Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the Assembly standing Committee on Public Safety. I'd like to begin with a few housekeeping items this morning. As a reminder, there are some general rules of conduct. Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed today with witness and public comment throughout the entirety of the hearing, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing.

Specifically, I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules may and likely will subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. With all that said, I know you all don't need to do that because you're all gonna be polite and wonderful. Second, speaker Robert Rivas has appointed assembly member Greg Hart to replace assembly member Mark Gonzalez for purposes of today's hearing. We will welcome mister Hart when he arrives.

Third, we have the off calendar items for today. I'll read these aloud. These items are off calendar, meaning they will not be heard. We have item number nine, SB1004 by Senator Scott Wiener that's been pulled by the author. We have item 11, SB1208 by Senator Grayson, pulled by the author.

We have item 13, SB 1338 by Senator Jones, pulled by the author. And lastly, we have item 14, SB 1401 by Senator Stern, pulled by the author. Once we have enough members present, we will establish a quorum. We will wait to dispense with our consent calendar, and so we will go first to the presentation items. As a reminder, today's hearings are heard in sign and order.

With standing committee members presenting their bill towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience. And as a reminder, the authors will have five minutes to present as will their main witnesses, and then, same with opposition witnesses. They will have combined total time of five minutes per side as that is the committee's standing practice. My understanding is that first up this morning, we will be hearing from Senator Becker to present SB 498. And, Senator, whenever you're ready, you can begin.

And, Senator, whenever you're ready, you can begin.

Thank you, mister chair, members. Please present SB 498, the Keep Families Connected Act two point o. Historically, familial financial burdens barred incarcerated people from remaining connected with their support systems and accessing rehabilitative services. In 2022, this body passed my bill, SB 1008, which was keep families connected act one point o, and that was signed into law making phone calls free in CDCR facilities. And since implementation excuse me.

Prison phone call minutes have increased from 500,000,000 a year to 1,500,000,000 minutes a year. While SB 1008 removed the financial burden of traditional phone calls, families continue to face high per message rates for electronic messaging. SB 498 builds in our framework by making electronic messaging free and also ends the practice of limiting voice conversations to fifteen minutes. Communication is essential to fostering rehabilitation and ensuring a safe and successful entry. And I remind everyone that electronic communication is monitored.

I've personally heard countless stories of people being able to reconnect with their loved ones after years, sometimes decades when they no longer had to choose between paying bills or speaking, to their loved ones. Also getting rid of the 10 digit code that anytime you receive a call, just the the friction in the system as well. By providing uninterrupted cost free phone and digital messaging, we stop punishing families and prioritize what matters. Housing and employment planning, normalization, lower recidivism rates.

Here with me today, I have Katie Bethany on behalf of the Change Parallel Project.

Thank you for having us today. My name is Katie Bethany. I'm with the Change Parallel Project. I'm here in support of SB 498, a bill that is truly a lifeline to my family. My husband has been incarcerated for over twelve years.

And throughout that time, connection has been essential to keeping our family bond strong. We're blessed to have two beautiful children. I do my best to create a loving relationship with him through short phone calls and expensive messages. Our three year old

Our three year old

knows the GTL app or as he calls it, his blue daddy app. Seeing his face light up when his father messages and calls reminds me why this bill truly matters. Our daughter, an honor roll student and first year flute player, once told her father what time a recital will begin so he could call and listen. He heard part of the performance, but the fifteen minute call ended before her solo.

I was left to spend money once again to try to capture a special moment through her tears.

As a family, we spend between 50 to $100 a month on messages and video chats alone. That's not including money for food. Because funds placed on his account are also subject to steep restitution fines. Staying connected creates a significant financial strain. Making messages free will ease a financial burden and strengthen our family relationship.

I am the sole provider for my children, my mother, and my great grandmother who will be 100 this year. She often speaks with my husband when she can. Without the bill passing, he will have to continue to choose between messaging his children, his wife, his aunt Carmen, or his elderly loved ones. My husband is aware of the financial burden and the mess that the message cost. So he tries to help by not reaching out as much, which truly takes a toll on our family.

I ask you to reflect on this. Can you truly put a price on finding connect family connection? And more importantly, you need to put a price on hearing the words, I love you. Thank you.

Senator, thank you very much for the presentation. And, ma'am, thank you very much for being here today in the state's capital. And the answer, I think, is no. You can't put a price on that for what it's worth. One assembly member's perspective.

Okay.

Next, we'll hear the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come down. Please confine your comment, your name, your organization, and the position that you're taking, please.

Liz Blum gutierrez on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Simelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

George Parampathu with you on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Maya Howard on behalf of San Quentin's Skunk Works in proud support. Thank you.

Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong support. Thank you.

Nedrick Miller, all of us in North Sacramento, strong support.

Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition today? K. Anyone else wanting to register a position on the bill?

Mister Sampson is just getting up but doesn't wanna register a position. Okay. Moving it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Anyone?

You wanna go mister Vice Chair? Okay. Okay. Alright. He's not gonna ask his question now.

Very good. Doctor Sharp Collins, anything? Alright. Senator Becker, you can close whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you. I wanna thank Katie for her testimony. And while that's one story, you know, again, I hear countless stories, you know, over the last few years working on these issues, very similar to that. So I thank her for her testimony. I appreciate you, hearing that bill.

I appreciate my colleague for letting me, go, go first and, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator Becker. As I mentioned at the beginning, we're proceeding as a subcommittee, so we'll wait to establish a quorum to make the motion. But it has my strong eye recommendation, and should it pass out of committee, would love to come on as a coauthor if you'd have me.

Fantastic.

Alright. Alright. Okay. More importantly, doctor Sharp Collins would like to be a coauthor. So you got two right there.

Last call for anyone else? Okay. There we go. Thank you all very much. Okay. Good

Good

have a good rescue day, everybody. Senator Niiello, you are up, and you'll be presenting to us SB 953. Is that correct? Alright. 953.

Take your time. Your time doesn't start till any of you start to speak. And, Senator, the floor is yours whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Schultz and members, for the opportunity to present SB 953. This addresses a serious gap in California law. When a driver causes a death through vehicular manslaughter and then receives misdemeanor diversion, the offense is not reported to the DMV and that conduct then will have no reflection on their driving record. This bill assures that even after diversion, the underlying conduct remains recognized for what it is: a major driving risk.

Under current laws, a speeding ticket can have a greater reflection on a driver's record than killing someone with your car. A dismissal after diversion does not change the fact that a fatality occurred and other people are still at increased risk. By not sharing this information with the DMV, the DMV cannot do its job of determining who poses a risk and who does not.

A dismissal after diversion does not change the fact that a fatality occurred and other people are still at increased risk. By not sharing this information with the DMV, the DMV cannot do its job of determining who poses a risk and who does not. The CalMatters, license to kill series documented systemic failures in California's driver accountability system and found that dangerous drivers repeatedly avoided consequences and oversight. DMV records often failed to reflect serious risk patterns, and many individuals involved in fatal crashes remained legally on the road.

The CalMatters License to Kill series documented systemic failures in California's driver accountability system and found that dangerous drivers repeatedly avoided consequences and oversight. DMV records often failed to reflect serious risk patterns, and many individuals involved in fatal crashes remained legally on the road.

SB 953 directly responds to this failure by ensuring fatal contact is a conduct captured in the DMV point system, preventing the public risk from being hidden behind diversion outcomes. The bill does not impact one's criminal penalties. It just applies two points to the driving record in misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter cases. The judges still retain full discretion to grant diversion.

The bill does not impact one's criminal penalties. It just applies two points to the driving record in misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter cases. The judges still retain full discretion to grant diversion. It has long been the case that vehicular manslaughter offenses result in the addition of two points of a driving record. Otherwise, this bill does not create anything new.

It has long been the case that vehicular manslaughter offenses result in the addition of two points of a driving record. Otherwise, this bill does not create anything new. The DMV point system is designed to identify high-risk drivers. Without points, these drivers now remain invisible to the system, even after a fatal incident.

The DMD point system is designed to identify high risk drivers. Without points, these drivers now remain invisible to the system even after a fatal incident. Families of victims, two of whom you will hear from in a moment, expect that the system will acknowledge the seriousness of the loss and take steps to prevent reoccurrence. To dismiss one's driving record dismisses the value of the lost life. SB 953 affirms that a loss of life carries lasting weight.

Families of victims, two of whom you will hear from in a moment, expect that the system will acknowledge the seriousness of the loss and take steps to prevent reoccurrence. To dismiss one's driving record dismisses the value of the lost life. SB 953 affirms that a loss of life carries lasting weight.

A death on our roads should never disappear from our records. Here with me today is Allison Lyman, mother of Connor Lyman, who tragically lost his life on our roadways, and Kelly Lancellotti, the mother of Giada Lancellotti, who also lost her life due to a negligent driver. First, Ms. Lyman.

