Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning, everyone. We're still waiting for not only a quorum, but Vice Chair via that is to attend. She's on her way, but I just wanted to announce I know a lot of you are probably here for AB 1585. Just want to announce that it's been pulled by the author. The author has decided to pull the item.

So if you're here for this item, it will not be presented today. Thank you. Good morning. The Senate Government Organization Committee will begin in sixty seconds. The Senate committee and government organization will begin.

First of all, welcome everyone. I love seeing the interest in the audience today. We have a full house for all of you that came from far and close-up. We always appreciate your input and and your engagement. So thank you for being here.

We are going to just change things up just a little bit. I know that Assemblymember Lee agreed to allow our Assemblymember, Stefani, to present her bill. It was gonna go really quickly and so we wanna give her the courtesy as I know that debate will be a little longer on Assemblymember Lee's bills. You may step up to the podium and invite your witnesses to come and join me up in the front. Once again, thank you everyone and good morning.

We're gonna begin once our Assemblymember is ready to go. And when you're ready, you may begin. Thank you. We're I'm sorry. Just really quickly, I need to, make sure that we announce that we still don't have a quorum, so we will begin as a subcommittee until we can establish a quorum.

But we do have, myself, I Chair, and vice Chair present, so that would allow us to to begin and we may stop the program as we get a quorum to establish it. And you may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you so much, madam Chair, members, and thank you to my colleague, Assemblymember Lee for allowing me to go first. Today, I'm here to present AB 458, which is known as the Firearm Procurement Act. And as you know, madam Chair, I've been involved in the gun violence prevention movement for quite some time.

And in 2023, when a report came out by the Brady campaign showing that 90 law enforcement agencies up and down the state of California had been contracting with gun dealers, that had violated federal gun laws.

I actually did something about it at the board of supervisors when I sat on the board in San Francisco, and we passed a law there to make certain that our law enforcement agencies weren't contracting with bad actors because we know taxpayer funds going towards bad actors is not good for our communities.

Now here every year in the state of California, we spend millions of taxpayer dollars to purchase firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories for our various state law enforcement agencies and departments. However, the state does not require law enforcement agencies to vet these firearm vendors or even ensure that they comply with local, state, and federal laws meant to protect the public.

And in absence of such a vetting system, the state has purchased firearms, ammunition, and these accessories from irresponsible vendors who have failed to perform things like background checks on all gun bills, selling to straw purchasers, losing paperwork that's critical to law enforcement investigations, and numerous other violations. The law enforcement agencies have unknowingly done this because there's been nothing into place to really vet these vendors.

This bill will task the Department of General Services in consultation with the Department of Justice to develop model guidelines, for departments, boards, and commissions of the state when they're procuring these firearms, ammunition, and accessories.

When our state law enforcement agents are buying weapons and ammunition from dealers, we need measures in place to ensure they are not buying these items from irresponsible dealers. It's that simple. Today with me, I have Jonathan Feldman with the Police Chiefs Association and Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

When you're ready, you can commence. Thank you. And you both will have two minutes each.

Thank you, Chair and members. I'll be brief. First, I wanna thank the author for her continuing work in this space around gun violence. Really appreciate all the measures that she's put forward in the last year or so. As stated, it is important that taxpayer dollars go to responsible vendors, especially when we're talking about firearms.

And unfortunately, identifying responsible vendors hasn't been as easy as you think. So to the extent that Assembly Bill 458 actually helps use the state powers to identify who those who those vendors are, will help inform local law enforcement as well. The reality is illegal gun trafficking remains a significant problem. Almost 60,000 firearms, have been recovered related to crimes demonstrating a continued flow of illegal firearms into our streets, and we don't have to talk about the damage that these firearms cause.

Everything from gang violence, domestic violence, homicides, robberies, assaults.

We made progress, but we need to do more. We thank the author one last time for a bill, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair members. Dylan Elliott here today on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in strong support of Assembly Bill 458. In in interest of just keeping my testimony brief as well, I think the author and Mister Feldman have done an excellent job of laying out the challenge here.

AB 458 aims to resolve that by directing the Department of General Services in consultation with the Department of Justice to develop model procedure guidelines so the state agencies are only purchasing from responsible law abiding vendors, something that we see as a straightforward common sense measure consistent with the values of our state.

For these reasons that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is proud to support AB 458 masks for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now invite anyone wishing to state your support. You may come up to the microphone. Seeing none, I would like to invite anyone in opposition of this bill to step up to the microphone and state your opposition. Okay.

Seeing none, we will turn it over to the members on the dais. Anyone wishing to speak? Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. Thank you, Assemblymember, bringing this forward. Are are we to believe that our agencies within the state of California are not vetting some of their vendors properly? And that's why the bill or we're finding that some of the agencies that are working with some of these vendors have had problems in the past because we have to have a good handle on everything we purchased. No doubt. Is that is that the problem that's erupted?

My understanding after reading the report from 2023, which prompted me to do the legislation in San Francisco, was that many of our law enforcement agencies are, you know, looking for the best deal they can get to save taxpayers money, and they aren't necessarily equipped to do the research on who they are actually contracting with. There were no guidelines in place. So this legislation is attempting to put those guidelines in place.

