Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Senate Committee on Judiciary, will come to order. Good morning. We are holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the 0 Street Building. I ask that all members of the committee present themselves in Room 2100 so we can establish a quorum.

We are going to begin as a subcommittee. There are 54 measures on our agenda today, 20 of which are on the consent calendar. Wanna note that the following bills have been pulled from the consent calendar. These bills will be presented by the authors and heard in committee. Those two bills are file number 30, AB 2782 by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and file number 33, AB 1752 by Assemblymember Lackey.

That's been pulled from the consent calendar as well. The bills on the con consent calendar are as follows. File number two, AB 2134 by Assembly member Addis with amendments. File number three, AB 464 by Assembly member Aguiar Curry. File number six, AB 1760 by Assembly member Arambula.

File number 11, AB 1864 by Assembly member Berman. File number 18, AB 2086 by Assembly member Ellis. File number 19, AB 1928 by Assembly member Fong. File number 21, AB 2101 by Assembly member Gipson. File number 23, AB 1950 by Assembly member Harabedian.

File number 24, AB 2221 by Assembly member Erwin. File number 25, AB 2692 by Assembly member Erwin with amendments. File number 28, AB 2042 by Assembly member Carlro. File number 29, AB 2534 by Assembly member Carlro. File number 34, AB 1982 by Assembly member Lowenthal.

File number 35, AB 198 by Assembly member Mckinner. File number 37, AB 2106 by Assembly member Patel. File number 38, AB 2542 by Assembly member Patterson with amendments. File number 39, AB 2333 by Assembly member Pellerin. File number 41, AB 230 by Assembly member Ransom.

File number 44, AB 1781 by Assembly member Michelle Rodriguez. And finally, File number 49, AB 2478 by Assemblymember Schultz. Alright. After we hear the bills today on today's agenda, there will be an informational hearing on SB 623 by myself and Assemblymember Pappan. This informational hearing will be run just like any hearing on any regular bill.

I will hand the gavel to our vice Chair, and I will present the bill. There will be two support witnesses who have two minutes each to speak. We will hear from any Me Too support witnesses, and then we will do the same for the opposition on the bill. Members will then have an opportunity to make comments or ask questions. Since this is an informational hearing, there will be no vote on the bill today.

After the informational hearing ends, our business for the day will be concluded. Alright. So just as I mentioned for the informational hearing, the the same process will be conducted for all the other bills today. What that means is it'll be two primary witnesses in support, two primary witnesses in opposition. You don't have to have them, but if you do, that's the rule.

Each of them will have two minutes, and after the witnesses in support testify, then you may approach the microphone and provide what we call me too testimony. In other words, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. We'll do the exact same thing for the opposition. If you wish to provide further information, there is, information on the senate judiciary website, where you can submit written information to the Committee and Committee members. Alright.

I see a Assemblymember Addis, and I see one other, author whose name I won't mention so that others don't come down and jump ahead. So, alright. Assemblymember Addis.

Thank you so thank you so much, Senator. Today, we're here to present AB 1876, the Fair Care for All Act that would codify federal nondiscrimination protections into state law to ensure that no individual is excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class.

What we know is that since taking office, this president and their and his administration has continuously used, inflammatory as well as blatantly false rhetoric to scapegoat transgender and other LGBT individuals in an attempt to justify the rollback of health care protections. This has also extended to executive orders and various rules focused on denying health care to transgender individuals.

So we know that this is a very, very dangerous precedent because in rolling back protections for one community, we open the door to weakening safeguards against discrimination for many other communities.

The solution that we have AB 1876 takes proactive steps to codify non discrimination provisions of the Federal Affordable Care Act into state law. So the bill would not require expansion of services or coverage, rather ensure that if an insurance provider covers a prescribed service for one patient population, that they also cover the same service for all patient populations who need that care.

Together, the changes would prevent health care plans and providers from denying care or coverage to any individual base, based on their race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. And joining me today is Malakai Kote, director of gender of the Gender Health Center here in Sacramento.

Thank you very much. Please approach the microphone.

Greetings, state senators. My name is Doctor. Malachi Cote. I use he, they, and them pronouns, and I'm the executive director of the Gender Health Center. And I'm a licensed psychologist here in Sacramento in strong support of AB 1876.

At the Gender Health Center, we provide low barrier services to all community, including a free hosted gender affirming hormone prescription clinic and hosted and

Our services are open to everyone, and we center on serving BIPOC, two spirit, transgender, gender diverse, and intersex communities. At the G H C, we've witnessed people coming into their own lives, becoming fully who they are, and experiencing what some might call gender euphoria. We have seen the profound impact of gender congruence and joy associated with access to gender affirming care and health more generally as an entry into fully living as a person.

In the past year and a half, however, many families have come to the G H C experiencing fear of the potential loss of medically necessary care for their youth or teen or having lost access and looking to find it elsewhere. It has been an extremely stressful time for many families as parents and caregivers are typically only looking to support the growth and development and thriving of their child.

This also has impacted adults as well. Just recently, our community support services team has worked with community members who have lost health care access and are scrambling to find health insurance to cover gender affirming care. So it is for these reasons that we support AB 1876, which would strengthen protections against discriminatory health coverage health coverage plans.

It would ensure service coverage for all patient populations, and as such, we would preserve the autonomy of a person and their support systems to make medical decisions in collaboration with their medical providers and be self determined when it comes to their healthcare. So, it is for these reasons that we respectively ask for your aye vote, and solidify what works.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Others in support of AB 1876, please approach the microphone.

If you wish to support AB 1876 with Me Too testimony, please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Chair Yerely Magaion on behalf of the California Commission on Status of Women and Girls in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Dan Okenfoss with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzales on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Conallacas in support. Thank you.

Katie Vannides with Health Access California in support and adding support for SKU California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Emily Patterson on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California as a proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Guasona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the California State Association of Psychiatrists, and the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Danny Therakol on behalf of LGBTQ plus Inclusivity, Visibility, and Empowerment, also known as LIV, in support.

Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else in support of AB 1876? Seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1876, please approach the microphone.

The proponents use two minutes and thirteen seconds. So the floor is yours.

Nicole Young, Placer County, Moms for Liberty. This bill removes the medically necessary standard when it comes to treating someone rejecting their sexed body and replaces it with nondiscrimination language. If an insurer wants to stop covering sex rejecting surgeries and endocrine interventions on children as recommended by the Society of Plastic Surgeons, it must do it anyway.

The very organization whose standards of care insurers are now being forced to follow, WPATH, was sued last week by the FTC for making false and deceptive claims to parents about the effectiveness of sex rejecting procedures. This bill guarantees more girls like detransitioner Leila Jane, who despite having known severe mental health issues will have their breasts amputated at age 13.

More men like detransitioner Richard Anumi, a schizophrenic who had his penis spliced open and inverted to create a cavity paid for by Medi Cal wearing diapers followed. More men like detransitioner Brian of LA who despite being addicted to hard drugs was given estrogen. At our last hearing, Assemblywoman Addis called our witnesses hateful.

One, Lou Keeley, a detransitioner, told how he was groomed as a child to dress up like a female for men online, how he turned to drugs and alcohol as he sank deeper into the belief that he was a woman. You dismissed his pain.

We don't hate trans identified people. We feel acute sorrow for them because everybody, including their doctors, agreed that their body was wrong and that they needed a life of drugs and surgeries to be okay. That must be excruciating. True love is telling someone she was born perfect and remains so. Hate is forcing insurers to destroy somebody's body. Stand for the truth and vote no. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others who are opposed to AB 1876.

Aaron Friday, attorney president of our duty. At the last hearing on this bill, author Adas stated that I trust this committee knows fact from fiction. So do Aye, because her statements are verifiably fiction. The author claims this bill just codifies existing federal affordable care act, but that's false. Biden's ruling extending the discrimination prohibition to gender identity was enjoined nationwide in Tennessee versus Visera.

The Biden rule was vacated in 2025. This bill will codify a rule that was struck down. This bill carries severe criminal penalties. A plan director can be fined up to $20,000 and face up to one year in prison. Civilly, the DMHC may impose a penalty of $25,000 per violation.

A plan medical director who applies honest clinical judgment is essentially mandated to cover the removal of healthy ovaries of a 13 year old girl because she thinks she's a boy. A medical director who refuses to cover drugs that will permit a male to excrete some type of chemical concoction from his nipples because he thinks he is female and wants to nurse a baby, must cover that abomination. A man claiming to need help with menopause must be treated as though he is really a post menzy female.

The fact is that every major systematic review of the evidence, including the cast review, has concluded that the science does not support these interventions on kids. California needs to catch up and admit that sex rejecting interventions are rooted in pseudoscience.

No one is born in the wrong body. Vote no.

Thank you. Others opposed AB 1876. Please approach the microphone.

Good morning. Apologies for my tiredness. Tanisha Herring on behalf of NAACP to sub strongly support AB 1876. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else who's testify on AB 1876? Bringing it back? There there are no questions.