Thank you, Senator. My name is Allison Lyman. Sorry. I'm here on behalf of my beautiful 23-year-old son, Connor. Thank you. I'm here to give Connor a voice. I'm here to ask you to save lives. Connor was killed by a reckless and negligent driver on April 23rd, 2025 in Elk Grove. Connor was the oldest. He was my only son.

I'm here to give Connor a voice. I'm here to ask you to save lives. Connor was killed by a reckless and negligent driver on 04/23/2025 in Elk Grove. Connor was the oldest. He was my only son.

He was a devoted big brother, a classically trained pianist, and he was gifted. Connor was attending Sacramento City College while teaching piano. Connor was innocent. Wednesday, April 23rd was his day off from work, so he went to the gym.

He was killed at 3:49 in the afternoon driving home after his workout. I cannot begin to explain the senselessness of Connor's death. It was a 100% preventable. He should be here in front of you today. When I buried my child, the funeral home covered only his hands that had played piano for nearly his entire life.

They had been crushed. The violence of his death is something I will carry forever. I saw my son in the hospital. No parent should ever have to experience that trauma or live with those memories. Under California law, my son's death is a misdemeanor.

Because his killing is classified as low-level and nonviolent, the driver charged with taking his life is eligible for a diversion program, allowing them to avoid a conviction simply by completing coursework or community service. I will never forget the day I sat across from the district attorney and learned that Connor's life does not matter in California and that the person responsible for shattering our family would likely have no record of their crime.

A driver who's already proven dangerous is allowed to continue driving without consequence. This system fails families who have lost loved ones, and it endangers every Californian each time these individuals get behind the wheel. SB 953 is a necessary common-sense reform.

By adding two DMV points when a misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter case is dismissed through diversion, the state will finally have a mechanism to track repeat dangerous drivers. That's the heart of this bill: a way to track drivers, reckless drivers, that have taken a life on our roads. It takes four points to suspend a license. SB 953 does not overreach.

The state will finally have a mechanism to track repeat dangerous drivers. That's the heart of this bill. A way to track drivers, reckless drivers that have taken a life on our roads. It takes four points to suspend a license. SB 953 does not overreach.

It simply ensures that a fatality is not erased. I'm asking you to support 953. It is a measured, reasonable step towards accountability and towards protecting the public from drivers who have already taken an innocent life. Please support and vote yes on SB 953.

Thank you. I'll just note that you have about two minutes remaining for your testimony, ma'am.

Hi. My name is Kelly Lancellotti, and I'm from South Lake Tahoe. On June 7th, 2025, we lost our youngest daughter, Giada, after she died from injuries she sustained after being struck at 53 miles an hour in a crosswalk, riding her bike to meet friends at a kid's fishing derby. Our lives and those of her two sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandmother, friends, teachers, and our community are forever altered because of this preventable crash.

Giada was a bright, funny, outgoing, inquisitive 13-year-old who was taken from us way too soon. She was kind, genuine, authentic, and had a beautiful soul. Giada had such enthusiasm for life, packing so much into each day, encouraging friends to do the same. After her heartbreaking death, her friends came up with the slogan, Live Like Giada, adorning pink bracelets, hats, bike flags, stickers, and hoodies printed with LLG.

Living like Giada could be swimming every day of summer, mountain biking, skiing, running, hiking, softball, and definitely chasing waterfalls and sunsets. To quote her favorite artist, Taylor Swift, I've got a lot to pine about.

I've got a lot to live without. I'm never gonna meet what could have been, would have been, should have been you. The driver who struck Giada in the crosswalk is being charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. She has filed for diversion, meaning her charges could potentially be erased from her driver's record, having no jail time, no meaningful accountability, and she'll go on driving.

Vehicular manslaughter involves the irreversible loss of life, allowing diversion and action to be dismissed against the defendant with no DMV record in these cases, undermines justice for victims, diminishes the gravity of the offense, and erodes public confidence in the legal system, and does nothing to protect our roads.

It sends a deeply troubling message to grieving families like ours and the public. I respectfully urge you to support SB 953. As the Committee on Public Safety, you must send a message that you're done with lives being lost on California roads, and you will step up for public safety. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration.

Please help us feel justice for Giada, justice for Connor, justice for Braden, Drew, Misha, Jose Luis, Julian, Braun, and justice for all vehicular manslaughter victims. Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the MeToos in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC in support.

Morning, Chair and members. Ryan Wagner, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Good morning. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association and the other associations in the analysis. Thank you. In support.

Riverside Share Association and the other associations in the analysis. Thank you.

Christina Thompson, on behalf of Connor Lopez. Strong support.

Julia Lyman, on behalf of my big brother Connor in strong support.

Jennifer Levy, in honor of Connor Lopez and many other victims, in strong support. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Before we continue on with the hearing, I see that Mr. Hart has joined us. We-- let's establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please conduct the role.

[Roll call].

Present.

Alanis?

Present.

Hart? Haney? Harabedian? Lackey?

Gwen, Ramos, Sharp Collins.

Here.

Okay. We have a quorum present. Next, we will take up any opposition witnesses. Anyone here to testify in opposition? Okay. Just one? All right. Perfect. You can use either of these two chairs. We have a microphone in front of you right here. You will also have combined total time of five minutes to address the committee, and your time begins once you begin to speak.

Just one? Alright. Perfect. You can use either of these two chairs. We have a microphone in front of you right here.

You will also have combined total time of five minutes to address the committee, and your time begins once you begin to speak.

Good morning, Chair and members. George Parampathu, speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to SB 953. First off, I appreciate the family members for coming out to share their story today. The losses they experienced are unimaginable. I think everyone in the room can agree that there is no legislation that could restore any semblance of what these families have lost.

With that in mind, the ACLU urges policymakers to explore solutions that protect lives before tragedy strikes. While the ultimate preventative measures are increased investments in public transit and traffic calming measures, diversion is an important tool in the current road safety toolbox. When a judge in their discretion offers diversion and an individual successfully completes that diversion, recidivism rates drop by 50%. That leads to safer roads for everyone. Under SB 953, defendants will be disincentivized from trying for diversion, making our roads more dangerous.

With DMV points applying regardless of diversion, many defendants will choose instead to plead their cases for a quick resolution. That's bad news for California because that means that defendants get back on the street without ever being routed to those diversion courses. Again, had the defendant attended those courses, they'd be half as likely to recidivate. Moreover, some of the motivation for this bill hinges on the idea that suspended licenses stop drivers from getting on the road.

Unfortunately, given how car-dependent our society is, 75% of drivers continue to drive, even after their license is suspended. We should not ignore that reality. Because SB 953 disincentivizes the system that makes our streets safer, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

We should not ignore that reality. Because SB 953 disincentivizes the system that makes our streets safer, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, and welcome back. Good to see you again. Next, we'll take the MeToos also in opposition to the bill. Please come forward at this time. Name, organization, and position, please.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez, on behalf of Debt Free Justice California in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Forgive me. Barely missed it. Mike Sharif with Fanslau Government Affairs, on behalf of Safe Roads Coalition in support of the bill. Thank you.

All good. We'll register the support. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, if you'll indulge me, I don't often like to go first, but I would like to ask a couple questions, if that's all right. So first of all-- Ms. Lyman, is that correct?

We'll turn it back to the day as colleagues, if you'll indulge me. I I don't often like to go first, but I would like to ask a couple questions if that's alright. So first of all, miss Lyman, is that correct?

Yes.

Hi. Really appreciate you being here today and wanted to uplift something that you said. The amount of grief and heartache is profound and probably something I can't possibly imagine, and I'm very sorry for your loss, and I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate you telling us about what happened to Connor, but if I could, I always like to take this moment so that the record can reflect the beautiful soul that he was and how we should remember him. Could you tell us a little bit more about Connor's life, what he was like?

But if I could, I always like to take this moment so that the record can reflect the beautiful soul that he was and how we should remember him. Could you tell us a little bit more about Connor's life, what he was like?

Oh. Yes. I would love to. Connor was born on the day of the terrorist attacks, 09/11/01. We always said he was a gift on a dark day, and that is what he was. Connor was funny and silly and just the kindest person you would ever meet. The most important thing to Connor was being a big brother. You heard from one of his sisters today. I'm so proud of her. He had dreams. Connor wanted to be a lawyer.

The most important thing to Connor was being a big brother. You heard from one of his sisters today. I'm so proud of her. He had dreams. Connor wanted to be a lawyer.

He had just moved into his apartment by Sacramento City College. He loved his cat and he loved music. Piano was everything to Connor. He filled our home with his music. To not hear it anymore is just unimaginable. He was just the best person. He just was-- he was brilliant, and he was the good in this world, and he was the son every mother would dream of having. I miss him every second. I talk to him every day.