So when our agencies are looking to purchase weapons, that they're doing so under a set of guidelines to ensure that we're not dealing with bad actors.

Okay. So they would have a checklist for their vetting process is what we're looking for and have more oversight.

That is definitely my aim, Senator.

I think it's a good bill. I'll move it when it's appropriate.

Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak? Assembly member I'm sorry. Senator Valladares, vice chair.

I understand what the author is trying to accomplish on this. Of course, we want, you know, any state agency to know that the company that they're hiring to purchase anything from is operating within state and federal law. I'm having a little challenge understanding exactly how the scoring system is going to work and how a dealer, a legal law abiding arms dealer or business is going to be able to kind of understand how to report their own scoring and how that's gonna be administered?

Through the Chair, Senator. So the initial version of this bill explicitly listed procurement guidelines. Right now, the bill is in the state where we are turning that over to the to GSR to make certain that they are coming up with those guidelines. So we are hoping that this bill prompts them to look more closely at the situation so that those guidelines are developed as they continue to enter into contracts with federally licensed firearm dealers to purchase weapons.

So that will be settled once we turn it over to them to actually pay attention to this problem.

So has there been conversations with them? I mean, do they this needs to happen through legislative policy or is it something they already have the power to do?

Through the Chair, Senator. Well, they're not doing it on their own. So my legislation aims to make sure that they do it.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other interest? So first of all, just thank you. I think it's very telling that we have before us public safety support and sponsors. So I'd like to defer to our our public safety agencies.

It is important if there is any indication that we are contracting with bad actors as you said and sometimes unintended. However, creating guidelines that are gonna be clear and in consultation with all our police officers and and again, all the public safety officers, I think it's important. And would you like to close?

Thank you, madam Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. At this point, we're gonna have to hold the roll open for absent members until we can establish a quorum. And we'll let you know. Thank you so much. We will now move back to item number one, AB 1729 by Assembly Member Lee.

I would like to invite his witnesses to join us in the front. Okay. Anybody else? Opposition? Okay.

We will now move forward whenever you're ready. Assembly Member Lee, you may begin.

Thank you. Well, good morning madam Chair and senators. I rise to present AB 1729 to update the telework policy for state agencies. This policy has not been amended or updated for over thirty years does not reflect the technological opportunities or workplace realities of 2026. According to the state auditor report last year, if state workers telework three or more days weekly, the state could reduce office space by roughly 30% and save upwards of $225,000,000 annually.

Telework and hybrid schedules are the norm in many cert departments, and return to the office requires planning. And according to the Sacramento Bee's own reporting, continuous reporting, more than 70 state offices could not accommodate state workers ahead of of governors RTO order for July 2025. The RTO order did not acknowledge realities about office space, office leases, office equipment, or parking.

The RTO order did not acknowledge employees that have been hired as remote workers and may not be able to relocate given especially that we have been hiring folks the last six years under these new innovative policies. And the RTO order coming up this year on basically a week does not appear to be any better planned.

And how do we know all this? Because the state auditors report found that over two thirds of state departments reported that productivity was improved or unchanged when employees were teleworking three or more days a week. And approximately three fourths of local governments still offer hybrid schedules. And if you look at indeed.com, the following companies still offer remote jobs like Amazon, Cisco, Humana, Salesforce, UnitedHealth Group, or Wells Fargo. Remote and hybrid workplaces are becoming the standard for a wide range of jobs.

So this bill just updates state telework policy to require state departments to have a written, thought out telework policy when a department wants to implement a return to the office plan. The department simply needs to identify the operational needs to spend the time and money to do so. And from 2020 to 2024, the state proudly displayed a dashboard of the savings and benefits of telework, though that was, removed in 2024.

The bill would bring that dashboard back so the public can see whether telework is working for the state. With me in support today are Lee Kennedy representing the Work Life Law and Ted Toppin who is representing the Professional Engineers in California Government and the Association of California State Supervisors.

Thank you.

As soon as, yeah, you're ready, you may begin. Each one of you will have two minutes.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. My name is Lee Kennedy from the Center for Work Life Law at UC Law SF, where I run a legal helpline supporting thousands of pregnant workers and family caregivers. One size fits all return to office mandates drive women from the workforce. Remote work, where feasible, isn't a convenience. It is a gender justice imperative.

Between January and June of twenty twenty five, over 200,000 women left The US workforce, while 44,000 men joined it. A study of 3,000,000 workers found female employees left their jobs at nearly three times the rate of male colleagues following return to office mandates. Our helpline confirms this. California state employees tell us they face an impossible choice, either keep their job or care for their family and their health.

I've spoken with a woman who had done her job remotely for five years who was suddenly unable to, coordinate going to work and having to choose between her work and her, family.

I've spoken with a man who has a child with a, an adult child, excuse me, with a traumatic brain injury who found himself choosing between his job that he had held for seven years or caring for his daughter. And strikingly, in most cases, the direct supervisor has no objection to the employees were were working remotely. The decision is simply out of their hands due to blanket mandates. This bill's transparency provisions would require that restrictions on flexibility be grounded in documented operational need, not blanket policy.