Go ahead.

No questions. I'm representing CAUSE Californians United for policy sex policy and sex based law. I I don't know the acronyms. I'm sorry. They're in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition or support? AB 1876, seeing no one approach the microphone, bring it back to committee. I have no questions or comments. Assemblymember Addis, would you like to

close? No. Just sure, I appreciate, you hearing the bill, and when there is a quorum, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I expect there will be a quorum, and I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Alright. Sooner Colusa. Sooner Colusa. Let's see. We only have 53 more bills to do.

We're on a roll. So file item number 15, AB 1650.

Thank you, Chair, and future members of the committee that I'm sure will listen back at this hearing. Thanks for the opportunity to present AB 1650 this morning. Thank you to the committee consultant, staff, and my principal co author, Assemblymember Liz Ortega, for their partnership and thoughtful work on this bill. I also wanna thank Cal Chamber and the opposition for their insight and guidance as we continue to strengthen this bill.

I will also be taking technical amendments to further strengthen the bill, like I mentioned, and address their concerns.

AB 1650 is about safety, transparency, and accountability. Since the summer of 2025, enforcement activities by ICE have intensified across our state from Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco. These operations have raised serious concerns about oversight and safety. We have seen growing concern on the use of unmarked rental vehicles in enforcement operations that have involved arrest, detention, and transport of members of our community.

When vehicles used by government agencies lack proper identification, it becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and bad actors.

Additionally, inviting potential abuses of power in government given the absence of transparency or accountability in how these vehicles are being used. These practices create not just confusion, but fear. Fear for the public and fear for those who are being illegally faced with governmental force and violence. At the same time, rental car companies are finding themselves at the center of this issue. Their vehicles are being used in these operations without notification or consistent standards for safety and identification.

AB 1650 delivers a necessary and urgent step to safeguard our communities and restore trust in the leaders who are meant to serve and protect them. This bill ensures that any privately owned vehicle rented or leased to a government agency for the purposes of enforcement is clearly identifiable with decals. It also establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability.

With that, I'm proud to be joined by our witnesses, Mister Christian Ramirez, vice president of SEIU United Service Workers West, and Monica Madrid, state policy advocate coalition for human immigrant rights, also known as CHIRLA, who will testify for the importance of this measure. And for technical assistance, I have, attorney Noel Cavillo.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I wanna thank Assemblyman Carlosa for introducing this important piece of legislation. Mister Chair, my name is Christian Ramirez. I am the vice president of SEIU United Service Workers West, and I'm also very proud to stand in support of AB 1650. Our union represents thousands of airport workers across California, passengers, service workers, security officers, sky caps, baggage handlers, cabin cleaners, janitors, and ramp and ground workers.

When millions of travelers come to our airports, it is our workers who make those airports work. It is our members who make it happen. That's why it's important that, as our workers are on the front lines of operating our state's airports, that they are safe, that they have the skills that they need to make sure that they are protected from government intrusion. And as the Assembly member mentioned, as ICE activity has intensified in our state, airport workers are increasingly faced with a troubling question.

How can we identify government authority if they arrive in a nonmarked vehicle?

For workers responsible for the safety and security of our airports, it creates confusion, it undermines trust, and makes it harder to do our jobs. And these are concerns that are not in theory. They happen every single day. Airport workers have taken these growing concerns to the picket lines, organizing rallies and standing up for workers' rights in immigrant communities who are addressing the overreach from ICE and border patrol in our communities.

They are demanding safe work spaces, accountability from those in power, and the dignity every worker deserves.

Furthermore, many of the workers who represent our immigrants come from immigrant families or live in mixed status families. It is important that in California, we uphold the right and dignity of all people. AB 1650 is about a basic principle. Government authority should be visible and accountable. If a government agency uses a rented or leased vehicle for enforcement purposes, that vehicle should be clearly identified.

Alright. Transparency protects workers, protects the public ...

Alright, Thank you very much I assume you're urging I vote.

Yes, sir.

Alright. Thank you. Others in support of AB 1650?

Good morning, Mister Chair. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. I'm here today to in support of AB 1650 by Assembly member Coloza. For many immigrant families, seeing individuals arrive in unmarked vehicles and conduct enforcement actions can be confusing and frightening.

Often, people are off are left wondering who's carrying out this action and whether they're actually interacting with law enforcement. That uncertainty can create fear, mistrust, and unnecessary tension during an already stressful situation. For example, Los Angeles last year, community members reported multiple incidents where individuals in unmarked SUVs approached homes, leading residents to believe they were being targeted by unknown actors rather than law enforcement, prompting some families to avoid answering their doors or calling for help out of fear.

These concerns have become increasingly common over the past year as immigrant communities have experienced heightened immigration enforcement activity, including large scale operations in Los Angeles. Through the LA Rapid Response Network, we regularly hear from community members who are unsure whether individuals conducting enforcement actions are law enforcement officers or if they arrive in unmarked or difficult to identify vehicles.

AB 1650 is a simple transparency measure that helps address that concern. By requiring rental vehicles used by law enforcement for arrest, detentions, or transportation of individuals to display temporary identification, showing the agency operating the vehicle. By AB 1650 provides simple safeguard to ensure that community members can identify the agency conducting an enforcement an action that clear that clarity can help promoting, greater accountability and public trust. We respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Others in support of AB 1650, please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, Credit Union. Strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Panarea Aptis on behalf of the California Community Foundation in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Navneet Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. Others in support, AB 1650. Please approach. Now, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed AB 1650, this would be a good time to approach the microphone.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office. We'd like to thank the author for considering our concerns, and we are no longer opposed. Thank you.

Oh, alrighty. Thank you. Alright. Anyone else who wishes to testify on AB 1650, please approach the microphone other than other members of the Assembly. Okay.

Bring it back to committee. Committee has no questions or comments. I expect that I will vote aye at the appropriate time. Senator Coloza, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Chair Umberg. Thank you again to our witnesses and everyone who worked on this bill, my team, the community for raising your voices. Thank you to Christian Ramirez, vice president of SEIU USWW, and Monica Madrid from CHIRLA, for your testimony. Thanks as well to opposition for their continued conversation, and our office looks forward to continuing to work together to strengthen, public trust, in what's going on right now. As I mentioned, AB 1650 is not about restriction.

It's about restoring trust, enforcing accountability, and ensuring that every act of law enforcement is grounded in the protection of basic human rights. No one should have to fear that a vehicle simply approaching them could put their safety at risk or harm them. This in turn certainty has no place in California, and it has no place in our government. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you. Yeah. Alright.

Just for housekeeping purposes, we are now blessed with several members of the Assembly here. And the process here in Senate Judiciary is that we take items in file order. So if there's no authors here, we take the next author who appears in the committee hearing room. However, if someone who is ahead of you in the alphabet appears, then we will take that person unless that person cedes their position to someone else. So I see Assemblymember Ahrens here, floors yours.

Did I hear boos in the audience? Oh, okay. Alright. Assemblymember Ahrens

Thank you.

This is file item number 5 AB 635.

Thank you. File Item five, so that would be me next. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I wanna begin by thanking your committee staff for their hard work. AB 635 is the culmination of two years of collaboration between my office, the mobile home residents throughout California, the Attorney General's Office, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

AB 635 originated with the State Auditor's recommendation to improve the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program overseen by HCD. This bill does that by becoming a grant-based program funded by mobile home residents themselves, which would eliminate barriers for qualified legal service providers who offer their legal assistance to mobile home residents. Under this law, HCD will refer complaints regarding the Mobilehome Residency Law, park closures, and local mobile home related laws to qualified LSPs within five days of receipt.

This ensures timely access to those legal services, particularly when faced with potential eviction, which could mean losing or forfeiting your mobile home. These providers will then assess the complaints. LSP grants are funded by the Mobilehome Dispute Resolution Fund, a fund completely self-funded by mobile home residents at no cost to the state. Finally, the bill extends the program sunset date to ensure it does not expire prematurely at the end of this year, allowing HCD and the necessary time to implement a new process. From the time the first complaint is received under this improved grant system, the program will operate for three years.

This will generate valuable data for the legislature and residents to assess this program's improvements. In summary, 635 preserves a crucial segment of California's affordable housing by strengthening the enforcement of existing mobile home laws. With me today is Beverly Purcell, a mobile home resident, who's here on behalf of GSMOL, and Roger Johnson, a mobile home resident. Wherever they are.

Evidently not.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Witnesses? Any witnesses? Seeing no witnesses coming forward. Anyone who wishes to testify in support of AB 635, now would be a good time to approach. All right. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposit-- oh. One witness. All right. Please approach the microphone.

Beverly, microphone.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Beverly Purcell, and I am a mobile home owner-resident representing the Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League, or GSMOL. We are proud sponsors of AB 635 as amended. Our members are seniors, veterans, and hardworking Californians of modest means. For many of us, our mobile home is our largest investment and source of our stability.