He was just the best person. He just was he was brilliant, and he was the good in this world, and he was the son every mother would dream of having. I miss him every second. I talk to him every day. You know?

You know, for me, the main thing is Connor wasn't doing anything wrong that day. It was broad daylight. To know the senselessness and to have to learn what little consequence happens when you lose your child, it's horrific, but I try to hold on to those memories of just the bright light he was. I try to hear him say, mom. Can't believe I won't hear it again. But he was just an incredible, incredible person. Thank you. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Thank you for that.

Thank you very much for sharing that. And just as a personal note, I think the bond between a mother and their child is unbreakable, so I'm sure he's here with you today and very proud of what you're doing. So thank you for sharing a little bit about Connor with all of us. And then I have-- I had a question about LLG, Live Like-- is it Giana or-- Giana?

And then I I I have I had a question about LLG, live like is it Gianna or Gianna? Gianna. Gianna. Okay. I hope I'm saying that correctly.

Giada.

Giada. Okay. I hope I'm saying that correctly. Live Like Giada. Tell us a little bit more about what that means. What was Giada like?

Live like Gianna. Tell us a little bit more about what that means. What was Gianna like?

Giada was the third daughter in our family. She had two big sisters, so she grew up very fast. She was fiercely independent. She loved to go out with the dog on runs in the neighborhood by herself for bike rides and she loved to get her friends to do everything. Last summer before she died, she swam every day of summer.

We'd be out there in thunderstorms sometimes at 8:30, 9:00 at night jumping in the little river so she could get her swim in for the day. If she could swim in a river and a lake or two different lakes in the same day, she was thrilled. She loved to ski in the winter. Her dad works at a ski resort. She just thought that was the best job ever to go to work with dad and ski with him.

And she had lots of friends, friends across all different groups. She brought kids together. She brought her-- her death brought our community together. We just celebrated. I don't know how you say that, but we just had the one-year anniversary of her death and our community held a run that's an annual run in her honor and they will donate funds to her scholarship.

And pink was Giada's favorite color and there was a sea of pink running up old Meyers Grade. And then we met at the beach that night and a bunch of us swam, and boy is Lake Tahoe freezing cold right now. But we did it for Giada and then she blessed us with the most beautiful sunset. We miss her terribly.

Well, thank you for sharing that. I can't imagine it's easy to talk about it. But what I would offer, not from any place of experience, is that it is important that we celebrate. I don't think we are defined by what's been done to us. We are each unique and beautiful souls, and I encourage you, for what it's worth, to continue celebrating her. And hold on to that memory because she's very much with you right now.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you both. To our opposition witness, I respect the testimony. I respect the point of view. I guess the one question I would have is, certainly, if this were a bill that were eliminating diversion, I could see a lot of merit to your argument there, but I guess the question is, would there not still be some incentive for someone to avoid the consequences of having a criminal conviction on their record or avoiding jail time consequences?

I get your point about maybe diminishing incentives, but is there not still some incentive to pursuing a diversion or is the suggestion that this bill-- it would do away with every incentive for diversion?

That's not what I was trying to imply, but you are correct. If they were granted diversion and they completed it successfully, their record would still be dismissed. What I was talking about is that when a, say, indigent client is offered the chance of quickly dismissing their case, probably it might be cheaper than, you know, a two-year lingering sentence over the head while they try to complete their courses. They might be charged for those courses.

Obviously, that's nothing compared to what these families have gone through, but just, again, with the focus being continued road safety, we want people to take the one option on the table that might help them stop doing this in the future.

Okay. No, I appreciate it, and then, by no means did I wanna put any words in your mouth. And I will say that, before I hand it over to my colleagues, I think that your point, while sad, it is also true.

We try to design a system where we take licenses out of hands of dangerous drivers, but at the end of the day, there's no substitute for good decision-making. People can and do still get behind the wheel of the car. All we can try to do is make it as hard as possible, have stiff consequences, and educate against that, really elevate the risks. So appreciate your perspective as well. I'd like to turn it over to my colleagues, if anyone has a question or comment. Mr. Lackey.

Mister Lackey.

Just a couple points of clarification. The opposition indicates, and equates DMV points, with suspension. This bill only assigns two points. Only two. It requires four to have your license suspended.

So that needs to be kept in mind. It doesn't necessarily equate with suspension on this proposal. The value of human life truly deserves to be acknowledged, and it's measures like this that promote a level of accountability that I think the public clearly supports. And so I'd like to be considered to be a co-author for this particular measure.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lackey. Anyone else hoping to weigh in? All right. With the-- oh, I'm sorry. Dr. Sharp-Collins, please.

I mean, you've actually asked the question that I wanted to ask to clarify diversion, but I wanted to get permission to play something, if that's okay. It is actually me playing the classical piece. I just wanna see if I can play this for you.

Oh. Please.

Is that okay?

Proper mission.

All right. Go right ahead.

Go right ahead.

Just because-- I'm not the best, but I'm all right. [Music playing]. I just wanted to do that to let you know that I'm carrying you. I'm carrying both of you guys, and I appreciate you sharing your story.

the best, but I'm alright. I just wanted to do that to let you know that I that I'm that I'm carrying you. I'm carrying both of you guys, and I appreciate you sharing your story.

I'm not

Thank you.

So I just wanted to share that, that I have a bond with Connor on classical, and I appreciate the opportunity to share a piece of something that I play.

Thank you, Dr. Sharp-Collins. All right. Seeing no further questions or comments, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Excuse me. To say that these are difficult things is the understatement perhaps of this session. I actually thank the ACLU for testifying because, on issues like this where we feel so certain of our position, they do remind us that there are two sides to an issue and they force us to even better defend and articulate that which we believe and we're trying to put forward.

So from that standpoint, thanks for that. Thanks especially to our witnesses. Part of the healing process of the death of a loved one is dealing with it. This is part of the process of them becoming adjusted. I often say--I've lost both my parents--and I often say, I never get over it, I just get used to it.

And I think that's the reality. Now a couple of points with regard--and along the lines of the Chair's questioning--I cannot imagine that this would disincentivize a person toward a diversion. I can't imagine that a person would say, well, I'm not gonna seek diversion, which would avoid any jail time and expunge my crime, just because there's gonna be a couple of points reported to DMV. That absolutely doesn't make sense to me.

And to state that in the case of a driver's license that's suspended--and Assemblyman Lackey rightfully pointed out--this doesn't do that, unless that person had some very serious driving records before, but to suggest that it doesn't make any sense to suspend a driver's license because they're probably gonna drive anyway would basically mean there's no point in the DMV tracking driving records at all. And, of course, that really doesn't make sense. So I just will close by saying I respectfully request an aye vote.

But to suggest that it doesn't make any sense to suspend driver's license because they're probably gonna drive anyway would basically mean there's no point in the DMV tracking driving records at all. And, of course, that really doesn't make sense. So I just will close by saying I respectfully request an aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. You have my aye recommendation, and colleagues, I would just note that, not withstanding the points--some very good points raised by the opposition--I would refer everyone to the middle of page four, which has a very--of the committee analysis--which has a good discussion about the point system.

And as the Senator says, two points in and of themselves won't render you a negligent driver unless there is that prior history or, heaven forbid, you get the diversion and continue to engage in that sort of behavior. With that, I find this to be a reasonable measure. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Okay. Motion by Lackey; second by Sharp-Collins. Please conduct the roll.

For Item Seven, SB 953 by Senator Niello, the motion is do pass to the Transportation Committee. [Roll call].

Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Hart?

Aye.

Hart, aye. Haney, Harabedian, Lackey?

Lackey, Aye. Wen Ramos, Sharpe Collins? Sharpe Collins, Aye.

Aye.

Okay. That bill is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on. Thank you, everybody. And with that, I'm being summoned by Senate public safety.

Okay. That bill is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on. Thank you, everybody. And with that, I'm being summoned by Senate Public Safety. Mr. Vice Chair, the floor is yours.

Mister vice chair, the floor is yours.

Alright, everybody. If I can get your attention real quick, we're gonna try and get some stuff done while we're still waiting on other authors. So the proposed consent calendar, I have a B2796 from the public safety committee. I have SB891 from Senator Cervantes, SB1012 from Senator Smallwood Cuevas, and I have SB 1143 from Senator Caballero. Do I have a motion to adopt? AB 2796. Public safety.

So moved.

Motion by mister Lackey and second by mister Ramos. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

The consent items are adopted. Thank you. Carry on.

Alright. We're gonna reconvene for purposes of letting me add on for votes. Madam secretary, call through the items.

