Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good afternoon. We'll go ahead and get started. As you all know, there's multiple committees going on, so everybody's going back and forth. So we will start as a subcommittee so that Assemblymember Nguyen can, present her bills. And all of you know that we're ping ponging today, so please be patient with all of us, and, hopefully, we can get through this as quickly as possible.

Assmeblymember Nguyen. Yes. Oh, I'm going ahead and calling the meeting to order. Assemblymember, you may begin.

There it goes. Madam Chair, I've got two bills. Is it okay with you that I start with file item number 11, AB 2507? Perfect.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present AB 2507, which straightens the California government to government relationship with federally recognized tribal governments. At its core, this bill is about making sure tribal governments have a clear and consistent seat at the table when decisions impact their communities. AB 2507 creates a clear structure for how state agencies engage with tribal governments. So consultation is meaningful, consistent, and happens early, not after decisions have already been made.

Currently, engagement with tribal org governments varies across agencies. Some departments have strong practices in place, while others do not. Without a clear structure, consultation can be inconsistent, happen too late, or not at all. That makes it harder for tribal governments to navigate state programs and harder for state to deliver programs that actually work. In my district, Wilton Rancheria is an important partner, and I've seen how strong collaboration leads to better outcomes for communities.

When tribal governments are brought in early, programs are stronger, more effective, and better reflect the communities they are meant to serve. With me here today to testify in support is Vice Chair Raquel Williams of Wilton Rancheria.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on AB 2507. My name is Raquel Williams. I serve as Wilton Rancheria's Vice Chairwoman.

Wilton Rancheria is a sovereign tribal nations whose citizens are primarily Miwok and Nisenan. These are ancestral lands, and this is our responsibility to serve our people and generations to come. I'm here in in full support of 2507 because quite simply, the current systems are not working as well as they should be for tribes of this state. Over the past fifteen years, California has over the past fifteen years, California has made progress in opening up state programs to tribal governments.

But often, those programs were built without tribal input resulting in barriers to access and programs, that underperform.

Even when tribes are invited in, engagement is inconsistent. There's no clear structure across state agencies. Tribal liaisons vary in authority. Consultation practices differ, and advisory bodies are created program by program instead of through a coordinated approach. The result is insufficiency on all sides.

Programs don't reach communities they were intended to serve, and tribes spend unnecessary time navigating the systems that weren't designed with them in mind from the beginning. AB 2705- 2507 fixes that. This bill does three practical things. First, it ensures that state agencies have clearly designed clearly designated tribal liaison at the executive level so that tribes have consistent, accountable points of contact.

Second, it creates a tribal advisory committee made up of tribal leaders that provide direct ongoing input to the secretary of tribal affairs so programs can be shaped by the communities they are meant to serve.

And third, it strengthens coordination and and consultation across agencies, so we're not solving the same problems over and over in silos. These improvements will lead to a better program design, better implementation, and ultimately better outcomes for tribes in California. On behalf of Wilton Rancheria, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. My name is Leia Ahuactzin. I'm tribal counsel with Wilton Rancheria. And I'll just quickly add that AB 2507, it's not just about process, it's about respect, coordination, and delivering results for tribal communities and the state of California alike.

Thank you, okay.

Hi. Chris LIndstrom, Executive Officer of the California Tribal Business Alliance. CTBA is in support, and I'm just here to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you. Any members of the audience in support? You may come up. State your name and your position. Hearing none, we'll bring it back.

Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any members of the audience in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it up to the committee.

Any questions from committee members? Okay. Hearing none. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Madam Chair.

Yes. Oh, I'm sorry.

I just wanna thank, the author and and and the sponsors for bringing this, bill forward. I think it it's, it's something that needs to be done here in the state of California, considering the the history and and the past towards our people. And if it's okay with the the author, I'd like to be added as a co author.

Thank you. Any other comments from the dais? No? Hearing none. Thank you very much.

Assemblymember Nguyen, you may close.

Thank you, madam chair. And I do wanna thank Assemblymember Ramos because we have had extensive conversation about this, for not just months, but I think over a span of a few years now. And, as the chair of the Native American Caucus, I absolutely respect you and this community, and it's a blessing to hear your support around this and wanting to be added on this.

But also as somebody who leads all of us here at the state capitol, it's one of those where we come to you for advice. We come to you on how should we handle this, and you've been nothing but amazing in every step of the way in this.

I I wanna thank you for that. And with that, Madam Chair, when the time is appropriate, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And we do- we're a subcommittee, when we have a quorum we'll ask for motions and seconds. Thank you. You may begin your second, though.

Great. Thank you, miss. thank you, madam chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2024, a narrow cleanup bill to address delays in the permitting process under the Outdoor Advertising Act. In practice, we are seeing situations where permit applications for outdoor advertising displays are accepted but not acted on, which leaves projects and applicants in limbo. This creates unnecessary delays and uncertainty.

This bill clarifies that once an application is submitted, it should move through the full process and receive a determination. It does not require approval, only that a decision is made so projects can move forward. The goal is simple. Reduce delays and make sure the process is working as intended. With me here today is Lane Lawson, president of California State Outdoor Advertising Association to speak in support.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wen. I really appreciate the opportunity here, and good afternoon to the chair and members of the committee. My name is Lane Lawson here in my capacity as president of California Outdoor Advertising Association to express our support for AB 2024. AB 2024 is a straightforward cleanup measure that provides important technical clarifications to support and a consistent application of the California Outdoor Advertising Act.

Under current law, billboard relocation may be used in lieu of monetary compensation when displays are removed through relocation agreements with local and state agencies.

However, variations in administrative interpretations have led to confusion, delays, and in some cases, unnecessary costs. This bill reinforces the intent of the existing law by ensuring that relocation remains a viable option where permitted, clarifying that one for one relocations are not subject to additional requirements and helping to ensure that accepted permit applications are processed and determinations are issued in a timely manner. These updates matter because relocation in lieu of compensation is a critical tool for reducing public cost and avoiding project delays.

When relocation is constrained or delayed, it can drive up costs and create uncertainty for all parties involved. AB 2024 offers targeted common sense improvements that enhance regulatory clarity, streamline permitting, and supports more efficient project delivery without expanding existing law.

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

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

On behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Thank you. Any other, members of, the audience in support? K. Hearing none. Any witnesses in opposition?

K. Seeing none, any members of the audience in opposition? K. Hearing none, I'll bring you back up to the committee.

Hi. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Our chair reminded me that we both carry similar bills to this. So I'm wondering if we can finally put this to rest and make this our final bill cleanup bill regarding this issue. What are your thoughts?

Well, that's our hopes for sure. You know, the interpretations, we're trying to make it as clear as possible on this, and we really appreciate it. Thank you.

And I would love to be added as a coauthor.

Thank you. Yes. I am very aware that you both have tried this, and we thought let's try again and see if we can get this to finally come across the finish line. So we're gonna try. We're gonna carry that torch again until it gets there.

So thank you so much. Yes. And we will add you as a coauthor.

Thank you. When I heard the bell, I was like, it's deja vu, and this was done, I think, seven or eight years ago is the first iteration. The part the problem, I think, is is interpretation. You know, we all think we have amazing bills. And once it gets to the departments, their interpretation is very different as intended.

And so, hopefully, this will clarify. If not, we'll probably be back here in a couple years trying to redo it, but hopefully not. But I wanna thank you, and I would also like to be added as a cosigner. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that we are clear. We're trying one more time.

Please interpret whoever is listening. Please interpret it, you know, as intended. And if we need more clarification, please go to the author and try to figure this out. So anyway, any other comments from committee members? Thank you so much.

Let's see. We do not have a quorum for motion in the second, so we will do that when we have a quorum. Assembly member Wint, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair and members.

Thank you. I have assembly member Connolly. Thank you, mister Connolly. You may begin. And, for your witnesses, you have two minutes, each.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Good afternoon. Proud to present AB 1585, a straightforward bill which will require that wine labeled as American be made from a 100% American grown grapes. The folks in my district who grow the wine are struggling, especially in Sonoma County, one of the California's largest wine grape producing regions. We have seen a wave of bankruptcies among our family owned wineries.

Folks are increasingly concerned about how much longer they can hold on in this market. In far too many cases, they are shutting down altogether. This tragedy is eliminating far too many jobs in our communities. Wine grape growers and wineries across the state are here to ask the legislature for help. And AB 1585 provides a modicum of relief to an industry that is in need.

Under current law, a wine that is labeled as Californian must contain a 100% Californian grown wine. AB 1585 simply aligns the American designation with the requirements for Californian designation. This bill does not regulate imports, pricing, sourcing decisions, or blending practices. If a wine producer wants to continue to use the same blends they've always used, they can continue to do so.

AB 1585 addresses only how wine is labeled, ensuring that country of origin claims are accurate and meaningful to consumers as is practiced throughout the world.

I would like to add a bit of history. I was a deputy attorney general in the early 2000s and helped manage the Bronco Wine v Jolly case, which was ultimately decided by the California Supreme Court. The Bronco decision upheld that the legislature has the authority to regulate geographic brand names for wine and prevent consumer deception in wine labeling. These regulations were not preempted by federal law, and that case also settled First Amendment and interstate commerce concerns.

