Yes. No. And I appreciate the intent with the sugar sugary drinks, but people in positions like that, obviously diabetes is an epidemic and I, again understand that. But I was a teacher for a long time, and kids are mean.

They make fun of others. And I think that on top of the fact that I don't think this will change many minds, I think that the mental health of young kids is also at stake when they're getting bullied or being point you know, pointed out. You said you were on assistance. Those kids point out that they're poor, if you will or getting shamed because of their situation.

And I, you know, I see how it could play out with the kids, but also the definition is also I understand the candy and sugary drinks, but there's cakes and cereals have high content of sugar as well.

You know, are we going to say, you know, this kind of cereal and not that kind of cereal? We have, you know, some juices and I know you there's a definition in here about what kind of juices, but some of them are natural. It's not added, sugar, but a lot of orange juice, is higher in content of sugar.

So I just think that that this approach is not gonna deter you know, although you you said some of the the the data, I don't see how that's going to prevent people from from eating those types of foods when you have others available. Trust me.

I am a snacker myself and sometimes I wonder when my diabetes is gonna set in because I am terrible at when I eat those foods. And even though I don't anyway, I just don't think that that this is going to deter people from, you know, being or actually encourage people to be healthy, which I think that's the intent of this is, you know, what would you know, I know that there's an amount of SNAP that encourages more fruits and vegetables.

That those are the types of programs that we should be investing in and which will help our Central Valley folks and the farmers is by encouraging more fruits and vegetables to be eaten as opposed to trying to determine by doing this. We've had many, many alteration. It it'll I can't say that word anymore.

But versions of this, you know, trying to put taxes on sugary drinks as well. That has come a few times and has failed. It's hard for me coming from a lower income community that, you know, people are telling you know, just because they're poor, telling us what we should and shouldn't eat. So, with that I don't think I can support the bill.

Well, I hope you don't get diabetes, by the way.

Thank you.

No way?

I hope you don't get diabetes, by the way.

Me too. But have you been to my office?

I have been.

Yes. And

Clean that up. You know? I know. Right.

And then, you know and people are quite enjoying coming to my office because of the amount of sugary snacks I have. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Tangipa?

It was just surprising to me.

Yeah.

But I do know that you work out quite a bit. And

I don't, actually. That's my problem because I don't.

I remember in freshman orientation, there were a

Lot of people talking about did you, you wanna comment on the billl and not on Assembly memeber Rubio?

No. When I said and I will when I said when orientation came, I said

Tell me, Ruby. You don't have to Ruby. You don't have to let's ask Tangipa to ask questions.

Well, I also hear all the concerns as well. I did just wanna ask to the author, like, how much does the average person on CalFresh spend on the foods that AB 2171 seeks to limit?