[Roll Call]

For this. Okay. We're also gonna go to Senator Neillo's item.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Let's revisit item I SB Oh, sorry. This is item two on the agenda, Senator Becker's item. Can we get a motion on that? No. Is there a second? I will second. Conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That measure remains on call. If you are staff listening in and you work for Senator Ashby, Senator Wahab, or Senator Padilla, please have your member report to Room 126 as soon as possible. Thank you. If your staff and you're listening in and you work for one of these senators I mentioned, please send them here posthaste.

If they cannot make it in the near future, please bring me the file, and I will present it on their behalf. Thank you.

Alright. Like a conquering hero, he arrived. Oh, we have Senator Cortezi and Padilla.

Okay. We will take up Senator Corteze first, and then immediately go to Senator Padilla. Senator Cortese, are you ready to go? Alright. Colleagues, this is SB 1306.

As a reminder, once each of our senators make their presentation, witnesses in support have five minutes to address the committee as will witnesses in opposition. Senator, thank you for being here. I know it's a busy morning. The floor is yours when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair Schultz and members of the committee, and committee staff for your work in in analyzing this bill. SB 1306 aligns California law with existing federal exemptions for certain chemical mixtures containing gamma butrelactone, GBL, that are essential to semiconductor manufacturing and research. To be clear, nothing in this bill would change the requirements for purchase, storage, or use of pure GBL.

My staff and the bill sponsors have explained this to the opposition multiple times. The latest letter that we've seen still doesn't reflect the bill in print. I remain open to the possibility of addressing the opposition's concerns, but, of course, we would have to understand and

have them respond to our latest overtures. In 2010, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration adopted regulations exempting chemical mixtures containing GBL at concentrations of 70% or less from the Controlled Substance Act requirements since extracting GBL from these complex industrial mixtures is not practically feasible. Specifically, bad actors wouldn't profit since the mixtures are expensive and the energy cost to remove the solvents are very high. Even if it made sense financially, industrial equipment is needed for the extraction.

This reality is reflected by there being no reports, zero, of diversion for nefarious purposes in the fifteen years since this change.

At the same time, companies and state agencies are spending time and money enforcing chemical regulations that the Federal Government has already deemed irrelevant to public safety. That's because of California law. California law leaves suppliers serving the semiconductor industry subject to significant regulatory requirements, including permitting, owners reporting, record keeping, and twenty eight twenty one day transaction holds.

This administrative burden makes it more expensive to operate in California compared to states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, risking the exodus of critical engineering and manufacturing jobs in this key very key industry of semiconductors. California leads the nation in semiconductor r and d, accounting for roughly 51% of total US semiconductor r and d in 2021.

And the state semiconductor sector contributes more than $100,000,000,000 annually to the economy, and as we know, much of which is right here in California, much of which is in my home district. This bill will encourage companies from the outsourcing, manufacturing to other states and ensure the vitality of California's semiconductor industry.

By bringing California into alignment with federal policy, which is really all we're doing here, SB 1306 helps reduce operational disruption, supports in state in state r and d, and strengthens California's role as a global leader in high technology innovation. With us here today to testify in support is Anthony Sampson on behalf of Semi. At the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, mister chair. Members, Anthony Sampson here on behalf of Semi. Semi is an organization that represents, companies all throughout the semiconductor manufacturing supply chain. The senators did a great job summarizing the bill. The committee analysis did a great job summarizing the bill, so I won't waste your time by summarizing again what the bill does.

But I will start by saying that this bill had started as a consent item. My personal perspective is that it should remain a consent item, and part of the reason for that is the basis for the opposition letter. As the Senator said, the opposition letter letter is based on a false premise as to what the bill does. I will read a state few statements from it. SB 1306 seeks to remove regulatory controls on solutions of GBL.

It absolutely does not do that. GBL is the derivative to make d a GHB, also known as the date rape drug. That is a serious accusation to suggest that any member of the legislature would introduce a bill to do that. This focuses simply on GBL mixtures, and those mixtures contain 70% or less as the DEA exempted back in 2010. The formulas that we are talking about typically can't contain about three to 8% GBL.

The risk of diversion into making this into the into GHB is zero. It simply does not exist. So to suggest that we are here today talking about a bill that is deregulating the derivative for the date rape drug, quite frankly, is offensive to my client, in great part because of what it is that we are actually trying to do, which is simply to expedite, and to improve conditions for purposes of semiconductor manufacturing.

Our hope is that we can, moving forward, have an honest conversation with the opposition to the, to the extent that they actually truly do have concerns with the idea of, mirroring federal law in this regard. I know the Senator has expressed his willingness to have those conversations with the opposition.

Unfortunately, they have yet to be fruitful. And so with that, I respectfully request your aye vote on this relatively straightforward measure. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come on down. Okay.

Do we have anyone testifying in opposition today? Anyone at all? Alright. Any other anyone else wanting to register a position on the bill? Okay.

Simple. Back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions?

K. Motion, second, in place. But before you do that, would you like to close, Senator?

Second.

I respectfully ask for your item.

Okay. I recommendation you will have. Let's call the roll.

For item 12, SB 1306 by Senator Cortesi, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Aye. Alanis, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Haney?

Harabedian? Lackey? Gwen? Ramos? Ramos, aye.

Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye.

Okay. That bill's out. We'll allow the others to add on. Thank you both for being here. And next, we'll take the extremely patient Senator Padilla followed by Senator Wahab.

Senator Padilla, whenever you are ready, the floor is yours.

Good morning, mister chairman and members. I'm pleased to present SB 941, which would prohibit the sale of commissary items in private detention facilities at prices that exceed 35% markup above the vendor cost. As you know, in California, every ICE detention facility detainee is held in a private facility operated by private corporations on private property under contract with the Federal Government. There are seven of these facilities throughout our state, two of which are located within my district.

In these facilities, detention authority, of course, rests with the Federal Government, but the day to day conditions confinement and commercial practices are controlled by private entities operating in the state of California.

One major concern is the operation of private commissaries in the detention centers, which sell essential items, such as food, drinking water, hygiene products, and clothing. Commissaries are often are often, excuse me, operated by third party vendors under contract to the operator that set prices without any meaningful oversight. Through interviews with individuals who are currently or previously detained, a 2023 UCLA report found the commissary costs in private detention facilities were significantly higher than in state prisons.

One individual reported spending approximately a $100 per week at a private facility commissary compared to the same amount per month in a state facility. Often, the markups for these products in these private detention facilities range from 75 to over 300% markup.

Within these facilities, detained individuals often have limited access to clean water and are given inadequate meals that leave them needing, forcing them to rely on commissaries to meet their basic needs while in the institution. For many, the commissary is too expensive to purchase the additional food water they need because such detainees often earl only earn about $1 per day through facility work programs.

Commissary prices far exceed what detained individuals can afford, and the financial burden here while they are through a review process is often shifted to their families. Often, the person who is detained is also the primary breadwinner for that household and contributes at least half of the income on average. While already dealing with these financial burdens and trying to navigate immigration review situation, loved ones, these unreasonable price markups, exact a heavy toll on families and loved ones.

ThiS Bill mirrors a framework of SB 474, which essentially, applied some of the same restrictions on state facilities, does not alter federal immigration enforcement priorities, detention decisions, or custody authority, and ensures that private companies conducting business in California are not exploiting people in this situation. Joining me today is Jackie Gonzales, co executive director of the immigrant defense advocates.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Jackie Gonzalez. I'm the co executive director of IDA, and I'm here in support of SB 941. When ICE detains a Californian, a parent, loved one, caretaker, or provider is ripped away from a working class family. But that family's bills continue.

Rent, mortgages, loans, taxes, childcare expenses, even as the family loses income and faces the crisis of detention. Fernando, a green card holder and father of two US citizens, explained, these expenses include hyper expensive essentials such as hygiene products, weather appropriate clothing, and medical items. For a full day's work, as the Senator mentioned, detain people earn a dollar a day.

That means it takes four days to save enough for a deodorant, seven days to save enough for a four ounce bottle of shampoo, seven days to pay for a six ounce jar of peanut butter, eighteen days to save enough for an eight ounce jar of instant coffee. SB 941 would limit this kind of corporate exploitation.

Just last month, a report by California's own attorney general exposed what he called cruel, inhumane, and unacceptable conditions in these facilities. Investigators documented murky tap water, empty water coolers, and improperly prepared food. These basic necessities are so severely lacking that the attorney general found people are being forced spend an astronomical 50 to $150 per week on commissary items just to satisfy basic hunger and survive.

At California City Correctional Center, the state's largest facility, this creates a devastating multimillion dollar extraction machine funded by working class families in California. As the Senator mentioned, California has already acted to limit unconscionable commissary costs in state prisons.

It must uphold the same basic standard for for profit immigration detention facilities. I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator, and to your witness for your testimony today. Next, we'll take the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come on down. Name, organization, and position only, please.

Candace Chung on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta, who is a proud cosponsor of the bill, in support.