Since that decision, California has, for good reason, created more and more stringent labeling requirements for wine bottled in California.

These requirements are well known and have led to greater consumer confidence as well as international notoriety and prestige for our California wine. Today, consumers are purchasing wine labeled as American with the reasonable expectation that the grapes used to make that wine were grown in The United States. Given that California produces more than 80% of all US wine, consumers often associate American wine with US grown and frequently California grown wine grapes, and they would be accurate.

So at this time, I would like to pass the mic over to my esteemed joint author, Assemblymember, Rhodesia Ransom, for her testimony.

Thank you. So good afternoon, madam chair and members. First, I wanna thank, my coauthor, Assemblymember Connolly, and the sponsors for their partnership and leadership on this bill. I'm gonna keep my remarks brief, as he's covered a lot, and then I'm gonna turn it over to the witnesses. But I want to emphasize why this bill is important for all consumers and for districts like mine in the Central Valley.

San Joaquin County has a long rich history in grape growing from Tokay grapes into today's wine grapes. The Central Valley produces over 70% of grape grapes that are used in California's wines. That industry is currently facing a crisis. In my district, growers and small wineries are facing serious challenges. Many of them have gone out of business and their employees have lost their jobs here in California.

Because California produces over 80% of American wines, we have a vested interest in ensuring that the truth in labeling is effective on American wine. Current law allows 25% of a wine bottled labeled American wine to be imported from anywhere in the world. This is misleading for consumers and it is also inconsistent with how we treat other grapes products. If grape juice, table grapes and jams are labeled made in America, they must be 100% American grown. Wine should meet the same standard.

This is very important for California as California produces the majority of American wine. We are not saying that you cannot continue to use international blends. You can call them exotic. You can call them international. But if it is an American wine, it should be a 100% American grapes, which would really benefit California.

A B 1585 simply corrects that problem. It ensures that what's on the label reflects what's actually in the bottle. When the time comes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, madam chair and members. I am Natalie Collins, the president of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers and cosponsors of a AB 1585 along with the Family Winemakers of California. You may have heard this bill as described as a fight between growers and wineries, but it is not. Nearly 300 letters of support, 18 regional associations, and the broader industry conversations from blogs to media say otherwise.

That is not a divided industry. That is a unified one. This is a question of whether the American label should mean what it says. When consumers buy a bottle of wine, they look at the label for three things, vintage, varietal, and origin. But origin is the foundation.

It tells you the land, the climate, and the people who grew the grapes. Vintage and varietal only matter because of where they come from, and that connection is what AB 1585 protects. And this standard is not new or unusual. A wine labeled California must be made from a 100% California grown grapes. France, Spain, Italy, Australia, every major wine producing country follows the same principle.

None of those allow for foreign wine to be blended into their national label. I appreciate the policy considerations outlined on page five, and I'm happy to address them. But at its core, this is a straightforward issue. The standard proposed here already exists in California and in every other major wine producing country in the world. It is workable, proven, and aligned with what consumers expect when they see a place name on a label.

If every major wine producing country protects the integrity of its name, why wouldn't we do the same here? And why is this a problem for the large multinational companies opposing this bill when they already comply with 100% country of origin standards in other markets? This bill does not change trade laws or restrict how wine is made. Wineries can continue to source globally, blend freely, and operate as they do today. What changes is one thing, what they can call it.

When up to 25% of what's in the bottle comes from halfway around the world, don't call it American because it doesn't reflect the farmers, farm workers, and communities behind the name. We respectfully request an aye vote on AB 1585.

Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead.

Madam chair and members, my name is Gina Lisa Tamayo, and I'm the board president of Family Winemakers of California. I'm here representing families. Families who built their wineries with their own hands and who hope to pass that legacy down to the next generation. To our members, a winery is more than just a business. It's a home.

It's a livelihood and generations of hard work tied to a single piece of land. And right now, that way of life is under real threat. Since 2024, 77,000 acres of grape vines have already been removed across the state. An additional 40,000 acres are projected to be pulled out this year alone. This harvest will be the lowest in twenty years.

Drive through any wine region today and you will see it. Uprooted vines stacked along the roadside, each one represents a family who had to make an impossible decision. We know many challenges, climate change, global markets, changing demand, they're out of your control. But one piece is entirely within your power to address today. Current law allows wine labeled American

to contain up to bulk wine. While our members are struggling to survive using California grown fruit, others can import cheaper grapes and still market that wine as American. AB 1585 is simple. If the label says American, it should mean 100% American grown grapes. If the label says California, it means 100% California grown.

Today's consumers demand transparency. When a label is misleading, it erodes trust in the entire California wine brand, and that damage falls hardest on the members I represent. In looking at the policy considerations listed on page five of the committee analysis, we don't see truth in labeling as a new regulatory burden. The bill doesn't require new reporting, new permits, or new filing.

It requires wineries to know what's in their own bottle, which they already do. Family wineries are already using 100% American grown grapes. Nothing changes, and this bill protects them. By passing this bill, California continues to lead the nation in consumer protection and industry integrity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Ten seconds.

Thank you. Any, members of the audience in support, please state your name and your position.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Robert Harel. I'm the executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, and we support this bill as a consumer truth and labeling issue. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, and just wanted to say thank you to both the authors and also thank you for the highlight of the Central Valley.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau here on behalf of not only our statewide association, but, numerous, local county farm bureaus from all over the state. Thank you.

Thank you.

I am Amy Blagg with the Lodi District Grape Growers Association. We support AB 1585, and the following organizations have asked me to list their support as well. San Luis Obispo Coast Wine Collective, Sonoma Alliance for Vineyards and the Environment, Santa Barbara Vintners, Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance, Mendocino Wine Growers, Alexander Valley Wine Growers, Santa Cruz Mountains Wine Growers Association, Suisun Valley Vintners and Growers Association.

Thank you.

I am Stuart Spencer with the Lodi Wine Grape Commission. We support AB 1585, and the following organizations have asked me to list their support as well. San Joaquin Valley Wine Growers Association, the El Dorado Winery Association, Amador Wine Country, Clarksburg Wine Grape Growers Association, Lake County Wine Grape Growers Association, Temecula Valley Wine Growers Association, wineries of Santa Clara Valley Association, and the Anderson Valley Wine Growers Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kyle Collins from Ally Grape Growers, and I'm here today on behalf of our 500 family farmer members to respectfully ask for your aye vote on this this election.

Thank you.

Brandon Siewacinc of Lodi. I'm here to represent Manna Ranch and myself as a first generation farmer.

Thank you.

Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Women for Agriculture asked me to express their support. Thank you.

Thank you. K. Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. K. Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. You'll have two minutes each.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, chair Rubio and members. My name is Jeanne Bremer, and I'm the vice president of compliance and public policy for the wine group, the second largest winery in the world. I'm also the chair of Wine Institute's labeling working group, and I come from a Lodi wine grape growing family. The wine group opposes AB 1585 for a number of reasons, but I'd like to focus on a couple of reasons here today.

First, we're very concerned about the language the bill's supporters have been using to describe the purpose of this bill.

They call it the truth in labeling act and suggest that consumers are being misled about the origin of American wines because federal law does not require that 100% of the grapes were grown in America. But the fact is that federal law does not require 100% sourcing for any wine appellation, whether a political appellation such as a state or county or an American viticultural area.

We are very concerned that the bill's proponents are leading consumers to believe that a wine can only truly represent its origin if 100% of the grapes were grown in the stated region. This is not true. For example, wines labeled Napa Valley may contain up to 15% grapes from other regions of California.

Wineries in Sonoma County can source up to 25% grapes from outside Sonoma County and still use Sonoma County on the label. Are the proponents of this bill suggesting that California change all regulations to reflect 100% sourcing? If not, then why are they focused on one appellation of origin and not all of them? Second, while the wine group has over a dozen wine brands that carry the appellation of

Ten seconds.

We source grapes for the vast majority of these wines from California growers. While it sounds simple just to add 25% wine from overseas to an existing blend, in reality, doing so is incredibly complex and complexities increase costs, and this is why we avoid it.

Thank you.

Before I begin, I'd like to please request that the sergeant pass up a handout to help illustrate my testimony today.

Thank you

Good afternoon, Chair Rubio, Vice Chair Davies, and members. My name is Deborah Dohmen. I am vice president of government and industry affairs for Treasury Wine Estates. You're hopefully familiar with some of our wine brands such as Beaulieu Vineyards, Behringer Vineyards, Stag's Leap Winery, and Penfolds, among others.

I am here

to testify to some of the unintended consequences of AB 1585 and to express our opposition. First, I'd like to highlight an unattended consequence of this legislation that would significantly limit our ability to provide consumers with important product information. Treasury Wine Estates proudly owns and operates several wineries in California, but we are headquartered in Australia. When we extended our Penfolds brand to include California wines, our goal was to thoroughly connect those wines with Penfolds', her Australian heritage.

To do so, we created two products that blend fruit from both countries, 85% California and 15% Australia, which retail at approximately $207,100 dollars per bottle.

Because those wines meet the federal definition of American wine, current regulations allow us to disclose both the varietal and the vintage, information that is critically important to wine consumers. If the standard were changed to require a 100% domestic sourcing, federal law would prohibit us from listing either the vintage or the varietal. These wines would be forced to be labeled simply as red table wine.