We own our homes, but rent the land they sit on, which makes us uniquely vulnerable. The Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program is set to expire at the end of this year. This program, which we fund ourselves and operates at no cost to the state, is our guardrail against abuse. In 2023, the State Auditor concluded the program needs improvement. AB 635 protects our guardrail and improves a path forward.

This bill ensures that when our rights are violated, complaints are referred within five days to qualified nonprofit legal services and paid for from the funds we assess ourselves. AB 635 also allows for the aggregation of complaints, helping the state identify and stop systematic abuses by park owners much more efficiently. A protection written in law means little if we have no practical and affordable way to enforce it. AB 635 is about basic access to justice, stability, and peace of mind for mobile home residents. We respectfully ask for your consideration, and we thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 635, please approach the microphone.

Morning, Chair and members. My name is Roger Johnson, and I'm here in strong support of AB 635. AB 635 is a critical piece of legislation for all mobile home residents. It will increase our ability to hold park management accountable when they violate the Mobilehome Residency Laws. Please help us to ensure more effective enforcement of the Mobilehome Residency Law and help with preventing unnecessary evictions, overcharging of utilities, lack of communication, lack of maintenance, and trustworthy landlord-tenant relationships.

The over 1 million mobile and manufactured homeowners pay for the MRLPP and will continue to do so, but we need your help with these program improvements that make AB 635 better. While the state enforces laws to ensure the creation of new affordable housing, the state should also protect and preserve existing affordable housing for people like us. We are asking for your help. I'm also here to answer any questions that you might have, and thank you for your considerations and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right. Others in support of AB 635, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. If you're opposed to AB 635, now is a good time to come forward. Going once, going twice. Nope. All right. Back to committee for questions or comments. There are none. Assembly Member Ahrens, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time--and I expect there'll be a motion--I'll support the bill. All right. Now, I forgot to mention one other element in terms of how we proceed. Exercising chair-to-chair prerogative and reciprocity, Chair Kalra. Okay.

Thank you other Assemblymembers for waiting patiently. File item number 27, AB1697.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and and and thank you for the for the grace in allowing me to go. So I can head back to Chair Asami Judish. AB1697 will extend the date from 2026 to 2027 for when employment contracts are subject and enforceable under AB692 and adds an urgency clause.

AB 692 was signed into law last year to protect all workers from being subject to debt traps, stay or pay employment contract provisions, exit fees, pay to quit requirements, or whatever term of art employers use to force a payment when employee, when employ when an employee wants the freedom to work someplace else. Last year, AB692 was carefully crafted to include limited exceptions and allowances for when an employer would be allowed to claw back benefits received.

It is also our intent to apply the bill retroactively so that future or pending claims a worker wants to enforce for the entire year 2026 would not be enforceable under a court order. I commit to working with those in the financial industry on a narrow allowance for inducements in some contracts offered to securities, broker dealers, or investment advisers that are registered or licensed.

By moving the data a year, this bill fulfills the ask and the governor's signing message by giving all employers with the collective bargaining agreement, including the NFL, the ability to amend contracts or negotiate through collective bargaining and more time to comply with California's labor law. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Witness in support of AB1697. Please approach the microphone.

Yeah. Good morning, Mister chairman, members. Silvio Furrer on behalf of

the National Football League in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, support if amended?

Okay. Joanne Bettencourt on behalf of CFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. We have a support if amended position on the bill. We've recently received proposed amendments language from Assemblymember Kalra. We appreciate that, his willingness to try to address our concerns.

Sure.

However, the language is not quite there yet. For example, it includes a provision that any repayment obligation would not be subject to interest accrual, and we simply cannot do this. Federal tax law requires a minimum interest rate on promissory notes and forgivable loans. Without it, the IRS can recharacterize the arrangement as immediately taxable income or impose imputed interest to both the detriment to the financial advisor. We're hopeful that we can and there are also some important technical clarifications that need to be addressed.

We're hopeful that we can all agree on language in the near term, and we appreciate and look forward to the continued dialogue. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB1697? Seeing no one approach, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB1697, now is the time.

Okay. Seeing no one approaching, bring it back to committee for questions or comments. Just one quick comment. I know we addressed this issue last year, and I have a great deal of sympathy, for example, for a traveling nurse that moves and is provided, for example, moving expenses and then has to return to their place of origin because of family emergency, some other unforeseen or unintended event.

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who's paid a million dollars and receives movie expenses and then decides once they arrive at that location to move to a different investment bank.

And I know you're working on this this situation, Chair Kalra, and I appreciate that. And I know that you, always do work in good faith to resolve legitimate concerns. So, with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair, to you and your staff also for allowing me the grace and opportunity to continue to work on these items. I think that, you you reflected the place we're in quite accurately. We expect we ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Alright. Thank you. I will, support the bill at the appropriate time, and I expect there'll be a motion. Thank you very much, Mister Chair.

Thank you.

Thanks. Alright. Now, back to the order. I believe I have

one more, Mister Shire.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. I think

it You've got judiciary bills. Yes.

Yes. AB 2784?

Yes. And Yep. And also AB 2782?

Oh, that's yeah. I think that one also got pulled. Yes. Which one would you like me to start with?

Okay. AB 2784 Okay. Is the annual bill to authorize the State Bar of California to collect licensing fees from attorneys. The good news is this year's bill does not contain a fee increase and holds the fees flat. The bill also finishes the formal separation of the former sections of the state bar now known as the California Lawyers Association from the state bar.

Whichever one you'd like.

Starting in 2030, CLA will have to collect its own dues. And starting in 2028, the CLA foundation will no longer receive state bar sponsored affinity funds. This change is driven largely by the need to address a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding the bar's sovereign immunity. The bill also updates the reporting and handling of attorney convictions by the bar's discipline system and makes numerous other technical changes.

I would note that staff for both committees have heard from several attorneys focusing on the state bar's handling of disability access requests related to the bar exam, tried trying to better understand the scope of the issue.

The 2024 bar fee bill commissioned a report on the topic from the bar that is due back later this summer. So any statutory response to that report is premature at this time, but we'll certainly get on top of that as soon as we get that report back and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Heather.

Those in support, AB 2784.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Donna Hershkowitz on behalf of the State Bar of California in support. In addition to authorizing licensing fees for 2027, the bill includes operational and governance improvements to support the State Bar's public protection efforts, improve consumer protection, and also to further the State Bar's regulatory responsibilities.

In light of the length of your agenda and the, completeness of your committee analysis, I'll leave it at that and just ask for your support, and I'm happy to answer any questions since State Bar is the subject of the bill.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2784, going once, going twice. If you're opposed to AB 2784, please approach. Seeing no one approaching, this is a miracle.

So

I that's what I do, Chair. Alright.

Thank you. This has been a continuing challenge. I actually applaud the bar for for the improvements in a number of different areas over the course of the last several years. And just making sure you've accepted the amendments? Okay.

Alright. Thank you. The appropriate time, there'll be a motion. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you.

Alright. Chair, next bill.

AB 2782 is the Assembly Judiciary Committee civil omnibus bill. This bill contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of of our prospective committees, Thus saving us from hearing at least a dozen other bills. The changes in AB 2782 are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature. No opposition. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone who wish to testify in support of AB 2782, anyone who's opposed to semicolons versus commas, please come forward. Seeing no one approaching. If you're opposed to semicolons versus commas, please approach the microphone now. If you're opposed AB 2782.

Alright. Seeing no one coming forward, would you like to close, Mister Chair?

Respect for you, Oscar and I vote. Thank you.

Expect there'll be a motion and a vote as soon as we have a quorum. Thank you. Alright. Now, Assembly member Carrillo, file number 16 AB2662.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly bill 2662. On 01/07/2025, the first ICE raid took place in Bakersfield in Kern County. Since that day, we have continued to see this federal administration detain not only immigrants, but also United States citizens. In many of these cases, agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement acted without warrants, without due process, and without allowing individual access to phone calls, their families, or legal representation.

That is not how justice is supposed to work in this country. In my own district, we saw two ICE raids just last year, and the fear they created did not stay local. It spread across California. Families were shaken, communities were disrupted, and trust was deeply damaged. That is why AB 2662 is so important.

This is a modest common sense measure that would establish a formal process for California to monitor and document federal enforcement actions, assess their impacts in our communities, and issue public reports. It will also allow us to commend legislative responses to prevent the kind of rogue and dangerous behavior we're increasingly seen from federal law enforcement agencies. There should be no place in this nation where such actions are considered acceptable, and there must be accountability for those who violate the rights and protections or democracy guarantees.

ABB 2,662 is a step forward. It acknowledges what we are seeing is no longer isolated.

It is becoming normalized. And if we are serious about upholding our democratic ideals, then we have responsibility to act. Members are respectful as for a nice vote, and I don't know if my yeah. My witness is here. One of them is here.

She is Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation to speak in support of the bill. Alright.