Good morning. Tamar Toka on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Thank you.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support.

Diego Samuel, on behalf of Inclusive Action of the City and Central American Resource Center, Gladys Inn, were in support.

Shaq Hewitt with the California Community Foundation, in support.

Samilia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Maya Howard, on behalf of San Quentin Skunk Works, in support.

Sanjita Nahar on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

George parampatu on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses here today or anyone else hoping to register an other position on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.

K. We have a motion. Is there a second and a second? Any other comments or questions? Alright.

Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I recommend an aye. I would like to jump on the bill as a coauthor. Let's conduct the role. Thank you, sir.

For item six, SB 941 by Senator Padilla, the motion is do pass. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Hart? Hart, Aye. Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Wen, Ramos?

Aye. Ramos, Aye. Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, Aye.

That measure remains on call. We'll let others add on. Thank you very much, Senator. Chairman. Alright.

Okay.

Thank you to both of our our we have we have our last two authors here. So thank you both. Senator Wahab, we'll take you up when you're ready, and then we'll save Senator Ashby for last. We'll get you both out of here well before lunch.

Witness.

And colleagues, we will be hearing Senator Wahab on SB 691 on your agenda.

That's a nice suit.

Thank you.

Alright, folks. Chair and members, one, I wanna thank you all for working with us on this bill. This is a bill that's deeply important, especially with the current situation regarding law enforcement and emergency calls. SB 691 will require law enforcement agencies to update their body worn camera policies to include a process for EMS professionals to request redaction of recordings prior to public release when patients are receiving medical treatment.

This will enact this will ensure we protect the privacy of patients undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, treatment, or procedure.

The protection of patient privacy is critical, especially when the provider of care needs to collect information vital to delivering appropriate treatment. By requiring agencies to update their body worn camera policy, we will ensure that we have clear policies to protect patient privacy while also preserving the important role of these cameras that, you know, play in the field and allow law enforcement agencies the flexibility to adopt a policy that works for each of their own local jurisdictions.

With me is Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you, mister chair, members. Doug Soopers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. CPF represents more than 37,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel statewide. We're pleased to sponsor and strongly support SB 691. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this important measure forward.

As noted by the author, this measure is critical to protect the privacy of patients who are undergoing medical treatment from EMS personnel in the field. When our members must remove someone's shirt to place a 12 lead on them or a patient is undergoing a psychological assessment, it's critical to know that their, privacy and and the information they provide can be protected.

This measure would ensure that there's a process to request redaction of medical or psychological treatment or assessment that is captured by law enforcement body camera before that video is released to the public. As Senator Wahab noted, this bill allows the agency the discretion to develop their own process and how that request is received from emergency medical services personnel. I know there were some references in various letters to the nature of turning the body camera on or off.

That was in a previous version of the bill that we worked hard and took amendments to remove that requirement. So this bill is strictly about a process being established where EMS personnel can request redaction by the law enforcement agency before a video is made public. We appreciate the collaboration of many of the stakeholders that worked with us. And for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you very much, Senator. And to your witness for testimony today, let's take the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come on down.

Mister chair and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, and their patients in support of the bill. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses today? Alright. Come on down.

Just the one, maybe two. Okay. We have two. Alright. So we have two chairs and a microphone here, or you can testify from there if you like.

And between the two of you, you have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee.

Oh, I'm just for me too, not a witness.

Oh, perfect. Okay. You can do your me too then.

Oh, okay. Sangeeta Nahar on behalf of sorry. Sangeeta Nahar on behalf of initiate justice in opposition.

Alright. Thank you, and we'll note that. Alright. Mister Sazillo, welcome back. The floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Thank you, mister chair. Members, Corey Sazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in opposition to the bill. First, let me acknowledge the authors and the sponsors who worked really hard on this bill and I think made a lot of changes to minimize the impact.

And what we saw is the real negative implications of what mister Subers had indicated is no longer in the bill in terms of creating a situation where EMS personnel could direct or even ask law enforcement to turn off their body cams or otherwise limit recording. We acknowledge that's out of the bill.

What's left in the bill is sort of this awkward process where EMS can ask for redaction of footage. I understand EMS's HIPAA concerns or HIPAA obligation. That's not law enforcement's obligation. It it sort of this whole thing begs this question of at what point does the HIPAA obligation begin and end if I keel over and have a heart attack and somebody starts doing chest compressions. And mister chair, you pull out your cell phone and start recording this.

It it does does the AMS professional have an obligation to tackle you and knock the phone out of your hand and say, no. No. We've got a HIPAA, you know, obligation here. So I I I think that still lays in the offing. Also, as noted in the analysis, the penal code eight thirty two point seven already speaks to situations in which body cam footage must be redacted, especially if it's a disclosable record.

The bill includes language that says before release, in terms of when an EMS professional can request redaction. I assume this means that the contemplation is that it's a record that's going to be released. If that's the case, I'm not sure what this provides given what current law says.

If it's not the case, if it's that they can ask to or that we have to create a policy that allows them to ask us to redact record that is never gonna be disclosed, that creates a bunch of work potentially for us that really doesn't make any sense. So again, acknowledging the strides the author and the sponsors have made to improve this bill.

We still remain in a respectful opposition. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you very much for the testimony. I will take the Me Too's in opposition. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition? Okay. Turning it back to the dais.

Questions or comments, mister Ramos?

Thank you so much to the the the sheriff's association developing these policies. Is that something that's done and and and meet and confer? Is it something that's a policy's done and then goes to the board of supervisors for approval? How does that process take place?

Through the chair, it it can. I suspect most of the time when when an agency has body cams, those procedures are gonna be meet and confer. Certainly around the use when they're deployed, when you turn them on, when you turn them off, that sort of thing. Redaction policies, I honestly don't know how much that gets into an actual labor negotiation. But then it it also may be something that the board of supervisors, has some kind of say in.

I think it just depends on the agency. There's not there's not a whole lot of statute. There's there is guidance in statute. There is no requirement as you know that law enforcement agencies deploy body cameras. There is a requirement in statute that says, if you're a law enforcement agency and if you're gonna deploy body cams, here are a number of things you should consider in your policy.

And policies that already address body cams within law enforcement throughout the state were predominantly put in there because of liability issues?

Again, through the charity, they those policies address a number of things. Right? So the the impacts of body cameras. Right? Those those capture not only activities undertaken by those in the field.

Right? Those who are recorded by the body cameras of the member of the public, a suspect, that sort of thing, but also that which is done by the peace officer or the employee who is wearing the body camera. So there's disciplinary functions. There's liability functions. Yeah.

There are a number of purposes that obviously body cam serve and that the policies would regulate.

And once these policies are are derived and and written up, does firefighters believe that they should be able to see that policy before it goes into action, or is there a say on that policy?

Well, the well, the, through the chair, the bill does not provide a specific, provision of review by the fire agency. So it would just, it directs the law enforcement agency to develop a policy within the, statutory construction that, mister Salzillo referenced where, basically, if you have a body cam policy, it's asking to update that policy to create a process where the EMS personnel can engage the law enforcement agency to request redaction of that video.

I would just also add that, during an emergency scene, it is a responsibility of our members to make every effort to protect the privacy of their patient. During an emergency scene, you can, create a perimeter by law enforcement and fire can help create a perimeter and keep maybe a member of the public out of view or at least from close view. That same thing doesn't apply when you have, you know, law enforcement and fire working on a scene together.

So we thought this was a a narrowing way to kind of, get at that specific issue.

Well, thank you. What if a policy is derived, through the chair and some and submit it to the board of supervisors or the authority board and the fire personnel doesn't agree with that policy. Is there a mechanism where they would then work out those differences?

Well, the bill is deferential to the local process. So I assume that in certain circumstances, if it was before just within the authority of the local law enforcement agency, they would, I guess, they could solicit feedback should they want it from the fire agency if it went before the board of supervisors. I get I assume my members preserve their right to speak before a public meeting, but there's no provision of the of of the bill that requires that kind of coordination or discussion.

There's a lot of discretion provided to the law enforcement agency in my view.

So just to add to that, you know, I I just wanna be very clear about this is that, you know, body worn cameras right now shall not be used to record confidential medical, dental, and mental health assessments, appointments, or consultations. One of our concerns is that when somebody is in a situation, for example, I'll just give our city as an example. Our Hayward firefighters are actual paramedics, and they receive the large majority of 911 calls.

In fact, when I was on city council, I requested a survey of our 911 calls and kind of like a little bit of an audit. And it was deemed that roughly about 31% of the calls were actually crime related, if you will.

The rest were largely health care related. And because of the fact that there's a, you know, a lack of information when you arrive on scene, law enforcement does show up, right, depending on what the call was about. What we are trying to do and, again, the redaction may include blurring patient, right, and the work and CPR. And I wanna be very clear. When, for example, my father I've called 911 because my father had a kidney transplant.