Without it, California will lose women, caregivers, and people with disabilities from public service.

And for these reasons, I urge your aye vote on AB 1729. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Ted Toppin for the Association of California State Supervisors, the Professional Engineers in California government, sponsors of the bill. Thank you to Mister Lee for taking on AB 1729. I want to build on a couple of things he talked about the modernization of the workplace. And obviously, it was hastened by the pandemic, but for six years, state employees have delivered using hybrid telework.

And its operational benefits are immense. He talked about the cost $225,000,000 annually that could be saved. That is money that could be sent. I mean our budget problems are not getting any easier. That's money that could be spent on kids, childcare, schools, Healthcare, and not on office space that is not necessary.

He off he talked about whether telework delivers for taxpayers. It absolutely does. The administration's own department leaders in the state auditor report said that it delivered at higher or equal levels to pre pandemic levels. And then we talk about our other important operational objectives as a state, climate change. The goal is zero equal emissions by 2045.

We can't do that only with clean energy. We're going to need telework for state employees and others to meet that if it's going to be an affordable transition. And then we talk about vehicles mild traveled. The state's policy is reduce it by 30% by 2045. You can't do that with just transit and active transportation programs.

You're going to have to take cars off the road and telework is the easiest way to do that without passing on cost to Californians. So from our perspective, it's pretty simple. Save money, deliver services efficiently or more efficiently and meet our climate change and vehicle miles traveled goals. That is the way that's a win win for state government and state operations, not just state employees but everybody who is a stakeholder in this state. We would urge your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to invite anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this bill to join us upfront. Okay. We don't have anyone leading witness in opposition, but I will invite all those wishing to state your name and your position to come up to the microphone. Again, please just state your name and your position.

Thank you. Good morning. Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, proud cosponsor of this bill and in support. Thank you.

Annika Walls. I'm a disability evaluation analyst with the state of California Department of Social Services and the proud president of SEIU Local one thousand representing a 100,000 state employees, re requesting an aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members, Matt Brod here on behalf of CASE, proud co sponsors of the bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair members. Zona Lazarda with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

I'm Chris Henning with CAPT UAW Local eleven fifteen, State Scientist in support as well as on behalf of UAW Region six. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Julia Rose Pacheco. I work as a tax technician with the Franchise Tax Board. I am here in support of this bill, and I kindly implore you to vote aye.

Good morning. My name is Hannah Hendrickson. I'm an office technician in the California Department of Aging. I support this bill, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

My name is Christine Lucky Akamine, and I am a legislative analyst with the Employment Development Department, and I strongly urge you to support this bill, and so do all my other coworkers in SoCal. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Skyler Waldeck Myers. I'm a fiscal analyst for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and I respectfully ask you to vote aye on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Talene Gazarian. I'm president of CASE and an attorney with the Department of Healthcare Services. In the interest of time, I'll ask my BU2 colleagues that are here today to stand up. Collectively, we urge you all to vote aye for AB 1729.

Thank you.

Good morning. Franchesca Gianuario. I'm an attorney with the Department of Social Services and I strongly urge you to vote aye on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Alyssa Carroll with the California Department of Social Services. I'm an attorney and, I am support of 1729 and encourage you to vote aye on this today.

Simon Hyatt, elected member representative of the California Working Families Party, in strong support on behalf of the statewide steering committee of California WFP. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lee.

Hi. Good morning. I'm Jackie Douglas. I'm an environmental scientist with CalRecycle and a proud CAPS UAW member. I stand in support of this bill and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Brian Leon Guerrero, information technology specialist, one with EDD, and a member of, say. You're looking 1,000, urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Marcus Worthington. I'm an enforcement attorney for the California Department of Social Services. I'm asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Adam Bentley. I'm an attorney with the Department of Social Services, and I strongly urge you to vote aye on this bill.

Good morning. Justin Denton with the California Department of Social Services, and I'm asking you to vote aye on this bill.

Good morning. I'm Sarah Lynn Atkins. I'm an attorney for the Department of Social Services, respectfully asking you to vote aye.

Good morning. My name is Lauren Russo, and I'm an attorney with the California Department of Social Services, and I am here in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Damian Fan. I work for the Department of Housing and Community Development. I would just like to urge your support this bill as well.

Thank you. Okay. Last opportunity. Anyone else wishing to state their either support or opposition, please step up to the mic. Alright.

Seeing no interest, I will now turn it over to the members of this committee. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Assembly member for presenting the bill. Obviously, the new term is telework. And, obviously, telework has brought efficiency. It brought savings to the State of California, and it's also brought peace of mind to so many of the state workers that rely on their families, the tranquility, to be able to feel good about what they're doing and accomplish their mission at the same time. So I think that, this bill is overdue.

And I think that, as we see in the audience, everyone in support, and I too am in support. So I move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on it?