Thank you. Ms. Sanchez, floor is yours.

Hi. Good morning. Sorry. Good morning. Catalina Sanchez of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Sorry. I just booked it up here. For over forty years, the CLA Foundation has provided, excuse me, has advocated for farm workers and low wage workers and mixed status families. Apologies again. I just ran up here.

We provide outreach services and high quality legal assistance on constitutional rights, family emergency planning, immigration fraud awareness, and the naturalization process. We speak in support of AB 2662. Immigration enforcement has had a chilling effect throughout every corner of California. The likelihood is high for families, adults, youth, children to have some exposure to immigration enforcement.

A dad getting pulled over on his way to work, a sister getting pulled over on her way to a medical appointment, or perhaps someone on their way to the courthouse to access the justice system.

Individuals who are getting detained are the exact scenarios where Californians are vulnerable and have had violations of their civil liberties over the last year and a half. Even in this climate, rural legal services does continue to encourage naturalization, especially for individuals who do not have a prior record. Over the last year and a half, rural legal services programs have seen immigration cases where under previous practices would be granted have now been taken off calendar and are going through a much more arduous screening process.

When this bill was heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, at that time, immigration applicants had begun getting detained at USCIS biometric appointments, for naturalization, and as a result, immigration attorneys have needed to re review their client cases to ensure maximum due process rates. And of most importance to us is to do everything that we can to keep families together, so we urge your support on AB 222662.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in support of a B26 62, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, if you wish to testify, as me too's under a concerning AB 2662, now's a good time. Seeing no one coming forward, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2662, please come forward.

Going once, going twice. Alright. Bring it back to committee for me to ask questions. I have no questions or comments. Assemblymember Carrillo, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At appropriate time, I request, an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you. And I I will do so. Alright. Thank you very much.

Assemblymember Pacheco, thank you for your patience. No one sneaked in ahead of you. Your next file item number 36, AB 2235.

Thank you, and thank you, Mister Chair. Today, I am presenting AB 2235. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. As stated in the analysis, should the bill get out today, we will be amending to address the concerns with stakeholders. Violence and threats against judges have risen sharply with thousands of incidents reported in recent years and a significant increase since 2015.

As a result, many judges and their families fear for their safety. At the same time, judges' home addresses remain is easily accessible through public records and online and online databases, creating a direct pathway for bad actors to locate them and their families. Existing privacy protections in California are insufficient to prevent the widespread dissemination of this sensitive information, particularly when it originates from government sources. This gap leaves judges exposed to targeted harassment, intimidation, and potential violence at their homes.

AB 2235, the Judicial Home Security Act allows judges to use an alternate mailing address in public records while preserving legitimate access for business, legal, and law enforcement purposes.

This approach strikes a careful balance between transparency and safety, ensuring public records remain functional without compromising personal security. Given escalating threats and vulnerabilities, AB 2,235 is a necessary and measured step to protect the judiciary and uphold the integrity of the justice system. And with me today to testify in support is Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Mister Costa.

Mister Chair and, well, I I would say senators. Cliff Costa today on behalf of the California Judges Association. First, we'd like to thank the committee and the committee consultant for her hard work on this. We truly appreciate it. We have been in a variety of stakeholder conversations on AB 2235.

The mission here is clear. About twenty five years ago, the California Judges Association participated on an attorney general task force to try to look at places where vulnerabilities occurred for security related to elected and appointed officials, including judges. At that time, the property records that are housed at the local recorder and assessor's offices was seen as a vulnerability, but no solution came forth at that time. Since then, the California Judges Association has been working with, our local recorders and assessors to try to address issues.

And what you see in the analysis are amendments that we have been working with those stakeholders.

We appreciate the hard work the stakeholders has come. The fact that technology has gotten us to a place where we think we can begin to start address these issues. And AB 2235 attempts to do that as the assemblywoman laid out. It would create a judicial home security act to allow judges to identify themselves and their family members as being vulnerable to these threats.

We look forward to continuing to work on issues both with the committee as well as with stakeholders, and I respectfully ask your aye vote when you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 2235, now is a good time to come forward. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2235, please come forward. Alright.

Good morning. Larissa Mercado on behalf of the California Recorders Association and the California Assessors Association with an opposed and submitted position. I wanna echo the sponsor. We appreciate the sponsors and the author's office and committee staff for working with us. For the recorders, we are very close to getting to a place where the bill is feasible for our operations.

For the assessor's side, we're still massaging through some amendments, but we look forward to working with the author's office and the sponsors to get to a place where works for us. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else opposed AB 2235? Seeing no one coming forward, thank you very much, Assembly Member Pacheco. This is a really important issue.

Making sure that the judges can serve all of us securely, safely, and their families are safe and secure is is critically important. He hits home for me. One of my closest friends, Washington state judge, a criminal defendant came to his door and threw acid in his face, really devastating and also very intimidating to other judges. So I appreciate you coming forward. I also appreciate you working with the opposition to make sure that not only do we send a message, but it's also can be practically implemented.

And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. And thank you, Mister Chair. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your eyeball.

Alrighty. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I expect there will be. Alright. Assemblymember Crowell. I think you were next. Yes?

File item number 32AB1544.

Hi. Good morning, Senator. Thanks for having me today. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 1544 this morning. This is an important an important measure to make sure that we don't, backslide on our constitutional obligations to keep our courthouses open and accessible to the public.

We've seen across the country and right here in Sacramento an immigration court being closed to attorneys, to members of the press, and to family members during immigration proceedings. This was a federal proceeding. This can happen in state court too, and Assembly Bill 1544 just ensures that we don't backslide on our commitment at all, that we do everything we can for, transparency and trust in our, democratic institutions like our courthouses. Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Just one item of note, there are no other authors that are present in Room 2100. So if a member of the Assembly, appears there's a very good chance that they'll be able to walk right up to the podium. Alright. Bring it back.

Oh, well, I'm let me let me turn to support and opposition. If you're in support of AB 1544, please approach the microphone. If you're in support, please approach. If you're opposed to AB 1544, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is, Lieutenant Julio Delli on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. We aren't opposed to the substance of the bill. However, we are opposed to the enforcement arm of the bill. Let me provide you with analogy.

The rule that is imposed here, 2 witnesses, 2 minutes each, is a court rule, not a state rule. If we were to apply this bill to that rule, if I were to enforce that as a peace officer, I would be facing not only disciplinary action from the legislature, my department, but also, SB a potential SB 2 violation, which triggers a whole host of other consequences for peace officers.

When we are, alleged to have violated someone's civil rights, that imposes not only internal investigation, but also external investigations through Post. Post is required to investigate that matter, and we could potentially lose our ability to become a peace officer or be a peace officer in the state of California for the rest of our lives. So the consequence is is, disproportionate and whole it's very serious for peace officers.

We do not impose these rules. That is the sole jurisdiction of the presiding judge, not us. We rarely have any role in drafting those rules or advising on those rules. Those are just imposed upon us and we are now faced with the if this bill passes, we are now faced with the to choose between the better two evils. One, face, consequences internally, or number two, if we enforce these rules, now we're also facing external investigations through post.

For those reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others opposed to AB 1544? Going once, going twice. Alright.

We're gonna bring it back to committee. I don't have any questions. I assume Assemblymember Krell, you will continue to work to make sure that this bill is workable. Would you like to close?

Absolutely.

I will respond briefly to the point the opposition raised. I mean, this is a civil right with a civil remedy. There are circumstances where members of the public can be shut out of courthouses. As a prosecutor, there were situations where there were folks who were threatening victims and judges had to make, in one of my cases, a specific ruling.

So there are circumstances where that occurs, but without those circumstances, the idea that a court would be closed out from the public, you know, is something that we need to be able to stop.

And I think this is the right, civil remedy, in order to enforce a constitutional right, especially as for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. I I will, vote aye. Alright.

Thank you very much. There are no other authors that are present. So the next member of the California State Assembly who comes into Room 2100 who has a bill pending before Senate judiciary may walk right up to the podium. So especially if your last name is in the bottom half of the alphabet, now's a really good time to appear. One other administrative announcement.

We'll be, recessing at noon for, our respective caucuses. I expect that recess will go from noon to 01:30 or thirteen thirty for you military folks. I I am reminded by chief counsel that, at 01:30, I will be over in Assembly Judiciary presenting, SB 653. That one too. Six two Six twenty three.

Six twenty three. And I'll hand the gavel over to the vice Chair.

Six twenty three. And I'll hand the gavel over to the vice Chair.

Assemblymember Bonta. Thank you. Oh, very close, but Assemblymember Banta was more fleet afoot.

Alright. Forgive those that passed me in the hallway just now. I was not being rude. I was just trying to be intentional about my

like to see the bumping and checking outside. Alright. Assemblymember Banta. File number 13, AB 2624.

Thank you so much, Chair. AB 2624, the Safe at Work Act, expands California's safe at home program to include immigrant service providers, their employees, and volunteers. This program allows participants to use a substitute address designated by the secretary of state keeping their home, work, and school addresses out of public records while still allowing them to safely receive mail and legal documents through the state.