We didn't know what was going on with him. And we had both firefighters as well as law enforcement show up. It was a health issue, not necessarily a criminal issue. Right? And, you know, they take care of that individual right then and there.

They lay them out. But I wanna be clear that sometimes, for example, if a woman needed support and they're cutting her shirt open and her bra open and she is fully exposed, We know that law enforcement, both from the police side as well as the fire side, do try to create a perimeter, try to push people out from recording anything like that as much as possible.

But when these videos become, you know, an issue that they are releasing to the public, we are asking for our local, let's say, paramedics, firefighters, whoever is providing that type of care, be able to go over the video and just say we would like these parts redacted because they are sensitive. We wanna make sure that both our law enforcement as well as our, you know, paramedics and so forth are in collaboration.

We are leaving through this bill it at the will of the local jurisdiction, and usually the fire chief and the police chief typically work well together, and try to find a policy that makes sense.

I I also wanna be very, very clear that, you know, this is really just to protect patient privacy when requiring law enforcement or any agency to kind of just, again, update their policy to allow for clear, consistent request for redaction. And lawyers are deeply involved before the videos ever get released. So So I just wanna state that there are steps to this. We just wanna make sure that it's uniform and there's, you know, privacy, is the most important.

So this redaction, you know, just literally, again, blurring patient care and muting audio if needed so that if a patient does admit to, hey.

They they took drugs, right, or they they did something, that that is kind of protected where they can be honest with the person that's providing them the care at that moment.

Okay. Thank you very much, mister Ramos. Any other questions or comments from the day of snow? Alright. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you for the presentation. I appreciate all the work that's been done. I do recommend an Aye, and I will say, you know, opposition witness raised some good points. I know the conversations will continue. I think he raised the best point.

When you talked about me getting tackled, I saw some folks, like, light up. Like, that was a great idea. Not that part. No. No.

No. No. Heart attack? Not that part. Maybe me getting tackled.

Some might wanna see that today. Alright. We have actually, we do not. Do we have a motion? No.

K. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay.

We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

For item four, SB 691 by Senator Wahab, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?

Aye.

Schultz, Aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, Aye. Hart?

Hart, aye. Haney? Harabedian? Lackey?

Okay.

Blackie, aye. Wen Ramos?

Not voting.

Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins.

Okay. That measure remains on call. We'll let others add on. Before we start our final bill of the day, the following members have not yet checked into committee, and this is our final bill. So please have them come here as soon as possible.

We need assembly members Wynn, Harabedian, and Haney in Room 126. Again, Wynn, Harbidian, and Haney. Please come to Room 126. With that, colleagues, we're on our final item. This is by our Senate majority leader, Ashby.

This is Senate bill 562. Senator, take your time. Once you begin speaking, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, colleagues. I'll try to be quick and get you out of here as fast as we can. I am here to present SB 562. I'll start by accepting committee amendments. SB 562 is intended to provide a pathway to financial relief for individuals who are arrested, use a bail bond agency, but ultimately have no charges filed against them or charges are dropped early in the arraignment process.

These individuals often face an incredibly unjust situation despite charges not being filed or having been dismissed. Often, folks have to choose between rent, food, or paying bail for a crime for which they ultimately are never charged. The bill applies, to defendants and allows them to receive a partial refund. If the terms and conditions of the bond are dismissed or dropped by the district attorney or court within twenty days of posting of the bond.

The refunded amount is set by the judge's discretion, but can be up to 80% of the premium amount paid.

This is ultimately, fundamentally, about fairness. It's really about the cost of justice and the disparity that so many Californians face in accessing equal treatment in courthouses across the Golden State. I am truly honored to have these two incredible witnesses with me today. We're all quite fortunate to hear from them. We have Josh Mittman from the Bail Project and Esteban Nunez from the Anti Recidivism Coalition, chair when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator. Your witnesses can go whenever they're ready.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Josh Mittman, and I'm here today in support of SB 562. I'm presenting today on behalf of the Bail Project where I serve as senior policy counsel. The Bail Project is a national organization. We're headquartered in California, and I live here as well.

We offer free bail assistance and community support to thousands of low income people every year, and our work shows that money plays an outsized, harmful, and unnecessary role in the pretrial system. For example, the bail project has supported more than 40,000 clients across the country who've returned to court 92% of the time without any of their own money on the line. SB 562 would fix one narrow but devastating source of financial unfairness that that we have seen in the pretrial system.

Imagine sitting in a jail cell knowing that you're innocent, that there's no case against you. But if you wanna get home to take care of your children or to avoid being fired from your job or pay your rent, you have to pay a premium to a private company since you're unable to afford bail on your own.

Ultimately, you're determined to be innocent. Charges are dismissed or they're never filed, but you've had to give away next month's rent, and it's not coming back even though the case never materialized. SB 562 would create an opportunity so that in these limited circumstances, poor Californians might get a partial refund, saving them from further financial turmoil during what is likely the hardest moment of their life.

It's important to note that SB 562 does not defeat the ability of commercial bail agents to operate in these cases. The bill accounts for the risk of potential loss to companies allocating 20% or more of the fee paid for their overhead and taxes, And a refund would only occur after a fact based court hearing determining, a fair amount to be refunded and whether a refund is appropriate at all.

And our judges are well positioned to make these determinations fairly. This bill should not require companies to change their operating process either as far greater greater financial risks are baked into their business model. In cases where bail is forfeited, for example, bail bond companies are on the line for paying the full bail amount to the court. In California, the median bail amount is $50,000.

In comparison, the risk that a narrow subset of their clients won't be charged, leaving companies with income in those cases that still cover their overhead for those few weeks, that's unlikely to move the needle, especially in such a competitive industry.

SB 562 would remedy a consequential financial injustice imposed on people who were innocent and unnecessarily arrested. People who received no charges and are looking to move on with their lives. I respectfully request your eye vote on this important bill. Thank you.

How much time do I have? Okay. Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Esteban Nunez. I am a lobbyist with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I'm also somebody who has some experience with with what this bill is trying to address.

I know what it means to have your world collapse after an arrest. I know what it costs, not just financially, but in dignity and family stability and in long road ahead. That's why I'm here today in strong support of SB 562. When someone is arrested, their family members fight to bring them home. They borrow money.

They sell what they have. They do whatever it takes. And yet even when no charges are ever filed, even when the DA decides that there's no case to bring forward, those families never see that money again. A UCLA study found that in just five years, Los Angeles families paid over a $193,000,000 in nonrefundable bail bond deposits. These are working class families, black and brown families, people who can't absorb that kind of financial loss.

The amendments this bill has taken is a healthy balance. Under this language, a refund isn't automatic. It does require a court hearing, factual findings, and a judge's determination. The judge has discretion on the amount, and it's up to 80% of the premium paid, which is not a giveaway. It's merely just an opportunity to be afforded what you have coming.

I've seen firsthand what happens when people can't recover financially after an arrest. It pulls them back towards the very cycles we are all trying to help them break. SB 562 gives judges a tool to intervene when the system fails somebody and ensures bail bond companies aren't profiting from a case that was never pursued. This is about fairness. It's about dignity, and it's about making sure that the cost of an arrest doesn't become a life sentence of poverty.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, Senator, for the presentation and to both of your witnesses for your testimony. Next, let's take the me too's. If you'd like to register a position of support, come on down.

Good morning, chair members. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud cosponsor and support.

Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight and Vera California in strong support.

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

Similia Rogers on behalf of Ella baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Shivani Neshar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Candace Chung on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta in support.

Angel Angelina Posato on behalf of California Civil Liberties, we support.

Sanjita Nahara on behalf of Initiate Justice in Support. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all for registering your position with the committee. Mister Nunez, we might need you to move over next to Senator Ashby. We have two chairs. Are there position witnesses here?

I see two. Alright. Gentlemen, you can take these two seats here. Your time doesn't begin until you speak. And between the two of you, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Chairman Schultz and the Public Safety Committee. My name is Topo Padilla. I've been a California licensed bail agent for forty two years. I'm here today rep as the immediate past president of Golden State Bail Agents Association, the immediate past president of the professional bail agents of the United States. Both of those organizations strongly oppose this bill.

As bail agents, it is our duty to ensure that people have the right to bail and that we make sure that they go to court. This gives the person who's been arrested, the victims of crime, and the public the best assurance that the person will appear in court. If this bill were to pass, and this is not a scare tactic, it's a harsh reality, bail agents will start vetting people that are incarcerated to assess their guilt or innocence.

And we do not wanna do that, especially over recorded calls. That is not our job.

We shouldn't get involved in the guilt or innocence of a person. We will assess whether or not we feel charges will be filed. And if we determine in our minds that we don't think charges will be filed. And many times charges are not filed because somebody's innocent. It's because the DAs don't have the bandwidth or the staffing to file charges on everyone.