This outcome would be a disservice to to consumers who reasonably expect to know whether they are purchasing a Cabernet Sauvignon or another varietal, and to our winemakers who take great pride in crafting unique collaboration between the two world renowned wine region. If enacted, AB 1585 would unnecessarily obstruct these types of innovative cross regional collaborations.

Second and more broadly, we are deeply concerned that this bill calls into question whether wine labels truthfully communicate information to consumers. That implication risks undermining consumer trust in a regulatory system that has worked effectively for decades. Wine making and wine growing have long relied on well established regulatory standards that balance

Ten seconds.

Providing consumer and consumers with meaningful, accurate information, and allowing wineries and growers the flexibility needed to respond to consumer preferences and changing agricultural conditions. For this reason, most I won't repeat what she said about the federal regulations. But if this were to be enacted, producers would lose the ability to use small amounts of other varieties or grapes from nearby regions. Thank you.

Thank you. K. Any members of the audience in opposition, please step up. Your name and your position, please.

Hi. Tim Schmelzer with Wine Institute in opposition.

Thank you.

Ryan Flanagan on behalf of the Wine Spirits Wholesalers of California in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no others, bringing it back up to the committee. Questions, comments? Assemblymember Pacheco? Oh. Oh. Mister Gallagher.

Yeah. Thank you, madam chairman. So I wanna thank the authors for bringing this forward. I think this is a really important issue. We've been talking a lot about California agriculture and the dire straits that it's in right now.

I don't think that can be, you know, overstated enough that we are now seeing a situation where first of all, we're facing some of the highest costs in the nation, you know, electricity, fuel, fertilizer costs, inputs, labor costs. I mean, they're through the roof. And yet we have some of the lowest commodity prices that we've seen in a generation, you know, when you account for inflation and and all that. And a lot of that is is trade, You know, as we gotta get the trade right.

You know, we've been being taken advantage of big time for for many for decades under successive administration.

Mister Gallagher, please. Yeah. Please. Can we stick to the the merits of the bill?

This is the merit of the bill, madam chair.

If we're talking about previous administrations, we are not addressing the issue in front of us.

I I think you're getting, like, insulted for no reason. I'm not talking about any particular party. I'm just talking about all parties.

This is about the the the label.

Believe me, I'm on point. And they know I'm on point because I see the nodding. The problem is we've gotta get that right. We have been getting taken advantage of, and why are we bringing in foreign grapes, you know, and then and then saying that those are American, that this is American, you know, made. Right?

We you know, and I think we need a, you know, a Cali first campaign. You know, some I'm actually working on some legislation that'll be up in committee, tomorrow, that we should be prioritizing California grown foods. Our our farmers grow some of the most nutritious, best quality food products in the world, and we should be proud of it and we should fight for it. And so Aye, you know, I think this legislation is is really much needed.

All we are saying here is if you're gonna advertise that, you know, you're you're an American wine, you're a California wine, then you should be buying California, you know, wine grapes and and putting that into your bottle that you're advertising in the world.

We have an amazing product, and that's why it's been able to command that kind of, you know, price point and quality in the world. And and then we're also at a time where it's a travesty. It's I know that my colleagues have seen this, man. We've seen whole vineyards being taken out because it and it's not it sounds like little product. Like, many people have been told, you don't even have a contract.

You have no contract for your product, so you're going out there trying to grow the next year's crop. You have nowhere to go with it. Like, can you imagine that? I just had that happen with peaches in my district. Right?

Del Monte went bankrupt. Well, sorry. We don't we can't can't buy our peaches this year. I mean, the investment that goes into that, you're you're planning on that orchard, that vineyard producing for, you know, twenty years or more. And so to have to take that all out, you know, is a devastating thing.

So shouldn't we be doing everything we can to help support California growers? I mean, I think it's about time that we do that. And so Aye, you know, I appreciate, you know, the authors. I think this is a reasonable proposal to help, you know, our our California wine grape growers. I personally think that we should be tariff you know, have a much higher tariffs on foreign imported grapes.

Again, we need to get that right on the trade issue here. There's a huge trade imbalance when it comes to agricultural products, and, I think we need to do a lot more on that front. So appreciate your efforts, and I will be supporting the bill today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon? Oh, I thought that was your microphone. Oh, Assemblymember Pacheco?

Thank you. And I do have a couple of questions regarding this bill. So the purpose of the this bill is to help sell more wine in California? Or what's the purpose of the bill?

There's two purposes. One is to instill truth in labeling that if something is called American on the label, it should be a 100% grapes grown in The US. And for all intents and purposes, because more than 80% of all grapes wine grapes grown in The US are from California, that that also would be a big boost to California wine grape growers as well. Can I quickly address a couple of the points from the opposition that I think are a little bit related to that too?

I think what you're hearing, unfortunately, is an attempt to relitigate the Bronco wine case. In Bronco, the opponents to establishing a Napa wine appellation that grown grapes argued, well, the federal standard is only 75%, and they argued federal preemption. That was rejected. 75% is a floor, not a ceiling. And in fact, at the time, because the statute we were addressing called for 85% Napa and by the way, the remaining 15 has to be Californian.

The subsequent efforts throughout are reflected in the fact that more recently, we went to a 100% California wine grape standard for California labels. We're simply doing that here as well in the context of an American wine label. And, frankly, it's a bit ironic with our friend, a a a company from Australia, where in that country, it has to be a 100% Australian ground to be called Australian.

And so we already have in order for a wine to be labeled California, it has to be 100% grapes, you know, produced here in California. Wouldn't that be sufficient alone?

Or No. Just remember the the content sorry. Were you done with your question?

I was gonna say just how does this help? How does this further help?

So if you have a label that says California and it has to be a 100% California grape, so the labeling in this case, is different. It's where it says American. So we're saying the grapes would have to be grown a 100% in America. So it's analogous. And what where

else in in in The US and it anybody can answer this. Where else in The US do traditionally, California winemakers get their grapes? Where where is there anywhere else in The US that traditionally that traditionally we as wine well, the winemakers get their grapes?

Yes. Of course. Many American wines are also made with wine grapes from Washington, Oregon, places along the West Coast here.

And and I would also like to hear from the opposition as well as to, you know, you know, how how this could help or, obviously, you're gonna say this could hinder the wine industry.

Right. So I I wanted to respond. First of all, we are not trying to relitigate the Napa Ridge case, the Bronco case. That particular case had to do with California wines made in California that carry a California appellation. Right?

So it's the rules for wineries in California that are using a California appellation. This bill is different because this would impact American wines. So it's not just dealing with wineries in the state of California that sell their products in the state of California, but wineries located in all states across The United States that use the Appalachian American.

Because even if they are in compliance with federal law, they are not eligible to sell that product in the state of California unless 100% of those grapes were grown somewhere in The United States. So say, for example, you have a Washington winery working in compliance under federal law.

They source 75% of those grapes from Washington state. Say they import 25% from Canada, perfectly fine and legal under federal law, that Washington state winery would now be out of compliance with California's law even when they've met the federal standard.

So there's a possibility that wine made in Washington or Oregon for that matter could comply with federal law, and now that product would be banned from being sold in California.

That is correct.

No. It's not banned. You simply cannot label it American.

But but then if it if they they would have to do two different labels. They would have to do a label specifically for Washington, and then they would have to do a separate label for for California. Is that

So our concern is not the people in Washington. Our concern is the people No.

No. But the products.

So I understand that. But when we're talking about this, 80% of The US wine comes from California. So this is a one first of all, it's a California first bill dealing with everything that we've seen with our agriculture, everything that we've seen with our own wine grape growers. When we when you are saying a wine is American, we're okay if the wines are coming from anywhere else in American we America.

We want Californians, when they purchase their wine, to know if a bottle says American, it is American wine.

If it is coming from Washington and Washington is sending they can have two labels if they like. But California, we are setting a standard for California. Wine that are wines that are coming from America, if they're sold in California, we want people to know that it was American wine. This does not preclude anyone from saying we have an international blend, and this really creates equity and parity with other countries that they don't allow their countries to say, hey, this is a Australian wine as example.

And so we wanna make sure that when Californians pick up a bottle of wine that says American, that is America first.

And America first and when it comes to wine is is California first because 80% of the wine grapes in American wine are coming from California. So we wanna make sure that it does two things. It not only it doesn't look out for the industry, but it really is about truth in advertising when it comes to this.

And so I do I hear the opposition concerns that you were, you know, you're you're putting out there in regards to any type of additional labels that they may have to do in another state, but we're we're California lawmakers. And so that's what I would like to uplift as we talk about this bill.

But, are we putting California first when we say California wine? We're saying specifically, this is a California wine and these grapes are 100% from California. Isn't that putting California first?

And it it it also extends to American wine because the majority of the the majority of American grapes come from California. And so it's about not only truth in advertising, but California is also I don't wanna say benefited, but you saw all the folks that got up and spoke about how their grapes their are impacted from this bill. This helps those wineries, that are right here in our own community, in our own state to at least folks know that these are not from California.

And it really is, to be honest, it's a a motivation and inspiration for folks who are gonna sell American wine to at least attempt to get grapes from The United States.