This gives them a critical layer of protection and privacy in an environment where their personal safety is increasingly at risk. Individuals who provide vital immigrant support services, including legal aid, humanitarian relief, case management, and advocacy, are facing targeted harassment.

This is not hypothetical. Advocates and workers are receiving death rates, being targeted at courthouses, and facing coordinated online docs and campaigns, even facing the vitriol at their home. These threats have risen sharply in 2025 and are expected to continue due to the current political climate. At the same time, personal information is increasingly easy to access. Data brokers collect and sell information from public records, and social media can allow individuals to piece together identifying details.

This makes it easier for bad actors to threaten or harm them, those who are simply doing their jobs. Advocates in California have faced significant threats. Doxxing and staff of volunteers at immigration legal aid organizations coordinated death threats against service providers, anti immigrant vigilante activity directed at organizations by name and address. This is the context we are working in right now. So organizations serving LGBTQ plus and immigrant communities commonly hide their locations, staff information, and other details to keep their teams and their people safe.

Currently, California State law does not provide adequate protections for their sensitive data and information, leaving immigrant advocates and service providers vulnerable. And general privacy laws act after the fact, after harm has already occurred and were not designed to address the coordinated online politically motivated harassment they are now seeing. This bill protects sensitive personal data in the way that empowers people to do their jobs safely and confidently under the secretary of State's safe at home program before harm occurs.

Since its inception nearly thirty years ago, the safe at home program has protected thousands of victims of stalking and domestic violence victims along with reproductive health workers and gender affirming care providers. The confidentially confidentiality program continues to work.

It provides participants with a substitute address, requires the secretary of state to act as an intermediary for me mail and legal service, forwarding documents within a short time frame, and keeps individual participants' home, work, and schedule and school addresses confidential and protected from public disclosure. No one should face harassment or threats at their home or work. This legislation helps prevent individuals with malicious intent from targeting those providers where they live, work, or and reduces the risk of escalation to violence, bodily harm, or worse.

For the sake of time, I will move to, those who are testifying in support of this bill. We have Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Ruth Rososa Martinez, Senior Policy Strategist with Power California Action.

Both Ruth and Monica are Immigrant Economic Justice Fellows with the Solis Policy Institute with the Women's Foundation of California.

Alrighty. Thank you. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is or Chair. My name is Monica Madrid, and I am a state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHILA, and an immigrant economic justice fellow with the Solis Policy Institute at the Women's Foundation of California. I'm here as a proud cosponsor of AB2624 by Assemblymember Bonta. AB2624 expands a safe at home program to include immigrant serving organizations and workers, and workers who face growing threats because of the communities they serve.

For organizations like CHIRLA, these threats are not theoretical. We have experienced incidences where individuals followed staff in the Sacramento and San Bernardino offices because of the work they're supporting, immigrant communities.

And at our Los Angeles offices, including yesterday just yesterday, we've had various incidences where individuals have followed staff into the building, attempted to access restricted areas, and our intake lines have received threatening messages and individuals have been have even shown up at the home of the family member of our our executive director looking for our executive director. These incidents are occurring during a time of heightened hostility towards immigrants and the organizations that serve them.

As immigrant serving organizations continue providing legal services, know your rights education, rapid response, and humanitarian assistance, staff are increasingly concerned at their personal information, could be used to harass, intimidate, or harm them and and their families.

AB 2,624 provides a practical and proven solution by allowing eligible individuals to participate in the safe at home program. The bill helps protect home address information while preserving accountability and transparency. No one should have to choose between serving their community and protecting their family's safety. California long has recognized that certain individuals face elevated risk because of their work, and immigrant serving organizations deserve access to these same protections. Thank you.

And when the time is present happens, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. Other than support of AB 2624, please approach the microphone.

Good morning, Chair. Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of Power California Action and also a fellow with the Solis Policy Institute. Power Power California Action serves young people and working families with deep roots in immigration in immigrant communities across the state. As the daughter of immigrants myself and someone who works closely with other organizations, many who have become increasingly concerned about the safety of their staff, volunteers, and community leaders. For Power California Action, these concerns are not hypothetical.

In the past year, our own Board Members have been targeted in docs for the work that they do in their communities. We've had to become more intentional about how we protect the privacy and security of our staff, our our youth leaders, our volunteers, and even the staff of our partner organizations, which diverts time, energy, and resources away from our core work and mission. We aren't the only organization who has been taking a lot of these precautionary measures.

We're also concerned about the message that this sends to the next generation of immigration advocates, attorneys, and organizers, and other service providers. We work very closely with a lot of young adults who wanna pursue careers in public service and community advocacy, but when they see people being harassed, doxxed, or threatened simply for being, for helping immigrant communities access services and exercise their rights, these careers begin begin to feel unsafe and unattainable to them.

One of the students who we work with, who provided testimony in a previous committee, whose name I will, omit, he's a JD candidate, and he's an aspiring immigration attorney. He was able to, share in a previous hearing how fearful him and some of his, classmates who are in the immigration clinic, have been to enter the field. The dreams that they once had as children to serve their community have now become, with have now come with overwhelming fear, for them and their family's safety and well-being.

Privacy isn't an abstract issue, and for many people, it's what allows them to continue showing up for their communities without worrying that they or their families will become targets.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. I do. You urge an aye vote, I'll bet.

I do.

Alright. Thank you. Okay. Others in support of ABB twenty six twenty four.

Hi. Good morning. Panarea Abdes on behalf of the California Community Foundation in support.

Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

Jason Hanel on behalf of ASPE California, support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2624?

Sorry. Also on behalf of Unidos US in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 2624? Now is a good time to approach. Let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2624, please come forward.

Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to me. I have no questions or comments. At the appropriate time, I will vote aye. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Chair, for your, allowing us to be able to have this heard in its fifth policy committee on its way to its sixth. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. As I said, at appropriate time, there'll be a motion. Thank you. Alright.

Now, as I mentioned a moment ago, yes. Assembly member Aguiar Curry, you're up next. Is that we're blessed with several authors now, but we go in and file order. So Assemblymember Aguiar Curry, floor is yours. And that would be file item number 4 AB1857.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and imaginary members. I would like to thank the Chair and the committee for their work on this bill. In 2023, the California declared access to food is a human right. But for many people, that right still isn't a reality. Today, more than one in five Californians ex experiencing hunger.

Nearly 3,000,000 low income Californians live in food deserts and do not have reliable access to affordable healthy food. The vulnerability to food deserts can be made worse by practices used by individual players in the grocery industry. When a grocery store closes or relocates, they sometimes leave behind restrictive covenants that could keep new grocery stores from moving in. These restrictive covenants are clauses in leases or property agreements that limit what businesses can operate on a site.

In some cases, restrictive covenants prohibit future grocery store use for anywhere from fifteen to, in some cases, to fifty years.

This leaves entire communities without a nearby option for fresh healthy food. As a result, residents are forced to rely on smaller stores with fewer healthy choices and often higher prices. This can lead to serious health consequences. Limited access to nutritious food is linked to higher rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and premature death. Access to healthy food is essential for public health, but these practices continue to lock many communities out, especially in small cities and rural areas.

And communities of color. Not everyone can drive miles to another store or moving a grocery store across town is not always a real solution. We need to stop these practices from happening and restore access to grocery stores in underserved communities. This bill provides a local government process to strike a restrictive covenant that's keeping a grocery store from moving into a vacant property. This is a practical step to restore access to healthy food and support communities that have been left behind.

With me today, I have Daja Thomas with LA Food Policy Council and Beth Smoker on behalf of the California Food and Farm Network. We also have loyal Terry here with for economic security California for technical questions.

Alrighty. Thank you. Closures.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Daja Thomas, manager of strategic partnerships at the LA Food Policy Council and a resident of LA Senate District twenty eight. LA Food Policy Council is a collective impact organization whose mission is to ensure food is healthy, affordable, accessible, sustainable, and fair for all. We do this by working at the intersection of food and nutrition security, economic development, and environmental sustainability, Today, I'm speaking in support of AB 1857, the grocery store access act.

We know structural barriers to grocery access, compounded by economic uncertainty, contribute heavily to food insecurity. A USC study in 2025 found that roughly one in three low income residents in LA County experienced food insecurity. That number is unacceptably high and it's higher than pre pandemic levels. That is to say that low income communities, as well as Latino, black, and elderly communities are worse off today than we were eight years ago when it comes to this issue.

I see countless partners every day working for decades with their community to bring quality and affordable food to our most disinvested neighborhoods.

Their on the ground work needs to be paired with real structural change. AB 1857 aims to eliminate a structural barrier that prevents or slows down all the amazing people in our city, county, and region, working hard to open and scale grocery stores for food and secure communities. If you drive throughout LA, you'll see a number of grocery stores that have abandoned low income communities over the past five years. Surrounded by a dense neighborhood that is deserving of accessible quality food.