We will leave those people in jail. We do not wanna do that. That is not our job. They have a right to bail. We afford them that right.

I am not gonna go post bonds that it will happen. It's not a judgment thing. It will happen. We will be given 80% of the money that we collected back. 20% of those costs at a minimum are hard costs.

We will be left with nothing, and we're just not gonna do it. We're gonna leave those people in jail. And if this bill were to pass, it's going to leave a lot of people in jail until charges are filed. These people make a decision to call us and one out of jail. And I to to hear about people selling things and doing all that, that is just something that is just not part of what we are looking at, what we wanna do.

We've helped hundreds of thousands of people save their jobs and be back with their families. It's flies in the face of what we do as bail agents just to simply afford people the right to bail and not get involved with the guilt or innocence of the court. So I respectfully ask for your no vote on this case this matter.

Good morning, chairman Schultz and vice chair Alanise and other members of the committee. I'm a professional bail license agent for over thirty years and also president of the California Bail Agents Association. I'm here to request your opposition or abstention from, SB 562. I wanna begin by, talking about the topic of unfair benefits or unjust enrichment. Bill for a defendant is an option.

It's not an not a necessity. The bill agreement is entered into with the understanding of costs. They get the full service that they requested and with the understanding in every bail agreement that the premium is fully earned upon the release of custody. What could possibly be an equitable equitable mechanism for determining the unjust enrichment? Secondly, I don't think you're aware that bail premium is unlike any other lines of insurance.

It is one premium. Regardless of how long the case lasts, whether it's two, three, four, five, and I even have clients that have been on bail for six years, we collect a single premium that lasts the full amount of time. Where is the unjust enrichment in that case? That's does this bill open the case up for ankle man ankle monitoring refunds for the counties and private providers of pretrial services across our state? Will they also be re entitled to refunds if the cases are not filed?

Will this also entitle attorneys that have been hired prior to arraignment in cases that are not filed that have charged their clients? Will they be also required to return the fees with their clients? I would even go outside of our industry with oncologists. If a client dies within a thirty day period, would they be required to return the cost of caring for that that patient? I would say not.

This bill will cause a hardship for many minority and female business owners. Many of the agents in California are female. 20% does not cover agency cost. To our surety, acquisition cost, overhead, marketing, and a highly competitive, profession. Lights, rent, commissions paid to agents, etcetera, will not cover it.

This will leave many small business owners upside down. I think many of you may be mistaken that bail bondsmen are rolling in dough. We simply are not. We're barely getting by. Often, cases are not filed timely after new arrests.

Many are filed late, and misdemeanors, if you're not aware, can be up to one year. Felonies can be up to three full years.

Thirty seconds. Okay.

Thank you. Not to mention, this bill is, is it even legal? Prop one zero three sets guidelines for the Department of Insurance to prove surety premium rates, but requiring refunds to post after a bill has been posted and then require a refund would lower the premium cost below the filed rates. Does the legislation have that authority? Return of premium is most in most counties becomes a civil matter.

And then there's may not be the defendant themselves. Usually, it's the plaintiff. It's usually I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that that's actually your time. Sorry. But thank you very much. And you might get a question and a chance to continue there, but thank you. Okay.

No problem. Next, we'll take Me Too's also in opposition. If you'd like to be heard in opposition, come on down to the microphone. Please confine your comment to your name, the business organization that you're with, and the position which I presume would be opposed. Thank you in advance.

Steve Payton, owner of Bill Davidson Bill Bonds, Eureka. I strongly oppose this bill.

Morning, mister chairman. Remember, it's Carl London here on behalf of Lexington National Insurance Corporation and the Golden State Bail Agents Association opposed to this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jamero Leon on behalf of Bell Hall and Bail Bonds, and we oppose this bill.

Carol and Bill Hunter Sloat Higgins Jensen in association on behalf of bail hotline bail bonds. Just wanna say we were neutral on the previous version of this bill with these last amendments that moved us to oppose.

Rob Dick on behalf of Bail Education Association strongly oppose.

Good morning, Ellie. Raymond Elliot Morones on behalf of Aladdin Bail Bonds, and I oppose.

Juan Soto with Aladdin Bail Bonds, I oppose.

Good morning. Dave Coitier with Aladdin Bell Bonds, I strongly oppose. Thank you.

Curtis Wood with the Aladdin Bail Bonds, and I oppose.

Good morning. Eduardo Ganiels with Aladdin Bail Bonds, I oppose. Thank you.

Eduardo Garcia, and I oppose. My name is Billy Bowman, concerned citizen, City of California, and I strongly oppose.

Patrick Pinnell, I oppose.

Hi. My name is Jay Jerome, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Name Robert Wilby, I oppose the bill. Principal, it's not a good bill. Thank you.

Laura Gutierrez, I oppose.

Yosani Phillips, and I oppose.

Morning, chair members. Pat Whalen, Nelson Wilson. Advocacy here for Aladdin Bill Bonds in opposition.

Greg Padilla, owner of Greg Padilla Bill Bonds. I oppose this bill.

Bradley Fowler on behalf of McMain's Bail Bonds, strongly oppose.

Nathan Moore with the DEO Bail Bonds, and we strongly oppose.

Matt Johnson with Espinosa bail bonds. I strongly oppose.

Ryan Wagner on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association. As the bill is currently written in text, we oppose. We are encouraged by some of the amendments, and we will continue to review them as part of our committee process.

Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the committee. Questions, comments from member yes.

Mister Lackey will start with you.

Yeah. If I could ask one of the opponents. If if this bill were to become law, how would it impact domestic violence

circumstances? Thank you for that question. I can wear two hats and chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. I'm the also the president of Crime Victims United. One of the concerns that we have as a crime victims group is that, say, people were a a spouse was arrested on a domestic violence case.

It's usually the spouse that comes and bails them out. When they get home, the conversation is going to be, hey. Do you understand if you drop your charges and you don't file charges against me, we get our money back. What is that gonna do to the justice system, the criminal justice system to protect victims? And and we sincerely have concern with that as a crime victims group.

So I I appreciate us thinking about victims in here. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much, mister Lackey. Other questions or comments, mister Ramos? Was that no? Vice chair, go ahead.

a lot of concerns for this bill, and I think most people in this room do as well. Turning the the bail bondsman into a vetting's company, basically, on guilt. I could see, mister Nunez, you said you were arrested and you had, I'm assuming you bailed out. K.

I have a lot of concerns for this bill, and I think most people in this room do as well. Turning the the bail bondsman into a vetting's company, basically, on guilt. I could see, mister Nunez, you said you were arrested and you had, I'm assuming you bailed out. K.

Well, I I would assume with this law passing that they would assess your situation and then decide that they didn't wanna bail you out, and then you'd have to stay there longer until the judge allowed you to come out is how I would see that in me being a bailiff for a long time.

I would see that a lot going on with that. I also kinda think about this as we were talking about bail bond companies profiting from this. It makes me think of our insurance companies for our cars. So if I don't get in an accident for a year, do I get to get my money back? That's how they that's how they make their money.

Right? They take the risk on that, and so I'd see the bail bonds men doing the same thing. I don't I don't know what the right answer would be for this. I don't know if this is is the route we need to go, but I do see us turning this into a bad situation for those that are arrested because I know they wanna get out with their families. I know they wanna get back to their jobs.

But now I see this not being able to give the bail bondsman's that opportunity to bail them out because now they're gonna be at more risk with their companies, with their small businesses, with their livelihood because now we're pushing this on them to where they're only gonna get 20% of that. And I don't see that being survivable. And with us talking about affordability everywhere, I don't see how that also plays into this as well.

So I won't be supporting this, but that's all I had to say. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, vice chair. Mister Harabedian, please.

Wanna thank the author and and the chair. I know this has been it's a two year bill and there's been a lot of conversations. And usually, the sign of a good bill is where everyone's kind of upset, and no one really likes the outcome. And that that's the situation I think we have here. I mean, I don't think anyone really loves the outcome where we came, but these are tough issues.

And I think that this committee and the author, have wrestled with this a long time, and there's still a process to go through after this. And I think that a lot of us up here really respect and honor when a deal has been made. And when an author takes amendments that have been proposed by a committee chair after long and difficult conversations.

And because of that, I think that I will honor that deal with moving this bill and, and voting nigh on it and looking forward to seeing what happens through a probes and before we get to the floor. But just appreciate the author, appreciate her taking on this tough issue, and appreciate appreciate our chair, for, having many conversations about it.

So, I will move the bill.

Okay. We have a motion by Harabedian and a second by Hart. We'll continue discussion if there is any questions or comments anyone would like to make. Okay. The only thing I would ask, Senator, in your close, if there's anything that was raised by opposition witnesses that you'd like to respond to, you don't have to.