Alright. Well, first of all, thank you to everyone that came out. I know I recognize how difficult it is to get here to the capital with all those with babies out there.

Thank you for making the trip. I know babies can be fuzzy, and so thank you for your presence. And to all the workers for coming up here and stating your perspective. It's always important that we hear from workers and especially those impacted by this bill. So I wanna say thank you to all of you that came and stated your position, but I also wanna make just clarifying statements here.

I know that telecommunication I'm sorry, telework is more and more being recognized in our state and not only private industries but in the state. And I wanna just also make very clear that that this bill does fall under the DILs Act. I just wanna make clarification that this bill does not amend the act or alter existing collective bargaining processes and just wanted to make sure that we are aware of that. And, and again, thank you for your testimony and thank you for bringing this forward.

Would you like to close?

Yes. I would like to thank the Senator for collaboration on this bill and for the senators, of course, who spoke in support as well. This is just one of those modern realities where as we are now talking about affordability time and time again, this is one of those things that is real quality of life and affordability for our state employees.

Cutting down that one hour or more commute time on the end of the day or beginning of day is real savings of carbon emissions, real savings of money, and real savings of peace of mind with their family. That is real, real savings of affordability that is important.

But I think also as we are approaching a week before the Governor's RTO order is supposed to take place, and hopefully, he will see light and change his mind again, perhaps before or maybe a little bit after, as he did last year. I think it is important that we recognize that these are the, we have the great privilege and joy of seeing so many faces of our state employees that make our ambitions come true.

You know, when we're in budget season and we're doing bills, we talk about these departments and big line items. We don't often get to see the faces and the names of people that execute day in day out for our missions to get everyone housed, everyone health care. So it's really a great privilege to be working on this bill with so many state employees.

And when the time comes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote that's signed. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Once again, we don't have a quorum, so we're gonna have to place this item on call until we can establish a quorum. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this point, we're gonna have to move over to item eight.

We don't see other

We don't see any other author. The next one I see is Assemblymember Pacheco on item eight, AB 1754. So I would like to invite you to join me and your witness up up front.

Thank you.

Love to see you on this side of the of the house. So anybody else speaking in opposition can also join us up here.

Alright. We will now begin when you're ready.

Assemblymember Pacheco, you may begin.

Thank you, and good morning, madam Chair and senators. Today, I'm here to present AB 1754, which will provide voters and lawmakers with information about whether bond funds are being spent as intended and achieving their desired outcomes. AB 1754 requires succinct tracking and reporting on bond funded programs after the programs are completed.

Improved tracking will strengthen public trust and provide lawmakers with data to inform and improve future bond measures and programs. Current law requires some bond accounting and reporting primarily to prevent fraud, but does not require reporting on whether bond funded programs achieve their intended goals.

This gap in accountability has been identified for years. In 2014, the Legislative Analyst Office highlighted the need for departments to collect data in a way that allows the legislature and the public to hold departments accountable for bond spending and outcomes.

In 2020, a California Natural Resources Agency white paper reviewing its own bond investments found that most projects sampled lacked the monitoring and evaluation systems needed for succinct tracking.

According to the LAO in 2024, California pays about $6,000,000,000 each year from the general fund to pay bonds, a major ongoing cost during a difficult budget period. As California becomes increasingly reliant on bonds to fund a variety of state and local needs, accountability and voter trust are more crucial than ever.

Because bonds create financial obligations for future generations, voters wanna be confident that these obligations provide measurable public benefits. Since AB 1754 introduction, the bill has been amended to clarify the goals of reporting and limit the administrative burden for reporting agencies.

An exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act has also been added to streamline the implementation and avoid delays in the distribution of funds. AB 1754 is a straightforward transparency and accountability measure.

The bill ensures that when voters approve bonds, we can demonstrate the results of those investments and also improve future programs.

And with me today to testify is Kim Stone on behalf of Elevate California who can testify and answer any technical questions. So I will go ahead and hand it over to her.

You will have two minutes. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members, and thank you very much to the author. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate California. Elevate California is a nonpartisan proactive statewide organization working to make our state government more responsive and results driven. We support policies that improve the quality of life for all Californians through accountability, innovation, and practical solutions to the state's biggest challenges.

We're the proud sponsor of AB 1754 and pleased to work with, Assemblymember Pacheco who's done a lot in terms of good government and, accountability legislation. This bill requires executive summary type outcomes reporting for state general obligation bonds for future state general obligation bonds.

You, we, the State of California is increasingly reliant on bond funding for crucial projects in infrastructure. We currently spend between 3 and 6% of general fund dollars servicing bond deck, $6,000,000,000 to $8,000,000,000, annually.

In order to maintain voter trust and confidence and in order to give agency and department heads the information and tracking data that they need about how the bond is doing, this bill requires future bonds to, one, have the bond state its own goals and objectives, have the administering state agencies provide an annual report on the Internet and to how they're doing towards meeting those objectives.