LA Food Policy Council and our Good Food Economy Working Group urge you to pass AB 1857 out of committee.

We see this as just one piece of repairing decades of harm that ensures all Angelenos and Californians have dignified and responsive access to health and wellness via food in our communities. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Perfect timing. Thank you very much. Alright. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. As a cross sector network of 50 organizations working upstream to address food insecurity by removing exploitive market well-being first, we are a proud cosponsor of AB 1857. Food prices have risen nearly 30% since 2020.

A grocery cart of basics, bread, chicken, vegetables that cost $34 in 2019 costs $50 today. We keep hearing prices went up because of supply chains, the pandemic, tariffs, but the Economic Policy Institute found that over half of recent price increases were driven by corporate grocery profit margins. As grocery chains consolidate, they've used their market dominance to raise prices beyond inflation. Meanwhile, Albertsons profits grew nearly tenfold, and Kroger's surged from 5.1 to 6,800,000,000 in five years.

Restrictive covenants are one tactic grocery stores use to eliminate competition and lock in those high prices, and AB 1857 removes this tactic.

In food deserts, this food affordability crisis compounds. Residents are forced to rely on convenience stores where food can cost 50 to a 100% more with fewer healthy options. In Vallejo, a Safeway closure with a restrictive covenant left a neighborhood without a grocery store for fifteen years. A community member Harabedian entire childhood was spent without one nearby, costing families their money and time, which are two fundamental barriers to healthy living.

AB 57 AB 1857 would prevent this from happening to another community ever again by prohibiting the use of grocery restrictive covenants in the state, a small but bold step in addressing public health when even a single experience of childhood hunger can have lifelong impacts.

And food insecurity drives over $7,000,000,000 in annual health care costs in California, the highest of any state in the nation. In closing, restrictive covenants are a private mechanism that lets corporations undercut the state's own declaration that food is a human right while serving no community interest. AB 1857 rectifies this. I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Others in support of AB 1857, please approach your microphone.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Loyal Terry here on behalf of Economic Security California Action is a proud cosponsor and with support from the following organizations: AELP, Alameda County Community Food Bank, and San Diego Food System Alliance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Danny Kendall Kaiser on behalf of the CAMEO network in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Chairman Umberg, Mary Kames on behalf of the Office of Kat Taylor and NextGen Policy in strong support of AB 1857. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McCailey in support on behalf of Full Well, a non profit advocating food sustainability. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the Public Health Institute and their program Roots of Change in support, as well as Nourish California and our colleagues from Alchemist CDC who couldn't be here also in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kyle Jones on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support, please come forward.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association. We have a support if amended. We're working with the author's office and appreciate the time of her and her staff to really just tighten the definition of grocery store and and some of the other terms that are used throughout. We appreciate the progress that's been made and look forward to, going into full support soon. Thank you.

Okay. Great. Alright. Anyone else in support of AB 1857? If you're opposed to AB 1857, now is the time to come forward.

Going once, going twice, saying no. Oh, here we go.

Hi. Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association who are opposed unless amended and are still working out amends, but appreciate the author and her staff and are hopeful to reach an agreement soon. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Anyone else? Opposed AB 1857? Seeing no one coming forward, I have no questions or comments.

At the appropriate time, I'll vote aye. Would you like to close?

I would. Thank you very much. No community should lose a grocery store and can be prevented and then be prevented from getting another one for decades. We're here to support communities and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Alright. As I said, at the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. So Thank

Thank you. Alright.

Thank you very much.

All your hard work, Senator.

Thanks. Next, Assembly Member Davies. So

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

18 one one second. File number 17AB1892.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator and Mister Chair. Today, I'm here to present AB 1892. I would like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on this bill. Senator, AB 1892 is a common sense measure meant to clarify three provisions of the Davis Sterling Act related to HOAs.

First, the bill clarifies it is the duty of the HOA to repair and replace utility services to a common area, including gas, heat, water, or electrical services when interruptions of service begins. Second, clarifies and aligns HOA election nomination notices with all other HOA notices of thirty days. Lastly, requires those seeking to vote electronically than HOA election get their ballots no less than thirty days before the election. That's it. That's the bill.

It's essentially a technical cleanup measure and has no opposition. This is industry supported on both sides. With me here to testify today on behalf of sponsor Louis Brown, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you much. Mister Brown?

Good morning, Mister Chair. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute in support of the bill and ask for an aye vote when that happens.

Alright. Thank you. Others in support of AB 1892? Coming forward, seeing no one else coming forward. Let's turn let's see if you were correct in terms of no opposition.

If you're opposed to AB 1892, turns out you were right. There's no opposition here Sure. In the hearing room. Alright. Bring it back to committee.

Would you like to close?

Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Appropriate time, I'll vote. I expect to be a motion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Next, I see Assemblymember Gonzalez. I think you are next in order. Assemblymember Gonzalez, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I had this prepped for good afternoon, but good morning still. You're welcome. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm here today to present AB 634, which would prohibit the manufacturing, distribution, or sale of products containing or marked as containing tioneptine in the state of California. AB 634 will prevent Californians from being exposed to tioneptine, a dangerous substance dubbed gas station heroin. Gas station heroin is often sold over the counter at retail establishments, such as gas stations, tobacco retailers, and small markets with no age restrictions.

This means when children go to buy their favorite snack, Takis or gum or whatever they get nowadays, they also have access to gas station heroin. Despite not being approved by the FDA for any reason, some companies are distributing and selling products containing tioneptine to consumers, including products with high doses.

While approved in some European and Asian countries to treat depression or anxiety, this substance can produce both an opioid like high and an opioid like addiction when used recreationally. Many other states have already acted against this substance from placing it on a schedule to restricting its sale. Amendments to the bill have narrowed the focus of it to a restriction on commercial activities only. Joining me today, he is not here yet. But it would have been Ryan Sherman who represents the California Narcotics Officers Association.

Since this committee is moving so fast and efficiently, hasn't had the time to get here, but I'm I'm confident that I can try and answer any questions. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Alright. Thank you. Well, if you're in support of AB 634, please come forward. We'll stipulate that Mister Sherman came forward and urged the I vote. Okay?

Good morning. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Taylor Triffle on behalf of the city of Huntington Beach in support.

Thank you.

Hi there. Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We've already stipulated, Mister Sherman. Go ahead. Okay.

Thank you very much. On behalf of California Narcotics Officers Association and other peace officer groups, proud sponsors, and appreciate, your consideration. Thank you. Alrighty.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 634 please come forward? Seeing no one else coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If if you're opposed to AB 634, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, bringing back to committee.

I have no questions, comments. I'll vote aye at the appropriate time. Thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm confident that we're on the right track to protecting Californians, to protecting our kids from the dangers of gas station heroin through the measure this measure and respectfully, when appropriate, ask for the committee's I vote. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appropriate time, there'll be a motion. Alright.

We have no more authors present in Room 2100. So if you're a member of the California State Assembly and you appear in this hearing room and you have a bill before us, you will march right up to the podium. For those of you who are watching online, today is one of the busiest days in the California State Legislature. The members of the committee are either sitting in different committees or presenting bills in different committees.

And so, we do expect that we'll have a quorum here at some point in time. But by way of explanation, there's lots, lots, lots going on here today in Sacramento.

Assemblymember Ward, congratulations. You are up next.

Thank you. mister Chair.

So this would be File Number 51, AB 1684.

It's good to be a w. Well, good, morning, Mister Chair and members. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1684 and for the thoughtful engagement by you and your staff on this bill. AB 1684 prohibits a homeowner's association from restricting a homeowner's ability to install, use, or replace a home cooling system.

Now today, as you know, heat waves are the deadliest kind of extreme weather in The United States with children, seniors, and people with respiratory illness being particularly vulnerable to heat related illness and mortality.

Studies have shown that while working home air conditioning, is the number one protective factor against heat related mortality. Approximately sixty five percent of California homeowners belong to an HOA, many of whom governing documents limit the kind of cooling system that a homeowner may install, and this poses a concerning barrier to adequate heat protections for the varied health and financial needs of California families.

The idea for this bill originated from an 8,078 constituent, and I'll and the issue of time, spare the statement, but I'll summarize by their words that no family should be denied access to an air conditioning system that best meets their health, safety, and energy needs. I appreciate the ongoing conversations with the Opposition and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank

you. If you're in support of AB 1684, please come forward.

Morning Chair and and Mister Chair. Freddie Quintana with the California Apartments Associations. We support, AB 1684 because we, because this is an important right of a property owner. Cooling down your home is crucial and the bill is clear that any cooling system must be compliant with state and local, state and local building codes. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else in support of AB 1684, please come forward. Please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward.

If you're opposed AB 1684, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward. Alright. Bring it back to committee. Senator Niehlo, do you have any questions or comments?

I do not have any questions or comments. Alright. The bill is portable.