My concern is that this bill would cause confusion because there would be wine from outside of California and they and it would say American and they're complying with federal law. And now those wines are going to be sold in California. Like, how would that happen? And my concern is the confusion and how that would impact wines. Some people do like wines from France from outside the country, but also like other wines from outside the state.

So I'm concerned that consumers will be confused with the wines that are labeled American and maybe they go outside of California and they buy it and they bring it in. So I I'm just concerned about that.

Yeah. We do believe this is bringing more clarity to the American label. Anything labeled again as American wine produced within America, we're okay if it includes any other state in that brand. We think this is pretty straightforward.

But wouldn't it be better if it was, like, a a federal like, this was implemented at at the at the federal level instead of California? Then all 50 states would be in the same under the same compliance. Would that be easier and better?

It is our hope to also bring this federally. We have seen the leadership here in the California state legislature. The federal standard for any state to label as a state is only 75%. But over fifty years ago, this legislature took it upon themselves to bring that California standard up to 100%. So while we do hope to also go through federally to make this happen, we believe in the leadership here in the California state legislature and thought this would be a great place to start.

And I'm assuming no other state has done this?

Not on the federal, not on the American application, but many have changed their state origin to be higher and same with AVA in counties.

Alright. Well, I do have concerns about that because we already have, you know, California wines, which I think are amazing and they are labeled appropriately. They're 100% grapes from California. And so I do worry about the other aspect. So I I don't I won't be able to, unfortunately, vote for this bill because we already have California wines.

Okay. Yeah.

So I think this would cause confusion. That's my concern. Okay. I'm done.

Thank you. Assembly member, Bryan. And and then Assembly member Gipson after.

Yeah. It's not every day that my colleague from Nicholas and I can be in deep agreement and have both an American first and a California first mentality. I think the current labeling is already confusing because when you're putting an American first label at 75%, but most of the grower is here in California anyway, you're trying to get around the California label, which is why you need that parity.

I think if you want access to the richest, and and most expansive market in the country and one of in the world, you should be contributing to that economy by taking care of the folks who grow the grapes right here. This bill makes a lot of sense to me.

It doesn't ban any wine from coming from anywhere, whether it's the South Of France or any other state or otherwise. It's just about truth in advertising. Print a different label and let consumers have clarity in what they're buying. And I think that that to me strikes at the heart of what you're trying to do. It's often not the case either where we see Stockton and Marin so tightly together, and that makes me really happy to see.

So when there's a quorum, I'm happy to make a motion if there hasn't been one.

Mister Gipson and then Assemblymember McKinnor. Assemblymember McKinnor.

I just like to thank the authors for bringing this bill forward. Just after my spring break, I did some travels and realized that I have to start putting California first when I'm looking at legislation. And I love the examples that I received about French wine being a 100% French grapes, Spanish wine, a 100% Spanish, and on and on Italy and New Zealand. And so I think that we should have the it should be a 100% California grapes. It's a label.

We could do that. It it won't I don't think it'll confuse anybody. I I buy a lot of wine and good wine too. And so it wouldn't confuse me, but I'd I'd like to I like it when I see American American First, and it's truly our California grapes. So with that, I'll support the bill.

And I would second the bill when you get a quorum.

Assembly member.

Thank you so much to the authors. I'm honored to be a coauthor on this bill. This isn't just legislation. This is personal for me and my family. We purchased a ranch and we realized that the viability of that ranch was no longer with wine grapes.

We ripped those out, and now they have really cute little baby citrus trees out there that we're excited to see grow. But that's the reality for so many wine grape growers, and it's really devastating when you look at the unique soil, the unique climate that we are so perfectly positioned here in the state to be completely dominant.

And we're seeing that being challenged, and we're seeing the cost of compliance and the cost of regulation continue to push people out of the market for wine and grape growers. So we need to be doing everything we can to support agriculture to stay here in the state. I think that this is a small step in the right direction, but I'm honored to support the bill today.

And thank you. And we need to continue to encourage agriculture to stay where it belongs, and that's right here in California. Thank you.

Any other members of the committee? K. Well, I want to speak because we keep talking about California grown. This is not the integrity of California. If we're labeling American wine, we're not being true to California because we already have a California label.

If we label it American wine, it's only we are allowing other states to contribute to that. So when we keep talking about California and being California integrity, this label doesn't help because it's 75% California grapes and the other ones can come from other states. So there's a contradiction because this is not helping California. I don't see and I've had many, many conversations with the author.

I think this is gonna hurt the California wine grape growers because we are not requiring a 100% California, which has been stated a couple times here.

This is not about this is not making California first. The wine says America first. And if we are interested in helping the wine wine grape growers in California, we already have a label that requires a 100% wine wine grapes to be grown in California. This is saying American wine, which allows 75% California grapes and the rest from other states. So this label is not putting California first, in my opinion.

It's my humble opinion. I've had different conversations. I truly believe that this is gonna hurt California wines. I am an uneducated wine drinker. And quite honestly, until I saw this bill come through, then I started looking to see how many labels had said America.

I didn't find that many. I did find Sonoma. I found Napa wines, and I found California wines. This bill is saying that we are growing grapes in California, but the rest can come from other states. So if we're talking about California and being California, this is not helping California.

It's my opinion only. My recommendation is a non recommend non recommendation. My the members get to vote however they want, but I feel like this is gonna hurt California because we're not banning we're not banning any other wine wines to come to California. I again, I'm an uneducated wine drinker if whenever I drink wine. So I when I go and buy wine, I never I'm not looking for the label.

I'm looking for whatever, you know, wine happened to be thinking about that day. But like I said, I'm a non recommendation because I believe that this is gonna hurt California and not help because the intent is to help California, and I don't think this is gonna do it. So I've I had that conversation with with the the author. And so with that, we do have a quorum that's establish a quorum, and then we can go on with the with the bill.

Madam, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Okay. And then, I had somebody say I forget who it was, wanted to make a motion. Bryan. Okay. Assembly member, Brian and Yeah. McKinnor. First and a second. Okay. Madam Calderboe? Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Thank you and appreciate the discussion today. I'll keep it simple. The heart of America's wine industry is right here. California wines and grapes are known all over the world for their unique flavors and high quality. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of our local wine grape growers and winemakers.

Folks deserve honesty and transparency when shopping for their preferred wine. And AB 1585 will give consumers a confidence that they are getting what they paid for. This bill has bipartisan support as we've seen. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Okay. That has 11 votes. We will leave the roll open for add members. And then if we can go back to, Assemblymember Nguyen

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. And then we, go back to let's see. Let's start with, item number six, AB 2024, Assemblymember Wynne. I have move I have a motion by Assemblymember Pacheco and second by Assemblymember Fong. Okay. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll? File item six, AB 2024 Nguyen.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The consent calendar calendar is out, and we'll wait for adding members. And before we continue, can you help me wish assembly member Soria a happy birthday? Happy birthday.

Hey. Alright. Thank you. Back to business. Item three, Assemblymember Ransom, bill number 1650. You may begin.

Thank you, Madam chair. Happy to be back here again. We're gonna go from Wine to DUI. So first, I would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill. I wanna say for the record that I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected in the analysis.

Based on the data, the status quo clearly is not working in California and driving under the influence is not a mistake. It is a dangerous crime. It's putting everyone on our roads at risk. When someone repeatedly drives impaired, it signals dangerousness and often a deeper issue with responsibility and alcohol misuse. Assembly bill 1605 will give judges a targeted common-sense tool, which is the ability to prohibit alcohol purchases for repeat and serious DUI offenders by placing no alcohol sales notice on their licenses.

Minnesota has a similar law that was introduced back in the early 2000s and data shows that prohibition and restrictions reduced recidivism. Data also shows that second time offenders who had sobriety requirements showed a 74% reduction in recidivism, to be specific. If you are a serious or repeat offender, then you should not be able to have access to alcohol.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety in 2023, nearly 1500 people were killed in alcohol involved traffic crashes in California accounting for roughly 1/3 of all traffic fatalities statewide. Again, this isn't just the number of DUIs which are in the hundreds of thousands.

These are DUIs that resulted in deaths. It's important to note that these are people who are repeat offenders. The same goes for bodily great bodily injuries as well as major property damage caused in DUIs by repeat offenders. This is entirely preventable. We need to do the best that we can to curve this issue.

The bill intends to address the root cause of the problem, which is access to alcohol for individuals who have demonstrated they cannot use it responsible. I wanna state that this is not a blanket ban or an infringement on anyone's constitutional rights. It applies only to repeat and serious offenders. Many repeat DUI offenders struggle with alcohol use disorder.

And addiction is certainly a health issue, but when it intersects with driving and other folks' safety crisis is created due to this endangerment, and unfortunately, it can and has resulted in death.

AB 1605 supports both accountability and intervention and having this tool for judges to use works alongside ignition interlock devices, mandatory treatment, as well as suspensions. California already adds restrictions to driver's license after DUI convictions. License suspensions are low alone have been proven to not be enough as data has shown repeat offenders continue to drive illegally. Alcohol impairment it remains one of our primary causes of deadly and serious injury on the road.

And if we are serious about reducing fatalities, we must work on interrupting the cycle and not just focusing on punishment which is after the fact, after the tragedy, or after lives have been lost.