Thanks in part to feedback from the opposition, the author amended the bill to clarify that what we're talking about is broad executive summary, one page type overview, not overly burdensome reporting. Thanks also to opposition concerns. The author amended the bill to clarify that none of this reporting would be required to go through the Administrative Procedures Act. I do wanna note nothing in the bill imposes any new reporting requirements on cities, counties, local governments, or water agencies.

The Urban Institute, Elevate, and other good government organizations urge outcomes based reporting and transparency to improve state governance.

At least six other states, Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah require, outcomes based reporting for their entire budgets, not just bonds. This is a modest requirement that will provide helpful guidance and information to both policy makers and voters. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. You also have two minutes. You may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Charles Delgado, Legislative Advocate for the California State Association of Counties, speaking on behalf of California's 58 counties with the position of oppose unless amended on AB 1754.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank the author and the sponsor, for meeting with CSAC and other stakeholders and for the recent amendment adding an administrative procedure act exemption to the bill's provisions. While we've made progress on 1754, there's still work to do.

CSAC supports efforts to ensure that public funds are spent wisely.

Local governments share in the author's mission to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and to make certain that voter approved bond funding is used for quality projects that benefit Californians. But in seeking to establish accountability, we must ensure that we do not unintentionally create additional layers of bureaucracy with little benefit to the public that we all serve. The legislature is currently addressing just such an issue.

Recently enacted Proposition 4, a $10,000,000,000 natural resources, wildfire prevention, drinking water, and climate resilience bond, contained language that unintentionally subjected state agencies and therefore project proponents to a heightened regulatory burden under the Administrative Procedure Act.

After seeing that these provisions could delay urgent disaster preparedness, water, and climate projects for years, the legislature has acted to exempt prior year Prop 4 allocations from APA and is currently advancing the bipartisan AB 35 to ensure that the rest of the Prop 4 dolars are awarded expeditiously.

As well intentioned as it may be, AB 1754 would create similar barriers to all future bond funds across every significant policy area. Projects to create affordable housing, protect veterans, invest in health infrastructure, build new transportation projects, improve schools, construct more water storage, and many, many other works to benefit Californians will be subject to new layers of administrative review for both state agencies and the builders who construct these valuable projects.

AB 1754 would inefficiently task hundreds of agencies with complex and duplicative new reporting requirements. It would invite much more litigation challenging each step of the bond funding process, beginning with the placement of bond measures on the ballot. It would divert public funds meant for public projects to state regulatory staff and attorneys.

It would delay essential projects at a time where even brief delays expose builders to the punishing effects of inflation, driving up costs substantially. And unfortunately, it would be an additional hurdle to disadvantaged communities who already experienced barriers to the project application process in the form of intensive project development, application, and compliance requirements.

We have offered amendments to this bill beyond what's already been taken that would address the issues identified in above.

We need you to wrap it up.

Okay. I appreciate this committee's time. I urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I would now invite anyone from the public wishing to state your support for this bill. Please state your name, your affiliation.

Okay. Seeing none, I would like to now invite the opposition to join us and do the same.

Please just state your name and your affiliation.

Good morning. This is Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. Just want to align our comments with our colleague from CSAC. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California also aligned with CSAC. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support and opposition?

Okay. I will now bring it over to our colleagues on the dais, Senator Bob Archuleta.

Yeah. Thank you, Assembly member for bringing this forward. The bond programs that we hear about constantly are for the betterment of the State of California, housing, veterans, you name it. It's out there. So disclosure equals trust.

You know, they there was an old saying that, you know, a rumor could could just make everything fall apart. But the fact is that the data that would be shown in a report indicates that trust by the community, trust by the state, all of us that have a bond on the table is for the betterment of the State of California and all the agencies. So I think disclosure in business brings on trust, and the truth shall prevail.

If it's a good bond, the voters will agree. If there's an issues, they'll come back into the in the boardroom, I guess we'd call it, and redo it and come back again.

But the voters will be able to realize what's going on. So I agree with the premise. I agree with the the fact that truth is the right way to go. So I'll move the bill at appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. Anybody else wishing to speak?

No. All right. Well thank you.

Well first of all I just want to say, I recognize and I'm sensitive to the water agencies and their concerns but I do want to thank you. You've taken a lot of amendments based on the opposition, and I always hope that authors want to collaborate and get to a good place. But, you know, I will, align my comments with Senator Archuleta.

This bill really is about accountability and making sure that we're good stewards of public funds if we're putting it out for a vote and we tell taxpayers that this money is intended to be used in a certain way. I think it's important that we have measurable goals and that we can see these reports and make sure that again that we're transparent and I think that's what our residents, community and Californians deserve.

So thank you for bringing this forward and definitely wanna make sure that we have measurable outcomes where we can be proud of and make sure that we proud of and make sure that we, you know, learn from that data. So with that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you and thank you Madam Chair and senators for allowing me to present on this bill. We have taken a number of amendments and my door is always open to the opposition and if we need to have continued conversations, we will. We're always willing to take any amendments to help get opposition to neutral. So I appreciate you coming here and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. We're going to have to leave the the role open for absent members and first establish a quorum, but thank you. We're now going to thank you both.

We're now going to move over to item number 10. I see Assemblymember Ramos in the audience.