No nor do Aye. I will cast an aye vote at the appropriate time. Would you like to close?

Taking your respect for your question, I vote.

Thank you very much. Alright. Assembly member Ward, you you you you've been very fortunate today with a w last name to be going before noon. So Right. Winning.

Alright. As I said just a moment ago, if you remember the California State Assembly, you have a bill in Senate Judiciary, and you show, you will walk right up to the podium. This is a one time deal. Yeah. One of the things is we're going so fast that the line is full

of the witnesses. They told their witnesses show up in the afternoon. Let me grab that back for a second. Assemblymember Lackey, floor is yours. This would be file item number 33 AB1752.

Alright. Anytime you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair and member. And I normally say members, but looks like there's only one here, but we'll keep going. Yeah. But we're mighty.

Alright. Well, under California's eminent domain law, public entities may acquire private property for public use, but they must provide just compensation. When property owner I'm sorry. When a property owner receives an offer under threat of imminent domain, they have the right to obtain an independent appraisal. Current law allows for reimbursement up to $5,000 for that appraisal.

However, that $5,000 cap was set many years ago and no longer reflects today's market realities. Appraisal costs have risen significantly due to inflation, regulatory requirements, and increasing complexity of eminent domain valuations. As a result, many property owners are forced to pay substantial out of pocket costs simply to ensure that they're receiving fair market value. This bill, AB 7052, updates the outdated reimbursement cap. And for certain eminent domain actions, requires public entity to pay up to $8,000 for the appraisal.

This bill does not expand eminent domain authority. It just simply ensures the property owners are not financially burdened when seeking an accurate independent valuation of their property. With me today is Adam Quinones representing the Appraisal Institute. Mister Quinones. Yeah.

Good morning. Thank you. Mister Chair and members, Adam Quinones, California advocates on behalf of the Appraisal Institute, sponsors of the bill. I wanna thank Assemblymember Lackey for all of the work he's done on on this issue. He he said it perfectly.

You know, the the bill is really, narrowly focused to, raise that $5,000 reimbursement threshold to $8,000 which reflects, in the price of of living adjustment. Also want to just highlight that oftentimes related to these imminent domain actions, a, agency may be taking a a partial, piece of a property, which is a complicated appraisal. You're having to appraise the entire property, the piece being taken, and then ultimately what is going to be left over. These are much more complicated than, you know, your standard residential home appraisal.

So the costs are often much higher, which as the Assemblymember said, leaves homeowners, landowners having to pocket that, pay out of pocket for that, the remaining cost.

So, happy to answer questions and and would urge, support of

the bill. Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1752, please come forward. Please come forward if you're in support of AB 1752.

Seeing no one coming forward, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1752, please come forward. Going once, going twice. Alright. Back to committee.

Questions by committee member. No. No question. Alright. So according to Mister Quinones, you've said it perfectly.

Assembly member Lackey, would you like to add to that perfection?

I'm not gonna alter perfection, man. Ask for

your aye vote. Alright. Thank you. At the appropriate time, I'll vote aye. We will have a quorum at some point and expect a motion.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you. And I see Assemblymember Schiavo. Assembly Member Schiavo, the floor is yours. And that is file item 48 AB1660.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to have the opportunity to present AB 1660 today to ensure some of our most vulnerable have the support that they need. Public guardians help care for those who don't have someone to turn to or next of kin, and this can include managing their finances, medical bills, and assisting with funeral services.

AB 1660 helps public administrators and public guardians carry out these important responsibilities more efficiently when managing the affairs of a deceased person, minor, or conservatee. Under current law, financial institutions are required to provide information and release property when a properly authorized public administrator or public guardian requests it. However, compliance can be delayed or denied, creating unnecessary obstacles, sometimes denying the required transfer of assets for over a year.

This can delay needed care, paying for burials, and even open the window for fraud when someone is unable to manage their finances and can be easily taken advantage of. Swift transfer of public guardians and administrators protects people and their property. This bill provides a clear enforcement mechanism by allowing the court to impose sanctions of at least $1,000 per violation for failure to comply while also providing safe harbor for financial institutions trying to comply with public administrators' and guardians' requests.

To ease the process and provide more clarity and certainty, we worked with banks to update and standardize the certificate of authority forms used by public guardians and creates a statutory form for public administrators, helping ensure consistency and efficiency statewide for financial institutions. This practical administrative measure improves compliance, reduces delays, and helps protect the interests of descendants, minors, and conservatees.

In working with the opposition, we have taken extensive amendments to address their concerns, and I want to thank the committee for their help to improve this bill. We'll be accepting all committee amendments, and here with me to testify in support is Trent Smith, representing California Association of Public Administrators, Guardians and Conservators.

Alrighty. Thank you. Mr. Smith, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair. Trent Smith, on behalf of the State Association of Public Conservators, Public Guardians and Public Administrators. We started this process about three years ago, meeting with the financial institutions to let them know that there has been a problem with compliance for almost a decade, as you've heard from the author, sometimes going months and even up to a year. We were hoping to get them to maybe educate their members and to have better compliance.

We even wrote an article for their trade magazine so that they would have some education materials. But finally, when compliance did not improve, we came forward with the bill to allow a probate judge the authority and the discretion to impose a fine. So the fine is not automatic. We also heard from the financial institutions that they had a problem sometimes recognizing whether a public administrator was in fact who they said they were and they were concerned about fraud.

So we created the statutory form, which I kind of describe as a paint-by-numbers form that kind of describes who we are, what we're doing, what we're asking for, and how they can verify the identity of the public administrator. And then finally, at their request, we did put in the bill that the fine cannot be imposed for at least 30 days. We'll give them an opportunity to cure if they needed that. So we think we've taken a lot of amendments. If there's anything left that they're still opposed to, it's probably technical, but we would ask for your support today.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1660, please come forward.

Good morning. Amanda Kirch on behalf

of County Welfare Directors in support. You. Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Brandon McCarthy with the California State Association of Counties in support.

Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of AB 1660? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1660, please come forward. Going once, going twice.

Alright. Seeing no one coming forward. Bring it back to committee. Senator Neal. Questions, comments?

Does anybody else wanna say anything?

You're holding it down here.

In that case, I will. I it's I was supportive of this even with the opposition before because I knew that you would work with them and obviously you did. So

And very reasonable.

Alright. At the appropriate time, I'll vote Aye. Would you like to close?

Very much appreciate everyone working together to get to a resolution here. I think it's gonna make a big difference for people who really need it. And with that requestfully request an aye vote when that can happen.

Alright. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Quirk Silva, I see you waiting nervously. Alright.

Afraid to come to

and nervous.

With the Senate. Right. Alright.

If you have all those fans out there.

Right. File item number 40AB782.

Alright. AB 782. Good m good morning, Mister Chair. Today, I'm pleased to present AB 782. This is a narrow bill that applies to a limited group of charter cities and preserves the original purpose of a law the legislature passed just last year.

Last year, Assemblymember Schultz authored AB 1050, a bill I supported. AB 1050 responded to a challenge many communities saw after COVID changed shopping and consumer patterns across California. Commercial corridors that once drove local economies became underused while California's need for housing continued to grow. AB 1050 created a process to remove old private restrictions that can prevent housing from being built on commercial property and made it easier to convert those sites into mixed use and residential development.

That was the right policy then, and it remains the right policy today.

However, after implementation, it became clear that AB 1050 also reached a small number of cities that were never the intended focus of that bill. Before introducing AB 782, we consulted with Assembly member Schultz and discussed this unintended result. This bill reflects that conversation. AB 1050 was help unlock redevelopment in places where commercial sites had stalled and where housing production needed support.

AB 72 AB 782, which we're talking about today, keeps that tool available where it is needed, but it creates a narrow exemption for charter cities that are already producing housing at a high level and maintaining compliance with state housing laws.

The cities that have been infected include Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista, Modesto, San Bernardino, and Irvine. These are not cities stepping back from housing. These are cities that are already issuing permits, approving projects, and help meet are helping to meet California's housing goals. Under AB 7882, a city must meet three conditions. It must have a population between two hundred and four hundred thousand.

It's second, it must have a compliant housing element. And finally, it must issue more than 500 residential permits annually on average. California needs more housing, and we should continue removing barriers that stop underused land from becoming homes. We should also make sure we use the right tool for the right problem. The goal of AB 782 is not to penalize communities that are already delivering results.

The goal is to keep a narrow legal focus on the places it was designed to help. California's housing crisis demands urgency and it also demands precision. AB 7882 delivers both. With me today to testify and support and answer any questions, is Mister Chris Khan representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California.

Mister Khan, welcome. Pleasure.

Sir, Mister Chair and member, thank you. Chris Khan, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California. As the author mentioned, AB, 1050 was intended to alleviate roadblocks for redevelopment of vacant or dying commercial property or commercial centers following COVID. We are seeing, especially in Southern California in the short time that ten fifty has been in place, that it's unintentionally capturing commercial properties in high performing areas and master planned communities.