So responsible adults have nothing to fear with this bill. This is about public safety being put first. This is about prevention, accountability, and saving lives. And with me today, I would like to introduce Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association and Justin Fanslau with the Safer Roads Coalition, and I will respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you. You may begin. You will each have two minutes.

Perfect. Madam chair, members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support of Assembly Bill 1605. So, I've been working with the chiefs for ten years now, and every single year, we work on these DUI statutes, making some progress. But unfortunately, and you heard the statistics, it's clearly not been enough.

So, I'm really encouraged to see the package of bills that the legislature has put forward this year focusing both on the accountability side, but also the preventive side, which is where AB 1605 comes into play.

I wanna say a couple of things to refute some of the concerns that you might hear about the bill. First off, California routinely restricts purchase of items, goods, and products from individuals for criminal convictions. Obviously, there's firearms, deadly weapons, and explosives that individuals, you know, across the board for misdemeanors and felonies will be restricted from purchasing. But you can also be prohibited from purchasing controlled substance precursors if you're convicted of drug felonies.

You can be restricted from gaining access to the Internet if you're in possession of child sexually abusive material, and you can even be restricted from owning or possessing animals if you are convicted of misdemeanor or felony animal cruelty. We do these things when it's in a clear benefit of the public when someone has shown that they do not have the responsibility to manage themselves or their interaction with whatever these products are and these dangers responsibly.

And last, I'll say there are burdens placed on the individual, and it's you know, mentioned that you know on your license, it'll say no alcohol sales, and you'll have to go through a DMV process. But there are burdens placed on the families who have lost loved ones.

And you know, from being at the press conferences every single year on this issue and standing next to the moms and the dads and the sisters and the brothers, it breaks my heart, and we have to do everything that we possibly can. This is a complex issue. It's complex in terms of what we'd have to implement, but it is absolutely worth our efforts.

And for that reason, we are in strong support. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam chair. Justin Fanslaul on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. I think the author and Mister Feldman put pretty clearly for those of you that don't sit on public safety or transportation, you haven't seen the 14 plus bills this year that the legislatures introduced on DUI. And bravo to you because this is the first time that's happened. I've been working on ignition interlock for almost eight years now.

Miss Petrie Norris has another bill as you mentioned, in your presentation. And quite frankly, the only thing that can really keep roads safe from people who are habitually driving drunk is putting that device on their car or restricting their ability to buy it. And the people that are in our coalition are those victims that Mister Feldman spoke to. And I've been talking to them every year as we see these bills go down, and they keep coming back and fighting.

So, this is the first time that we have an actual chance, and this is the first time we've been in front of this committee to talk about your ability to pass responsible legislation in the purview of governing alcohol sales. So appreciate your support.

Appreciate you listening, and we appreciate your aye today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses and support? You may come up. State your name and position.

Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support.

Thank you. Any other members in support? Any opposition on this measure? Case

David Martinez with Streets for All. Opposed.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? Hearing none, we'll bring it up to the committee. Any oh, I'm sorry.

Alright. Go ahead.

Apologies. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association. Not in opposition, but we do have some concerns, and we appreciate the author's office, for working with us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Your apologies, Madam chair. Jack Yanos with the Sloat Higgins Jensen on behalf of California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Aligner comments with retailers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. Also in concern and have expressed those, and we'll continue to work with the author on those as well with regard to the ID checking and whether it's passport or a driver's license or whatever the appropriate form of ID is. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in the audience? Okay. Bringing it back up to the committee. Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I applaud all these 14 bills that are trying to address the DUI situation. I just, and I'm supportive of this bill, I believe. Let me just ask a technical procedural question to regarding the driver's license. Does this mean that every single person who needs to show identification, including those people who are not drinking or maybe they get a glass of wine, they would still everybody has to show their identification?

Thank you very much for the question, Assembly Member. It is definitely a cultural shift in regards to you would need to show your identification. Think of it as when you check into a hotel or you rent a car, the expectation is you have your ID ready to show. It's very similar with being able to purchase a glass. I'm 52 years old. People still ask for my ID. So just consider yourself flattered when people ask to see your ID.

I know. I asked somebody that. Don't I'm think I'm 18 or 21? Alright. So that is a cultural shift, a behavioral shift that anytime you go into a bar or restaurant and you want to purchase alcohol, you would be using your driver's license or whatever form of identification is finally resolved. No? Just say well, I just thought they were working on something.

So we accepted the committee's amendments, which would just focus on your driver's license or identification.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Assembly Member Rodriguez.

I just wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I'm happy to be a co-author with you. And as a mother of a law enforcement officer, we need this to happen. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other Members of the Committee? Questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. Assembly Member, you may close.

Madam Chair, again, I wanna thank your committee for, you know, the conversation. I wanna thank everyone who came to speak, and I definitely wanna appreciate the retailers and others. We are continuing to work with them. This bill gives judges a tool that they may use to address the root cause of the problem, which is access to alcohol. We're looking at people who've done this over and over again and endangered our community.

We wanna make sure that we have people being responsible, help them be responsible to keep our roads safe for our kids, for our communities, and for our visitors. And with that, I again wanna thank my witnesses and thank you for your. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I have been in conversations with Assembly Member Ransom, but I will be supporting your bill today with the committee amendments. However, I do want to highlight some policy concerns, as we talked in my office, as this bill moves forward. The bill risks establishing a concerning precedent on future legislation relating to identification card designation.

It could open the door to broader mandates involving required data sharing or the addition of new symbols on driver's licenses. Additionally, this proposal places increased responsibility on individuals who already comply with the laws regarding responsible alcohol sales and consumption rather than more directly addressing those who are irresponsible or repeat offenders.

Lastly, this is my biggest concern. I'm concerned about the amendments that were adopted in Public Safety Committee. It removed the long standing penalties and policies governing unauthorized alcohol sales by individuals who sell, furnish, or provide alcoholic beverages at ABC licensed establishments.

If we are removing penalties already in place, we are watering down the enforcement on alcohol sales that you are currently presenting today. So I would like to strongly suggest that I think that is not correct. Like I said, I will be supporting the bill today, but you're removing penalties to some folks. So it really contradicts the the intent of the bill.

I strongly support efforts to crack down on DUI offenses and the devastating impact they have on innocent individuals and families, which I know the author shares, all of us share, and that's why I'm supporting. But I encourage continued collaboration with the stakeholders to address the outstanding issues. And with that, Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

File item three, AB 1605, Ransom. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. The measure passes with 13 votes, and we'll leave the roll open for additional Members. Thank you. I see Assembly Member Hoover in the audience. Can you please come up? I've seen Mr. Hoover all day today. You may begin, and then your witnesses have two minutes.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2211. Under current law, craft distillers are only permitted to operate one tasting room at the craft distiller's place of production, limiting their ability to reach customers across California.

This bill simply would allow California craft distillers to operate a second tasting room separate from the craft distiller's place of production and manufacture. With California leading the nation with nearly 200 craft distillers, AB 2211 opens new economic opportunities and flexibility to meet the demand of customers. With me today is Ezrah Chaaban on behalf of the California Distillers Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Like to thank the Chair for your continued support of the craft distilling industry, committee staff for their always thorough analysis, and Assembly Member Hoover for his continued leadership and support of this burgeoning California industry. Just like to highlight that the California's craft distillers really need opportunities to sell directly to consumers.

That's where they're able to get their product. They're not in the distribution chain. So getting the bottles directly in the hands of the people that want them is critical. Right now, wine growers and beer manufacturers are allowed to have multiple locations, and that has been very successful. This simply provides parity. Respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Any others in support? Members of the audience in support? Thank you. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Okay. Seeing none. I'll bring it back up to the committee. And I have a motion by Assembly Member Soria and a second by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Any questions from the committee? No? Thank you. Assembly Member, you may close.

Thank you. Just really wanna support this important small business opportunity in our, all of our districts and all of our communities. Appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

File item eight, AB 2211, Hoover. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We have 11 votes. The bill's on call, and we'll wait for adding added Members. Thank you. Well, we don't have any authors. Yeah. We did those already. Yes. We have Assembly Member Solache here.

Wait. Solache. Oh, for Corey Jackson. I was like, wait. Wait. Wait. Thank you. Second. Assembly Member Solache is here on behalf of Assembly Member Jackson. Assembly Member Solache, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I always wanted to be a doctor, so today I get to be Dr. Jackson for the day. Also, if I could take a personal privilege, Madam Chair. Today is our colleague's birthday, Ms. Soria, so I just wanna wish her a happy birthday. Tenth time for the day.

So, with that, good afternoon, Chair and members. On behalf of Assembly member, Doctor Jackson, I'm happy to present AB 1578, which seeks to require local and state elected officials to take Anti-hate Speech Training and incorporating into existing Sexual Harassment Training. While California has made some progress with the hate crimes, overall hate crimes offenses have risen by 8.9% from 2023 to 2024.

Recent findings from the Commission on the State of Hate, show that around 8% of Californians over the age of 12 have experienced hate, and 15% have witnessed hate within one year period of study, and those numbers double for teens in the state. The Commission on the State of Hate also recognized that hate based rhetoric from political leaders has the power to embody other express their con, their prejudices.

Respect is important in fostering a diverse society in the words to help reduce violent attitudes. Elected officials must understand the power that their words have. Training can still instill a sense of responsibility in upholding these principles. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members or any others in support? Please state your name and your position.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Anyone in opposition? Please.