He has two bills. We're gonna start with item number 10, AB 1841. So I'd like to invite your proponents to join us. Any opposition may also join in the front.

When you're ready, you may begin. Thank you.

Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you so much. I'm here to present AB 1841, state holiday for Native American people. California is home to more Native Americans than any other state in the nation, each with their own unique histories and culture.

Thank you.

However, when the state of California was created in 1850, the mentality towards the state's first people was one that brought atrocities towards the California Indian people that moved forward with a bounty on California's Indian people that was paid for by taxpayers dollars for killing Indian people here in the state of California and and taking that land.

And it was reimbursed by taxpayers' dollars then reimbursed by the Federal Government. That type of treatment towards California's first people was something that the first legislature of the state moved forward in and how they look towards California Indian people. However, in 2026, we're in a different age. A diversity shows itself in the state legislature.

And today, we come together to move forward that beyond these the history that there is a right place to honor this state's first people with a paid holiday to overcome the violence that has impacted California's first people, not only from 1850, but all the way up until we're at today, even with the missing and murdered indigenous women's crisis that continues to plague the state.

It's time that the state continues to move forward and to recognize and acknowledge in a tone for a past that has had horrific treatment towards California's first people, a trauma that still exists today. By honoring California's first people with a paid holiday, we start to move the pendulum to where it is today to honor people, to see the resiliency. Then in spite in spite of those atrocities, in spite of those killing machines that went into the state of California to shoot and kill Indian people.

The resiliency of our ancestors still flows through who we are today as California Indian people. And that their voices are still crying out from the state of California, from the grounds.

Tell them truly what happened to California Indian people. Tell them truly about the history and the culture of our people. It's time that we hear those voices. It's time that we do move forward on a paid holiday for California's first people. And with me today to testify on this bill is Calvin Hedrick on behalf of the California Native American vote project and Anika Walls, president of Service Employees International Union Local one thousand.

When you're ready, you may proceed. You have both, two minutes.

Alright. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Annika Walls, and I'm a state worker and proud president of SEIU Local 1,000 here today in support of AB 1841. Local 1,000 is California's largest, state employee union, and we represent nearly a 100,000, employees across 10 different bargaining units who work over, 1,400 worksites.

I'm proud that Local 1,000 has a Native American committee which strives to increase awareness of issues affecting our indigenous union siblings in the workplaces and in the communities of which they live.

The struggle of California's first people is the foundation of every fight for fair wages, safety, and dignity on the job. Native American day is a celebration of the resilience of California's first people. Their struggle for survival and serves as a reminder to all that there is still more work to be done to help the to help heal some of those scars of violence and the discrimination that many tribes bear to this day.

AB 1841 elevates the importance of this historic day, not just for native people, but for all Californians. For these reasons, we support this legislation, are grateful to Assembly member Ramos for his continued leadership on this issue and urge an aye vote.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. I would like to invite anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this bill to join us.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Go ahead. I my apologies.

Hello. Thank you. Chair. Is this on?

Thank you. Hassasika, good morning. Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Calvin Hedrick, and I am the, sorry, I'm the director of policy training and travel relations for the California Native Vote Project. Okay.

Sorry about that. And we are the proud sponsor of 1841 authored by Assembly member Ramos. And thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this important measure. California has recognized the importance of honoring communities and histories through observances such as Juneteenth, Lunar New Year, and Genocide Remembrance Day. These days create an opportunity for education, reflection, and understanding.

Just last week, we celebrated Juneteenth, and my family talked about its history and significance, and my children gained a deeper understanding of its meaning. That conversation happened because California chose to recognize that day. Holidays like Juneteenth create opportunities for education, reflection, and understanding across generations, And native American communities deserve that same opportunity. As the first peoples of California, native peoples have lived on these lands since time immemorial, yet our histories are often overlooked, our contributions minimized, and our stories left untold.

AB 1841 helps address that by elevating California Native American Day and creating greater recognition for native peoples, cultures, and histories.

At the California Native Vote Project, I've worked with native youth across the state, and we see firsthand how meaningful recognition can be. When young people see their communities acknowledged and respected, it reinforces that they belong, that their history matters, and that their future matters. AB 1841 is about more than a holiday. It's about education. It's about visibility.

It's about ensuring that Californians have the opportunity to learn about the first people of the state and the enduring contributions native communities continue to make today. We are grateful to Assembly member Ramos and his leadership and commitment to native communities, and we respectfully ask for your support on AB 1841.

Thank you. Now I would like to invite anyone wishing to speak in opposition of the bill to please join us. Okay. Seeing now no interest, I'd like to invite members of the committee. Senator Archuleta.

Good. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing the the, bill forward. Your work in the Native American community is just amazing. Since the day I met you, you've been carrying that flag. And I acknowledge your witnesses for the work and leadership they have in supporting the plight that the native Americans have had for years upon years.

But we have to realize that everything we do, we have to analyze it. Well, is there enough money? Yes. There is. Sufficient funds do exist for the state of California to allow this bill to happen.