But anything else that you'd like the committee to consider, we're happy to hear it, and the floor is yours.

Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate the comments of of everyone on the dais, particularly, of course, Assemblymember Harabedian for acknowledging the length of time that we've worked on this and the level of commitment. I'm not the first legislator to walk into this building and try to take on bail. That's very clear, and we have a long way to go. And there are people out there doing great work. I've been friends with Topo for many, many years and value him in this community.

The long line of bail bondsmen that came up in the post are almost all from Sacramento, which is my district. Right? So I'm aware. I'm aware of what they do. When I was a young person still in law school, I worked at the public defender's office, and I worked in the arraignment court, and I dealt with bail every day, lots and lots of times per day.

And I met many, many young Esteban's who were in a tough situation. Now, normally, by the time I saw him in arraignment, that was their first chance to be in front of a judge and and get out if they hadn't already done so. But make no mistake, in this state and in this country, the way that we access justice is inequal and rooted in how much money people have. That is not the fault of the bail industry, but that is absolutely true.

I have also learned in my first time my first go round as a Senator that change in this building sometimes is incremental.

But it is progress nonetheless. I will forever forever be grateful to be sitting at this table between these two gentlemen, the work that they do, the lives that they have lived, and the line of incredible individuals and organizations that came forward and urged you to issue an aye vote that every day are fighting to access justice for everyone in the state of California, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you very much, Senator, and thank you to everyone who participated today and registered a position with the committee. I will be recommending an eye on these three points that I'd like to make.

First of all, while it didn't come up in conversation today, I have had extensive conversations with the author, and I would like to note that the language that was in, the struck out provision of of section two of the original bill, which talked about ensuring that the bail agent could at least recoup basic costs for administrative reimbursement, premium tax paid.

I understand that to be the author's intent, and I fully support that and expect that as conversations go on between the parties that that will, if not already clear, and I feel that it is, but if not already clear, will continue to be refined in the final language of the bill. And I wanna credit the author for being consistent on that position from day one.

The second thing I would note is that I I I do appreciate many of the concerns raised by the opposition witnesses and others who appeared today. What I would simply note is that this bill does not contemplate an automatic return of funds. I just like to read this portion of the bill because I think it's important. The court must find it to be both necessary and supported by factual findings.

Ergo, a person who feels that they have been wronged must come to court and demonstrate in which way in in which way the bail agent in this manner has been unjustly enriched.

Specifically, the statue says, if the court finds that one party unfairly benefits or receives something of value at another party's expense and the interest of justice requires them, then in that case, a portion up to, but not to exceed 80% can be returned. I think it is an arguably high bar, but a fair bar.

And I think that certainly certainly, it pre creates an avenue where if that proffer of evidence can be made and that demonstration can be made, it empowers the court to consider the interest of justice and return a portion of the funds to to prevent unjust enrichment. Last thing I would just say is as a matter of bail in the state of California, we can't consider this conversation in isolation.

We also have to remember that the court has been quite clear that bail should be set in an amount that the defendant can afford.

Bail is not a tool to keep people incarcerated because we don't like them. It is a constitutional guarantee. And we just wanna close with saying that while we may not see eye to eye on this, I understand and appreciate the many conversations I've had with those in opposition. I understand and take you at your word that you wanna provide that service and that access to people that are sitting in custody pretrial. I do not doubt your intention whatsoever.

And, And, yes, the bill, as it moves forward today, there will be more conversations. You are working with an author who I know wants to land the plane the right way. I have no question of her integrity or her conviction on this matter. I encourage the conversations to continue, and I and committee staff will be will remain available and happy to engage to the extent that that's helpful. So with that, I recommend deny.

We need a motion. Is there a oh, sorry. We have the motion in second. My apologies. Let's call the roll.

For item three, SB 562 by Senator Ashby, the motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Alanis, no. Hart? Hart, Aye. Haney? Aye.

Haney, Aye. Harbidian? Back. Harbidian, Aye. Lackey?

No. Lackey, no. Gwen? Ramos?

Not voting.

Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins?

Okay. That measure remains on call. Thank you, everybody. That concludes the presentation of today's items. If you're staff and you're listening and your member is not here, I'm looking for Assembly Member Nguyen. Please send. And Sharp-Collins, who I know is en route. Please come to Room 126 so we can cast our votes and go home. Wait. Do we need to go over anything? Is anyone missing any votes?

Please send. Anne Sharp Collins, who I know is en route. Please come to Room 126 so we can cast our votes and go home.

Wait. Do we need to go over anything? Is anyone missing any votes?

over anything. Is anyone missing any votes?

There are a couple of people missing, if you wanna--

All right. While we wait for absent members, we're gonna go through the items to let anyone add on to any votes they've missed, so you're welcome to leave once we do that. Madam Secretary, from the top, please.

For consent Item, [roll call]. For Item One: AB 2796 by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, the motion was do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. This item has been adopted on consent. For Item Two: SB 498 by Senator Becker, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call. [Roll call]. That measure passes.

Nguyen? Yes. For item one, AB 2796 by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, the motion was do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. This item haS Been adopted on consent. For item two, SB 498 by Senator Becker, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call.

Haney. Haney, Aye. Harbidian? Right. Harbidian, Aye.

Wen? Aye. Wen, Aye. Sharp Collins. That measure passes.

Okay. That bill is out.

Item Three was just heard. Item Three: SB 562 by Senator Ashby; the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call. [Roll call]. The item is still on call. For Item Four: SB 691 by Senator Wahab, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call. [Roll call]. That item passes.

The item is still on call. For item four, SB 691 by Senator Wahab, the motion is do passed to the appropriations committee and is currently on call. Haney. Haney, Aye. Harbidian?

Harbidian, Aye. Wen? Wen, Aye. Sharp Collins. That item passes.

That bill is out.

For Item Five: SB 891 by Senator Cervantes, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. This item has been adopted on consent. For Item Six: SB 941 by Senator Padilla, the motion is do pass and is currently on call. [Roll call]. That measure passes.

Alanis, Aye. Haney. Haney, Aye. Harabedian. Harbidian, Aye.

Lackey. Aye. Lackey, Aye. Wen? Aye.

Wen, Aye.

That bill is out.

For Item Seven: SB 953 by Senator Niello, the motion is do pass to the Transportation Committee. [Roll call]. The measure passes.

Wen? Aye. Wen, Aye. The measure passes.

That bill is out.

Item Eight: SB 1004 has been pulled by the author. Item Nine: SB 1012 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. The motion is do pass to the Labor and Employment Committee. This item has been adopted on consent. For Item 10: SB 1143 by Senator Caballero, the motion is do pass, and this item has been adopted on consent.

The motion is do passed, and this item has been adopted on consent. For item 11, SB 128, the item has been pulled by the author. For item 12, SB 136 by Senator Cortesi, the motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye.

For Item 11: SB 1208, the item has been pulled by the author. For Item 12: SB 1306 by Senator Cortese, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]. That measure passes.

Haney, Harabedian? Yes. Harbidian, Aye. Lackey? Aye.

Lackey, Aye. Wen Wen, Aye.

That bill is out.

Item 13: SB 1338 has been pulled by the author and Item 14: SB 1401 has been pulled by the author.

All right. Thank you. Let's go back to the top. I see Dr. Sharp-Collins is back with us, and any missing votes? And Assembly Member Nguyen is present too.

For consent items, [roll call]. Item One has been adopted on consent. Item Two: SB 498 by Senator Becker. [Roll call]. For Item Three: SB 562 by Senator Ashby, [roll call].

Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, aye. For item three, SB 562 by Senator Ashby. When?

When not voting, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, Aye.

That bill is out.

For Item Four: SB 691 by Senator Wahab, [roll call]. Item Five: SB 891 has been adopted on consent, Item Six: SB 941 by Senator Padilla has been dispensed with, Item Seven: SB 953 by Senator Niello has been dispensed with, Item Eight: SB 1004 has been pulled by the author, Item Nine: SB 1012 has been adopted on consent, Item 10: SB 1143 has been adopted on consent, Item 11: SB 1208 has been pulled by the author, Item 12: SB 1306 has been dispensed with, Item 13: SB 1338 has been pulled by the author, and Item 14: SB 1401 has been pulled by the author.

Item seven, SB 953 by Senator Niallo has been dispensed with. Item eight, SB 104 has been pulled by the author. Item nine, SB 1012 has been adopted on consent. Item 10, SB 1143 has been adopted on consent. Item 11, SB 128 has been pulled by the author.

Item 12, SB 136 haS Been dispensed with. Item 13, SB 1338 haS Been pulled by the author, and item 14, SB 141 has been pulled by the author.

All right. That concludes our business today. We stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 23rd. Thank you.