Thank you. You each have two minutes, please.

Your mic.

We strongly oppose AB 1578. You cannot regulate what you cannot define. The bill mandates Anti- Hate Speech Training for public officials but hate speech has no clear legal definition in California law. The ambiguity isn't a minor drafting problem. It's the whole problem.

I'm sure there are things said by elected officials that 99 of us would agree are hateful. But when the government defines hate without limits, it doesn't stop at genuine hatred. It targets speech it simply disagrees with. We see this happen right here in the capital. Sincerely held religious beliefs get labeled as hate.

Organizations like ours get labeled as hate groups or slandered as white Christian nationalists by legislators like this bill's author. Mandating training designed by outside advocacy groups with no legislative guardrails will only deepen that problem. Assembly member Jackson, in the previous hearing, he declined to explain what he considered hate speech. So here's my plain questions about this bill. Is it hate speech to say a child cannot be born in the wrong body?

That girl sports should be reserved for those with female bodies. That schools shouldn't change a child's name without parental permission. What about a person who won't use someone's preferred pronouns, not out of hatred, but out of a sincere religious conviction that it's wrong to affirm something they believe to be untrue. Every member of this committee should be asking these same questions before voting on this bill.

If you can't define what speech is, in this training, you're handing a blank check to outside advocacy organizations to decide for you, define the term or withdraw the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. You may begin.

Hello. My name is Sonia Shaw. I'm the President of Chino Valley Unified School Board, and I strongly oppose AB 1578. I know what it looks like when the powerful try to silence people they disagree with. I have been sued by the Attorney General, the Governor, and the State Superintendent for supporting parental notification.

I have been smeared by the Governor. I have received death threats at my own home, all because I believe parents have a right to know what is happening with their own children. Now Sacramento wants every elected official to sit through mandatory Anti-Hate Speech Training. Every school board member, every City Council member, every County Supervisor. Here's the problem.

The bill never defines what hate speech is, not once. So who decides? Look no further than the bill's own author. When Attorney General Bonta sued my district, Assembly member Jackson went on social media and declared our parental notification policy had nothing to do with parent's rights and everything to do with Christian nationalism movement attacking minority groups. That's how he describes parents who simply want to know what is happening with their own child.

He now wants to write the Hate Speech Training. He already told you what he thinks hate speech is. It is his belief of my constituents. It is it is, the beliefs of my constituents. It is my beliefs.

It is the beliefs of millions of California families, of parents. Mandatory training without a definition is not education, it's pressure. Will there be a test? Will officials be graded on whether they have sufficiently renounced the wrong opinions? The people of my district elected me knowing exactly where I stand, if voters disagree with me, they can remove me from the ballot box.

Our disagreements belong in open debate and elections, not in government indoctrination sessions run by the very people who already called us Christian Nationalists.

Ten seconds.

I strongly ask you to oppose AB 1578 and stop the division. Parents' love for their child is not hate.

Thank you. Any other members in the audience in opposition, please come up, state your name and position.

Matthew Ward, Galt Elementary School Board Trustee, and I strongly oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Lisa Disbrow, former CTA representative, retired teacher, Moms for Liberty of Contra Costa County, informed parents of Contra Costa County in strong opposition. Thank you.

David Bullock representing SFV Alliance as in serving family values and the LA County chapter of Moms for Liberty in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else? Bringing you back up to the committee. Any comments or questions from the committee members?

Assemblymember Rodriguez?

I know you're not Mister Jackson, but or Doctor Jackson, I should say. But I know the author will continue to make this a better bill. This is this committee that we're voting on today. This is not the actual vote on the floor.

I will be supporting this today, but I look forward to working with you for some of the concerns that are brought up by people from my district. Thank you.

And if I may address Miss Rodriguez's point on behalf of Mister Jackson, he actually does have that on his notes to ensure that he does reiterate that he plans to work with the members of support and a position to work in those amendments. And one of the things he is very committed doing is as these trainings are gonna move forward that it's very specific what type of hate speech is gonna be addressed. So, he does address that in his talking points.

Thank you. Assembly member Davies.

Thank you. I have a large concern about not having the definition of what hate is. And I know you just spoke in saying that he'll be doing this, but it sounds like after the bill has been passed, he'll go ahead and define what hate is. And that's kind of like, you know, pass the bill, then you'll find out what it does. And I just can't do this.

It is just it is taking our first amendments away. And as politicians, we've been called a lot of things. And it is what we do. And not everybody agrees with what we do. But to tell somebody that, you know and then what what's the punishment going to be?

Because Nixon's gonna have to be punishment. I just we are going way past the point of our First Amendment right here. And again, everybody has different experiences and they react differently. But that's the way it is. And to be an adult, you know that they have the right to do that.

And again, workplaces, certain things, there are HRs. I just feel that we are just we're treading very hard on our first to right amendments.

If I may, if I may through the chair.

Again, again, there is notes here from Mister Jackson that it does not restrict, you know, hate speech does not restrict the First amendment. So that's a protected issue in this bill. And to just furthermore on the specifically on the amendments, it'll be amendments before it gets to the final floor votes on both assembly and the Senate. So, there'll be amendments done before it becomes officially a proposed law.

And those amendments will be, clarifying exactly what is considered hate speech?

Correct. There'll be a definition to Anti-speech in the next round of amendments and to specify what types of items would be part of the hate speech.

Okay. Thank you.

Per the authors' words.

Thank you. Assembly member Dixon.

Thank you, Madam chair. Just to follow-up on that prior discussion, I don't know how any amendment or clarification can restrict speech and not violate the first amendment. Hate speech, we all know, is sounds terrible to a lot of people's ears and is offensive, but it's protected under the US Constitution. So, I think that this is going too far.

And in fact, I'm just looking in the notes here that there is already current law to take effect in a couple of years relating to hate speech in the training of public employees.

So, I wonder if this bill is even necessary. I will be voting no just because it's a infringement on the freedom of speech. We may not like it or he may not like it or whatever, but that's the constitution. That's the freedom of speech that we have in our country. So, thank you for carrying on his behalf, on the author's behalf.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Macedo.

Since it sounds like these conversations have already happened, and I guess this may be a better question for Doctor Jackson, what specifically is he hoping to target or accomplish with this bill?

And I think that's definitely a question that will be remain as he continues to move the bill forward that those are amendments that he's gonna entertain, oh, both from supporters and opposition. But what better way than to get the real Doctor Jackson in the house?

He is here. So, I think he will be he will reiterate his commitment to addressing additional amendments to identify what hate speech are. But, again, what better way than the real Doctor Josh? I was just the almost Doctor but not doctor yet.

Did I didn't

Welcome, doctor.

Reiterate my question, Doctor. So, Mister Solace, before you got here, said that you were planning on amending this bill to clarify what hate speech is or what you're hoping to target. So, what is it exactly you're hoping to target?

No. Absolutely. But the permission of the chair. This bill is one of three bills that are dealing with hate speech. And we are going to be amending the bill probably on the floor with the official definition as defined by the Commission on Hate.

And the idea is this, is that the Commission of the Commission on Hate has identified data that suggest that when a group is being targeted, not just by disagreeing with issues or anything like that, but calling out for people to be attacked for people's worship to be disrupted, for dehumanizing language that is causing people to then go out and harm other people. Research shows that depending on who is saying it, depends on the likelihood whether people will act based upon that speech.

And elected officials are in the top two. And what we need to make sure that we all know is that our words do matter, and how we talk about a group of people do matter, and yes, we should be held responsible for what we do in our public statements. Because sometimes, people will say, well, I didn't tell them to go and harm those people.

But guess what? You did put a bull's eye on them though. Right? And not by I'm not talking about a specific individual, by the way. I'm talking about a class of people.

Right? And there's many examples of how that has happened, and there's a direct correlation between what is said about a group of people and the rate in which hate crimes have increased in California. And so we just need to make sure that public elected officials, both state and local, are aware of that so that we can be careful about what we say about people. And this this is not about disagreements on particular issues, by the way. There's difference between political speech and hate speech.

And the Department of Justice has determined what cat is categorized as hate speech or even hate crimes. And so if you are targeting people based upon a part a political class, that is goes into the category of hate.

So I'm glad you mentioned that because there was an instance last year that really stuck with me, and it was actually during a very contentious committee hearing

Yeah.

That one of our colleagues compared the words of people that believe boys did not belong in girls sports to that of Nazi Germany. And basically, making would that fall under this?

If without knowing the particular saying but if you're saying that all they said was that

They were comparing I can give you further clarification.

That trans individuals do not belong in girls' sports, is that categorized as hate speech? That does not fall into that category.

Not the statement by the so the author of the bill and the intent of the bill was to honor title nine and that boys were not allowed in girls' sports, trans athletes, and things like that. One of the members of the committee then responded to that making comparisons to basically as making an assumption that this was Nazi kind of behavior. Would that fall under this?

And that's where... I'm not... This isn't a gotcha.

I mean, I tend to, without hearing it myself, I will tend to say there's a high bar to say it's hate speech. Right? It's a high bar, meaning that are they saying that a particular group should not be... It's hard to say. I mean, but so I can't I can't really answer you specifically your question because I wanna answer it honestly. You know me. I'll try to... I'll try to... Yeah. Yeah.