That is an and a very, very important factor. So can we afford it? Yes, we can. But we cannot afford to let the day go by without recognizing California's first people and their sacrifice. This is a great way as one of your your, witnesses mentioned because education to our children is so vital.

You cannot talk about California unless you talk about discovering California and how it was done by killing Native Americans. How it was done by pushing them from one end of California to the other, establishing the reservations eventually that happened. But that history must be shown to everyone. And I think that by allowing this bill, AB 1841, to, open the doors to education, knowledge, respect, and the dignity that the Native Americans deserve. And it's ironic that the bill is 1841.

In 1841, California was pushing its way to becoming a state. The union has not fought yet as a divided union when it was over 1865. But here it is, the history. It's gotta be. If California is gonna boast about its history, it's gonna boast about being the fourth largest economy in the world, it's gotta boast about its heritage, its people, and obviously, California's first people.

So with that, I'm honored to, move the bill when at the appropriate time.

Thank you Senator.

Thank you. I'm gonna just take a little pause. I think I spoke too quickly. There is a few members of the audience that wanted to state either their position. Let's start with Me Too in support.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in proud support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members, James Jack on behalf of the Sant Ynes Band of Chumash Indians in support. Thank you.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Crystal Coles. I'm a state worker, and I'm also with SEIU Local 1000 in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Lundstrom, executive officer of the California Tribal Business Alliance in support.

Good morning. Cesar Gonzales Garcia with the California Rural Indian Health Board in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Skyler Waldeck Myers with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and urging your support. Thank you.

Good morning. Omega Purra Gonzales, government affairs director for SEIU Local 1000 representing over 100,000 state workers throughout the state of California standing in strong support.

Good morning. Daniel Schoorl, legislative advocate with SEIU Local 1000 in support.

Madam Chair, members, Frank Molina on behalf of Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians is in strong support.

Good morning Chair, members of the board. Kenny Khan, the chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in support. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll give the same courtesy to the opposition. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition, please come up to the mic. Alright. Our apologies.

We have so many committee hearings that we're trying to expedite a little, but thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry. Anybody else wishing to speak on this dais? I know we took care of Mister Archuleta? Okay.

Seeing no other interests, well, first of all, thank you, Mister Ramos. You know, I'm always honored to to join your cause as I know we've done work on missing and murdered indigenous women, and my work with domestic violence and and human trafficking and everything else. You've been quite, you know, just a a wonderful addition to the legislative body as I believe the first Native American to serve on this body. And so also wanted to highlight everything that you said.

I've taught California history for ten years, in particular Native American history.

So I recognize the importance of what we're trying to do here. And I don't think we're gonna, you know, make right what has been done to your people today. And I think we'll spend a whole lifetime trying to to ensure that that we make right what we did wrong in our history. And so, just wanna say thank you. And, again, to all those who are, you know, either related to someone that, has dealt with atrocities.

We know that trauma is generational. And and with that, I'd like to be, added as a co author. And again, thank you so much for your work. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much, Senator Chair Rubio, and thank you for offering to be a coauthor on the bill. Means a lot. Certainly, we're here today in 2026, and this legislature has opportunity to create a paid holiday, reversing that mentality that has plagued the state from the creation. It's time that we break that mentality and honor California's first people. I ask for your aye vote when the time's appropriate.

Thank you. Once again which okay. Once again, I'd like to just leave it open for absent members. We don't have a quorum, so we're gonna have to wait until everyone's here. But we are gonna move over to AB 2115 also by Assembly member Ramos.

And Mr. Ramos, I'd like to invite your witnesses in support and those in opposition to come and join us in the front. Thank you. Good to see you again. And when you're ready, Mr. Ramos, you may begin.

Well, thank you so much again, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 2115 represents an official apology from the state of California to California's first people acknowledging the state's legislature's role in historic injustices and atrocities committed against the state's Native communities and affirming its commitment to healing and reconciliation. The bill also serves as an apology from the state courts for their participation and failure to prevent the systematic discrimination and violence experienced by California's first people.

California joined the union in 1850, and the state's legislature has yet to officially apologize for its own role in the early wars and massacres waged against California Native American people. In 1851, California's first governor, Peter Burnett, addressed the legislature where he openly declared a war against California's first people.

That war was paid for using taxpayers' dollars to eliminate the Native American people of this land. Legislation was enacted to destroy tribal nations all throughout the state, wiping out entire communities and condemning generations to a future marked by profound pain and suffering that still exist today.

In 1852, the legislature deliberately voted to oppose the ratification of 18 treaties negotiated between the United States government and California tribes. Agreements that would have secured tribal homelands and guarantee basic rights and protection to many Native American people. In 1860, Members of a select committee investigated the Mendocino Wars and called for the outright takeover of tribal affairs by the state government and called for the enslavement of remaining Native Americans by the so called responsible citizens.

This history of violence against California's first people created deep and lasting trauma that continues to this day and affects Native American communities across our state. Although the governor issued an apology on behalf of the state in 2019, this body, this institution, which enacted laws that facilitated the removal and destruction of Native communities has never issued its own apology for its direct role in these injustices.