These communities also have special land use restrictions, which are in place for decades of master planning efforts, including CEQA mitigation, transportation planning, and open space, utilization and limitations.

This bill, a narrow surgical fix for a small number of contract cities locating in high performing jurisdictions, and and again, just a narrow, narrow fix. We thank the author for her leadership. We think AB 782, preserves the intent of AB 1050 while creating a narrow exemption for those cities that are smartly planned, for their master planned communities. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 782, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, any Me Too testimony? Seeing none.

Alright. Let's do the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 782, please come forward.

Good morning Chair and senators. Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association in respect for opposition. Our position to AB 782 is simple. California has passed several laws over recent years to increase housing production and this bill reverses course by returning an obstacle. This bill takes back the authority from a commercial property owner to get relief from a covenant when that commercial property owner wants to include residential property.

This bill removes the authority for eight charter cities, for eight charter cities, four of which are among the 13 largest cities in California. Three of these cities had an average, an average RHNA goal for housing production of roughly 20,000 units of housing. This bill gives relief to these jurisdictions when they give an average of 500 residential building permits. We wouldn't consider this a high performing marker and respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you.

No. Yeah. No. Respectfully ask for your

Okay. That you're just you're you yes. We are paying attention. So alright. Anyone else who wishes to support then oppose AB 782?

No. Alright. Let's bring it back to the committee. Questions? Senator Niedo?

Well, as long as nobody else has a question, I don't have a question.

Alright. Okay. I'll vote aye at the appropriate time. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. And nice to see you, Senator. Senators.

Thank you. Alright. With that, at the appropriate time, I expect there will be a motion. Assembly member Rodriguez. Oh, no.

I'm sorry. I see Assembly member Barke Hahn here. Okay. Alright. So let's see.

Assembly member Rodriguez, you have file number 42 AB2195. Would you like to start with that bill or 43?

I will start with 2195, please.

Alright. File number 42 AB 2195.

Well, good afternoon, Sir. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis. AB 2195, the Work to Support Families Act, builds on Californian's ongoing efforts to modernize our child support enforcement system in a way that is both fair and effective. This bill prevents the suspension of an occupational license for a parent who owes child support if their annual household income falls at or below 70% of the area median income.

The goal of child support enforcement is to ensure that children and the custodial parent are receiving consistent support.

Suspending a low income parent's occupational license can make that goal harder to reach. Without the license they need to work, a parent may lose income and fall further behind in their financial responsibilities. That is a lose lose outcome for everyone involved. The parent who is obligated to pay support, the custodial parent relying on those payments, and most importantly, the child. By keeping low income parents employed, we increase their ability to meet their child support obligations and provide more consistent support for their families.

This bill addresses this problem by focusing license suspensions on cases where they are more appropriate while protecting low income parents from losing their jobs. Agencies can request employment and income documentation, and a parent who does not provide that information may be presumed to be above the income threshold. This bill maintains local child support agencies' other enforcement tools. This approach preserves accountability while keeping parents connected to work. When parents can work, they are better able to provide consistent support for their children.

By promoting employment and strengthening families' economic stability, this bill advances the core mission of our child support system. I have with me today Rebecca Gonzales with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Koi Satern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization to provide testimony, and Steven Goldberg from the California Welfare Rights Organization who will be joining us to answer any technical questions you may have today.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Miss Gonzales.

Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, senior policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The Western Center is a cosponsor of AB 292195 under the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition, which is a statewide coalition of 30 plus organizations that seek to bring equitable reform to our state's child support system to better support low income children and their families, and to reduce child poverty in California.

AB 2195 eliminates a counterproductive and nonsensical policy which makes it harder for low income parents who owe child support to pay it back by limiting their earnings capacity. Occupational license suspensions and denials for those owing child support and who make less than 70% of the area median income.

Most of the license suspensions are in low wage occupations such as security guards, barbers, or manicurists. This bottle this bill is modeled on the successful passage of SB 1055 in 2022, which ended driver's license suspensions as an enforcement action for unpaid child support for the same population. An Orange County evaluation of that bill found that after implementation, Orange County's child support agency experienced no significant impact on collections. In fact, collections increased.

Additionally, limiting license suspensions to parents resulted in significant administrative savings equal to two full time case workers.

California has more other effective tools to collect child support such as wage garnishments, tax refund offsets, bank levies, credit reporting, passport denials and revocations, and adding interest to late payments. None of these enforcement tools interfere with a non custodial parent's ability to earn a living, and several put money directly into the pockets of the custodial parents.

And in response to concerns raised by previous opposition to this bill to remote accountability and balance both parents' needs, this bill now introduces a process for child support agencies to engage parents of all income levels who have fallen behind by first sending them a notice asking

them to verify their income and allowing for suspensions for those who do not Interfering with the parents ability to earn income by suspending their license handlers.

Yes. You're gonna urge an aye vote.

I'm gonna ask for an aye vote. Yes.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Hi, Chair members. Koissy Tern with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization. I'm reading testimony on behalf of Demont Hampton. My child support obligations began in 1995, and over time, as I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I just felt like I was stuck in a hole.

My children were in their thirties. I had over 100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest. Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Although I was making regular payments of $50 a month, every six months or so, because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended. When this happened, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was hard to get into contact with the right person.

Once I got into contact with them, child support said they would lift the suspension, but sometimes it would take months Thanks to AB 1055, I didn't have to worry about my license being suspended anymore. I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill, so I could look into programs that would train me to become a barber.

When I first received my barbering license, they immediately suspended my license because of my arrears. I called them back and they fixed it. About one month later, it happened again.

I had to call them back and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked with knew that my license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions, and then she would release the hold.

This happened even though I was making regular payments as they requested me to do. It was really important to me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in life. I cannot move forward while having such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. When I went to Neighborhood Legal Services, an attorney told me about the debt reduction program.

When I asked about my child support when I asked my child support case worker about it, she told me that in order to apply for the debt reduction program, Ellie Child Support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. Once the audit was complete, it sent me Alright.

And I assume both you and he urge an aye vote.

We respectfully urge an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. Other than support of AB 2195, please come forward. If you're in support of AB 2195, now's the time to come forward.

Hi there. Sam Wilkinson with End Child Poverty in California and strong support. Thank you so much.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 2195? Alright. Let's turn to the opposition.

If you're opposed to AB 2195, please come forward. Going once, going twice. Alright. Seeing no one coming forward in opposition, we'll bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members?

Senator Niello?

Not a question, a comment. This is kind of kind of why they got rid of debtor prisons, I think. So this bill is eminently supportable. Alrighty.

Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I'll cast an aye vote. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much. You are correct. And AB 2195 prevents parents and children from falling deeper into poverty by ensuring that low income parents can continue working and supporting their families. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. And you have another matter, filing number 43, AJR 17. But before we do that, I see that we have Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan and Assemblymember Berman here. We appreciate Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's affinity to this committee, and and being a frequent flyer.

I in terms of timing, if we start with Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's four bills, I don't know we're gonna get to Assemblymember Berman unless there's been some sort of accommodation between the two of you. So but having said that, we're gonna recess at noon, and then at at 1:30, Senator Niello is gonna come back and Chair the committee. So the the way we would go is after, Assemblymember Rodriguez presents her next item, then we'd go to Assembly member Bauer-Kahan. So okay.

So Assembly member Rodriguez, the floor is yours.

I just wanna make sure that Bauer-Kahan will go before lunch. Otherwise, I'll step back.

Well, you've got the floor, so unless there's

We'll make this super quick.

Oh. Okay. Alright.

Okay. Ready?

I'm ready.

Thank you to the committee for their analysis. This is Assembly joint Resolution 17 calling on our federal representatives to take action and pass House Resolution 4696 in Senate bill 2468 to provide immigrants a pathway to permanent residency. This statute would allow those who have been long term residents of The United States for at least seven years to apply for legal permanent residence. California leads the nation in migrant population. 22% of foreign born people nationwide call California home.

It has been nearly forty years since the Federal Government passed an immigration reform bill, and our current immigration system is unable to meet the needs of the present day. Approximately 8,000,000 undocumented people may benefit from the passage of renewing the federal immigration registry. This would mean that people who have built their lives, contributed to our communities, and demonstrated enduring ties to this country have meaningful opportunity to come out of the shadows.

I have with me today Monica Madrid on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, CHRLA.

Alright. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Monica Madrid, state policy advocate with the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, CHRLA, here as a proud cosponsor of AJR 17. I actually am here today because of the registry act of 1929. My great grandfather came from Mexico, back in 1921, and without the registry act, I'm trying to make my thing really really brief and and sweet and short.

Without the registry act, I wouldn't be here, my father wouldn't be here, my grandfather wouldn't have been able to be here, so with that, we respectfully ask that when the time comes for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AJR 17, please come forward. Going once, going twice. Alright.

If you're opposed to AJR 17, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back committee, Senator Niello. Oh, and you've accepted the amendments. Is that correct.