I'll share the clip with you and we can have a conversation another time. But in general, that's where I think the point of this is is I think there's a lot of work to be done on what specifically we want to target with this before we move too far forward.

May I? May I? Because we vetted the bill and the intent is to continue working. So I have an example for all of us as elected officials and staff. We have sexual harassment training. We also have workplace violence training. Both of those trainings include specific examples of language that is used that is considered sexual harassment and workplace violence training, not necessarily just actions.

So touching somebody, for example, is sexual harassment, but saying inappropriate things is also sexual harassment. So what I understood from our conversation is that those will be specifically identified and designated as hate speech based on the the commission's recommendation.

So it's not like you're going to sit there and make up, okay, well, this word, that word. So they will have been vetted just like sexual harassment in our sexual harassment training and our workplace violence training. That is the same examples that you will provide in this particular case.

Exactly. And if you read our annual department of California Department of Justice hate crimes report, you will also see that it wasn't just violent actions. It was said to it were things that were said to an individual in a workplace. And there, there's a whole category of situations that it fits under. Right?

And so this whole training part is is just to make sure that we're aware and to make sure that we understand that our words really do mean, do matter. And it is not meant to say just because I disagree with you, now we're going to use this as a weapon. That's not, that's not what we're trying to do.

But there is no doubt that, and the data is clear. If we are talking about a class of people based upon their protected class and we are using dehumanizing words and we are starting to classify them as the other or as the enemy in our society, it will have impacts on people's lives.

And we have to be, we just need to be cognizant of that, and we need to be held responsible for that, for our actions. And not just say, well, I didn't tell nobody to do this. But it create, it creates a ripple effect that we just need to be cognizant of.

Well, I'm glad you pointed me. So I will look at their website because I'd love they have reports and things like that.

Oh, absolutely.

There's lots of data out there. And If we're going to do something like this, I think we need to look at the data. So I don't like when we wait until the floor because I think, you know, there's a lot of chaos that goes on on the floor. That I would plead with the author, like, just take a pause, and let's figure this out, and we'll work, I'll work on it with you.

I just think it's premature to just have this very broad bill when this is very specific, and we've gotta get it right when it comes to making sure that this is not just for us. This is a larger scale of elected officials. I won't be able to support today, but I look forward to showing you that clip and getting your opinion on it. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Looking forward to it.

Okay. Assembly Member Gallagher.

Yeah. So one question I had on the, and I was trying to look at the bill. It's how are you defining hate speech and anti hate speech training?

Yes. We are, we have obtained that official, we're waiting to get that official definition from the Commission on Hate. And then once we do that, we do intend on putting that in the bill to make it clear to everyone.

If I may, if I may. On page three, there's a whole section on the Commission on the State of Hate and what they have been working on. So look, Mr. Gallagher, the analysis is where the information is.

Yeah. And so, I mean, I think that's problematic because we don't really have, like, a defined definition here, and then we're waiting on a commission to sort of tell us what hate is. I think, you know, there's probably a lot of things we could agree on that are hateful, you know.

But, you know, I think probably where you're seeing a lot of the, you know, the problem here is, like, if this is a difference of opinion about, say, gender ideology or, you know, difference of of viewpoint, you know, on you know, based on someone's religion or someone's faith.

You know, or is that going to get classified as, you know, as hate? And I don't know. You know, and certainly, there are first amendment protections for, you know, people to practice, you know, what they believe and to be able to, you know, exercise their speech rights.

Correct. Yep.

And so I think that's where this thing gets pretty fuzzy. Right? So how do you, how do you, how are you going to navigate that?

If you if you look at the Department of Justice's annual hate crimes report, they...

Is this state or federal?

State. The state department that comes out with this annual hate crimes report. I think the next one comes out June or July, I believe, of this year. That they to label something as a hate crime is a very specific legal category, which is why we are making sure that that specific legal category under California law will be put in the bill so that it does not unintentionally apply to all sorts of things based upon whether you agree with what someone says or not.

That is not the intent. What we are intending to do though is make sure that elected officials are aware that we have to be more careful about what we say and how we describe people and how we label people because, yes, that could end in the death of Californians or certainly harm.

Yeah. But don't we have to be careful when we tell people what they should say and can't say? I mean, that's we've gone down that road before and it hasn't...

Well, our laws already do and because there is a category of hate crimes that is based upon speech.

Those are like if you commit a crime on someone. Right? I mean but we're talking about speech. Right? Like, if you if you assault someone, right, and it's racially motivated, for example, right, that's one thing. But, you know, if you say something, that's usually not criminal. Right? Or I don't...

There are penalties based upon what what you say and how you if you're especially if you're what you say ends up into being more in of a harassing behavior. There's certain things you can't say to people in the work in the workplace. And depending on the words that you use can be classified as hate.

Certainly, if that constitutes sexual harassment under the law. Right? That is that's...

And there's a category of hate.

There's a civil component, but I'm talking, we're just talking about what, I mean, let's...

But I understand what you're saying in terms of...

Let's just give a real word example. Like, an elected official says, hey. I believe...

Yeah. No. No. No. I think, Mr. Gallagher, I think what we're getting into the weeds of this, and I think the Assembly Member expressed that this is going to be defined later based on the recommendation from the Committee on Hate. I don't wanna stop the conversations, but we're getting into specifics.

And he expressed that there is no specifics at the moment, that they're going to look at the report, if I'm not mistaken. If you're looking for words right now, I don't think it's appropriate at the moment. I think that he has committed to working with the opposition on work on getting it done.

If it is not done by then, then on the Assembly floor, then it can be voted down. I think right now, if you don't trust that he's gonna take care of it, then it would be appropriate, you're going to vote appropriately. But I think and that he will work with the opposition, and I personally will hold him accountable to that because I...

Oh, I know you will.

Well, I mean, like, let me just, let me just, like, put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say, let's say this bill said that the Commission on Religious Liberty that was commissioned by the president, right, was going to make this determination on a definition. I don't think this committee would be okay with that.

Well, then the committee would vote it down. The committee would vote it down.

I don't think you would be okay. If we were saying, hey. We don't really know what the definition is now, but this commission, you know, is gonna determine it and send it to us, and you should vote on this bill now. You know, if it was that commission making that determination, I'm imagining you probably wouldn't be wanting me to support that today. Right? There is a commission right now, commission on religious liberty. It's...

If I, if I may interject, that is correct. But that's why it's in committee, and you are free to vote depending on that. So I would also question that and not vote on it if it wasn't a sufficient answer for me.

And a part and a part of just, Assembly Member, is this at first, I did not originally put the formal legal definition, but there is one by California law. There is there is a definition that this legislature has determined, right, to be hate speech. It is a law. And when I originally put...

I'm not familiar with that law.

Yeah. I can, I'll send it to you. It's not a, it's not a problem. But the idea was that so when I said hate speech, I had originally just assumed that it would already take up the definition of what the state of California has already done. But through multiple feedback, we have now determined, yes.

It will be a that we'll put it in there just to make sure everyone is clear on what we mean by that. And the department and the ones that are give that those that are gonna give us that description is the Commission on Hate for the formal definition.

Just to get, like I mean, let's be a real simple real world example. Elected official says, hey, I don't think that boys should be in girls' locker rooms.

That's an... Yeah. That's an opinion.

Is that going to be hate speech?

That wouldn't classify as hate speech.

Well, and that's why I would like to have some definition so I know, like, what I'm voting on. Right? Well, no. I mean, if I wanna hear what you think hate speech, hate speech, hate speech actually is. Right? Because I think it's oftentimes used as a, you know... Well, I mean...

Well, let me give you an example. In my area, which is, in my area, in the in my district, there's a gentleman that consistently goes to every council meeting, whether it's his council or not, and starts saying derogatory terms to the council members.

The word that Assembly Member McKinnor just used, he uses it on the particular council members. So that is offensive speech, and he has been removed from the council chambers because of it. Now he is not an elected official.

Yes. He wouldn't be getting the training now, would he, in this bill?

But he gets kicked out of the, of the chambers. He's removed from the chambers, and he claims that it's free speech. So but elected officials are in the dais. They are not going to be kicked out because they are sitting there. Right? Rightfully so, they are elected. They cannot be kicked out for using derogatory language. So I want to bring us back to, we're getting in the weeds.

This bill is about training for elected officials.

Training for elected officials.

So you know what that circumstance has to do with what we're talking about here today.

Well, I think at the end of the day, Madam Chair, is this. The Commission on Hate has reported that there's a direct correlation between the speech of elected officials and the rise of hate crimes, and we need to do, and they recommend that we do something about that. And one of their recommendations is training. Okay. And this is all the bill is should do.

Okay. I'll just end on this. No more questions. I just I hear the...

We're calling for the question because we're trying to debate the issue.

Yeah. This is a committee hearing. That's where we debate issues.

We're trying to... It's a gotcha

There's no gotcha.

It absolutely is. So I'm calling for the question. Thank you.

If I can. Thank you. Alright. My my biggest concern right now is that you, as you said, you're waiting to get the language, and most likely it would probably be an amendment on the floor. And I think you could probably ask any Californian if that's enough time.

Because I put myself and I like to look at bills and make sure that I get both sides. I listen to my, sometimes I put out polling or surveys to get a feel for what my district wants because I, you know, I represent that district. It may not always be where I stand, but it's my district.

So to know that this is probably going to be given, that information could be given us to us right there on the floor and we're supposed to make a decision, which is a very important decision when you're talking about what you're doing.

I would hope that you would, basically honor your Members here and give us the information so we can actually know what we're voting on and we can reach out to our constituents. We want transparency, not at the last minute where we have to place a vote not knowing really where we're going on this. Do you understand?

I totally understand. And this is I'm not trying to, you know, first, I want you to know I hear you. And I wanna respect what you have indicated that you wanna make sure that... But you also know that even when I do an amendment, we're not gonna vote on it in that exact same day either. And so there will be time to review it. And I am even willing to give you the language before I even do the amendment. Right? This is not a, this is for me, this is not a gotcha thing.

Well, let me, let me just also clarify. We do have the 72 hour rule where an amendment is placed and we have 72 hours before we can put an item on the floor to be voted on. So we will at least have 72 hours with your amendment.

No. Absolutely. Yeah.

With that, I think Assembly Member Alvarez called for the question. I have a motion by Assembly Pacheco, Assemblywoman Pacheco. I need a second. By Assembly Member Alvarez. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

File item one, AB 1578, Jackson. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The measure has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Thank you. Assembly Member Caloza, thank you for patiently waiting.

Good afternoon. Thank you, chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present AB 2717. And thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all your hard work on this bill. I'm also happy to accept the committee amendments to ensure consistency with recent legislative action taken by the committee on related bills. California is home to some of the most iconic sports and entertainment venues in the world.

We have Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, the Coliseum in Alameda, and, of course, the Dodgers Stadium in my district, in Assembly District 52, just to name a few. Despite its acclaim, many of these facilities need updating. AB 2717 extends an existing sunset date to 01/01/2032, ensuring that professional sports arenas that hold 1,500, 15,000 seats or more are able to keep seeking local approval for off-site advertising displays connected to their operations.

This extension secures stability as they work to improve the fan experience, increase revenue, and attract visitors. With California set to host major global events like the 2028 summer summer Olympics and the World Cup, our stadiums and arenas need every tool and resource to be equipped to meet the moment.

Beyond economic benefits, these displays can serve the public good by supporting voting centers, community events, and delivering critical information, such as Amber alerts and emergency notification. AB 2717 ensures our venues remain both economically viable and responsive to the needs of the communities they are meant to serve. More importantly, AB 2717 reinforces the role of state and local governments in maintaining accountability.

It ensures that decisions about outdoor advertising are made transparently with proper consideration for the impacts it makes on neighborhoods, drivers, and the environment. With that said, here with me today, representing the Dodgers is Andrew Govenar.

I have a motion by Assemblymember, Soria, second by, Assemblymember Pacheco.

Oh, I'm sorry, Solache.

Okay.

Sorry. Okay.

Pablo.

Oh, Andrew Govenar on behalf of Los Angeles Dodgers asking for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Members of the audience in support, please state your name and position if K. Anybody in opposition, you better not come up. No. I'm just kidding. I'm sorry. Mister Cruz. Sorry about that.

With that warning, you think I know better. But, Steve Cruz on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, and I'm actually here to express our neutrality on the bill based upon the amendments from the committee.

So, you are smart.

I am. I figured it out after a while. But I wanna thank the author, and the committee and Mr. Johnson who stepped out for those amendments. And they are important. I'll just say the association represents about 90% of the, billboards along state highways. And, it is important, you know, that those boards have to comply with federal law, so we appreciate and there are consequences to that, so we appreciate you taking those amendments.

And they've been placed in other bills, so appreciate it and wanna make sure and be on the record that we are now neutral on the bill. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition from the audience? K.C. Nunn, any comments, questions from committee members? Assemblymember Gallagher.

I just wanna know if this applies to the San Francisco Giants as well. Are they part of this bill?

They're they don't have a position. I represent the San Francisco Giants. On behalf of the Giants, they don't have a position on the bill, but

Wait, you represent both the Giants and the Dodgers?

And the Padres and the Angels and the A's. So there you go. No. They do not have a position on the bill. They were already able to utilize the previous exemption, before.

K. Thank you. Any other comments from committee members? I have a motion from Assemblymember Soria, second by Assemblymember Solache. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll? Oh, I'm sorry. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

File item 12, AB 2717, Colosa. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

K. That bill has 12 votes. It is out. But we'll leave the roll open for others to add on. Thank you. Assemblymember Alvarez, thank you for your patience as well.

Thank you, madam chair. I'll begin with AB 2751. This is thanks to to the staff as well and accepting the amendments today. AB 2751 establishes parity for travelers entering the California from entering California from outside The United States, in this case, obviously, Mexico, through our ports of entry at the land ports of entry by limiting the alcoholic beverage to six liters every thirty one days regardless of whether the adult arrives by air, sea, or land.

This bill makes a simple but important fix to state law regarding how much, an adult can bring across the border for personal use.

This bill was a result and is a priority of the, select committee California Mexico affairs, a result of some of our visits to our partners. So I appreciate the work done by the committee, and, I can answer any questions, but it's a pretty, simple and straightforward proposal. Respectfully ask for aye vote. We do not have any witnesses in support or testimony in support. The

Bill was moved by Assemblymember Davies, Assemblymember McKinner second. Is there any members of the audience in support? Anyone in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, any questions or comments from the committee?

K. Seeing none, I have a motion by Assemblymember Davis, a second by Assemblymember McKener. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

K. That bill has 11 votes. We it's on call. We'll leave the roll open for added members. Assemblymember Alvarez, your next item, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I now want to present Assembly Bill 2770. I'd ask our witnesses to please come forward for their testimony. Thank you for the staff work and the amendments that we are incorporating to the bill. Assembly Bill 2770 is a legislative measure that mandates the transfer of approximately 3.68 acres of land within the San Pasqual Battlefield State Park, from the state to the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians at no cost.

This initiative aligns with California's ongoing efforts to address historical injustices faced by Native American tribes and aims to ensure that the land is developed as a public space that honors and celebrates the tribe's history, tradition, and culture. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians is a federally recognized tribe deeply rooted in the Kumeyaay Nation whose traditional land spans across all of San Diego County and into the border with Mexico, across the entirety of the district that I represent.

This land is not merely an unused parcel. It encompasses a tribal cemetery, underscoring the profound, sacred, and cultural significance to the San Pasqual people. Returning this land to the tribe is about empowering the original stewards of this valley.

The tribe plans to reopen a public park on the site, investing in its upkeep and creating a space that will honor its heritage, tell its true history, and share this cultural treasure and value with all of California and visitors. Now I'd like to turn it over to Robert Phelps with the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians to tell you more about the proposal, and then we'll hear from legal counsel Ryan Kroll.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Robert Phelps. I'm a member of the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, and I'm a retired history professor from the California State University. Our tribal homeland is located along the Santa Ysabel Creek in the fertile valley near present day San Diego.

Our people had friendly relations with the United States when federal authorities first entered the region and, in fact, actively assisted the United States Army during the Battle of San Pasqual, the largest battle in California during the US Mexican War.

When authorities from the US Army investigated our village some years later, our tribal elders presented American officers with papers received from the Mexican government in 1835. Those papers granted the entire valley along the Santa Ysabel to the people of San Pasqual, making us the only tribe to possess such a grant in California. This fact was communicated to US authorities in Washington. As a result of this discovery, President Grant signed an order creating San Pasqual's first reservation in 1870.

Unfortunately, the reservation was rescinded a year later in response to the protest of white settlers.

San Diego County sheriffs cleared the valley of tribal members, setting fire to their tule homes. American ranchers quickly moved in. The San Pasqual people would have to wait until 1910 for another reservation. But because of a surveying error by government officials, our traditional homeland was inaccurately located on barren land to the north. There is evidence that this error was a result of bribes by valley residents.

The opportunity for the return of just a few acres of our traditional homeland is extremely important to the people of San Pasqual. It will link us once again to our historic lands and to the burial grounds of our tribal ancestors. It will at least partially undo the injustices and broken promises of the past. We ask not for the return of the entire valley, but for a few acres to reconnect us with our history and our home.

Ten seconds.

This is a matter of great importance to the San Pasqual people, and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. You also have two minutes.

Thank you. It's an honor to be back in front of this committee again. We were here last year and received an aye vote and would appreciate the same result today. I just want to echo what Robert stated about the importance of this.

One of the great privileges of the last twenty years of me practicing law has been working on this matter. Specifically, to be able to speak to so many tribal members and hear in their own words just what the return of a couple of acres of their ancestral lands would mean to them has just been moving to me.

It's something that very stoic elders become very emotional about. The possibility of having the wrongs that happened to their relatives righted just means a lot. And this bill doesn't just benefit the tribe. I think it's one of those unique situations where everyone wins. This is currently a closed state park, has been closed for years.

It has a dilapidated building that would cost a significant amount to repair. And not surprisingly, there are no plans in the pipeline to repair that. So this state park will remain closed for some time. The other benefit to everyone else is that the tribe intends to operate this, just as they said, as a tribal park that celebrates their history and culture.