While we cannot undo the wrongs of the past, the state has a responsibility to confront it with honesty and pave the way for the true account of history to be told. Highlighting the resiliency of California's first people is a step in the right direction. Mr. Madam Chair and Members, I recognize that this legislature has made meaningful progress in addressing historic inequities.

But without an official acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a formal apology from this body, we risk becoming complacent in silence that has persisted for more than 175 years. It's also a commitment to build a better and more just future for all Native people who call the state home. The bill further requests that a plaque commemorating this apology be created and installed at the Capitol. Joining me today is Chairman Kenneth Kahn of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to provide testimony on the importance of this apology.

Welcome. You'll have two minutes. Good to see you. Two minutes. You may proceed.

Chair Rubio and... Chair Rubio and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Kenneth Kahn, and I am the tribal chairman for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. I appear here today on behalf of my tribe in strong support of AB 2115, authored by Assemblyman James Ramos.

AB 2115 represents a necessary and overdue acknowledgment by the California legislature in its role in historical mistreatment of California Native Americans. Since California's admission to the union in 1850, the state enacted and enforced laws that enabled violence against tribal communities, stripped Native peoples of basic civil protections, and made the survival of many tribes extraordinarily difficult.

For tribes like the Chumash whose ancestral homeland span the Central Coast, these policies were not abstract or distant. They result in, they resulted in dispossession from traditional lands, the erosion of cultural practices, and generational trauma that continues to affect our people today.

These harms were the direct result of state sanctioned policies adopted and maintained during California's early history. In 2019, Governor Newsom took an important step by issuing an apology on behalf of the executive branch and establishing the Truth and Healing Council. But as AB 2115 correctly recognizes, the violence and discrimination inflicted upon Native communities were not confined to executive action alone.

The legislature itself promoted and permitted policies that cause profound and lasting harm. AB 2115 acknowledges that truth, the truth. By issuing a formal legislative apology and memorializing it with a plaque in the state capitol. This bill affirms responsibility, promotes healing, and signals that California is prepared to engage in honest, respectful government to government relationship with tribal nations.

This acknowledgment is not only about the past, it lays a foundation for a stronger partnership today in areas like economic development, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation. The impacts of those policies are not confined to history books. They are reflected in lived experiences of our elders and the challenges still faced by our communities today.

At a time when California is working more closely than ever with tribal governments, it's both appropriate and necessary that the legislature formally recognizes its role in this history. For the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and for tribes across California, reconciliation must begin with acknowledgment, and it must be affirmed by all branches of government. We respectfully urge your yes vote on AB 2115. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I would like to invite anyone wishing to speak as lead opposition to join us. Okay. We don't have a lead. Now I'll go to all those wishing to state your name and your support for this bill to join us in the mic. Again, please just state your name, affiliation. Thank you.

Chris Lindstrom, California Tribal Business Alliance, in support of AB 2115. Thank you.

Frank Molina on behalf of Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians in support.

Cesar Gonzalez-Garcia with the California Rural Indian Health Board in support. Thank you.

Noam Elroi on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District in support.

Sequoia Coleman. I'm a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and Muscogee. I'm a Northern California community organizer with the California Native Vote Project, and we're in full support.

Calvin Hedrick from the California Native Vote Project in support.

Thank you. Now, I'll take my time to ask those wishing to speak in opposition to join us in the front. Seeing no interest. I will now turn it over to the Members of the Committee. I will start with Senator Blakespear. I'm so sorry.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. I appreciate the passion that you are bringing to this. And I just wanna recognize how important a true and sincere apology is for real repair. And that is really the heart of this. And in some ways it's curious that it hasn't happened yet that it's 2026.

And I was looking at the prior and related legislation that's mentioned in the committee report. And you know there are three other related legislation one of them from you and then it was only in 2024 that Jones-Sawyer had something that was similar in relation to the state's connection to chattel slavery and its enduring legacy.

And then it was back in 2005 when there was Senator Dunn who was recognizing and the state expressing an apology about illegally deported and coerced related to the Mexican repatriation program of the 1930s. So it you know it is in some ways I do find it interesting that this is the first time we've had this specific bill, and I want to recognize your insight and bringing it forward and thank you for it.

Thank you so much.

I will now turn it over to Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't repeat the colleague, the comments of my colleague because they were very well stated and I concur with her. The only thing I would add is for me the reason why an apology, not only a verbal one but one a permanent fixture that all could read, is why it's so important is people need to understand history. And what we get in our history books are very limited. It may be a couple pages.

It may be a chapter, but it doesn't speak to the true history. And so for the thousands of people that come through the capitol every single day need to be reminded and known of our history. And the last point that I wanna make about it is, and it's really disappointing to me to say, but I'm gonna say it. I was here in this GO Committee last year and an issue came up and a Member actually said, well, why do we need to do that?

The tribes are all doing very well. You know, they have casinos and they're doing well. And I was like, here, even in this body, there was a lack of understanding that there are many communities that still don't have the full access of water, electricity, housing, health care. We're still continuing to do so much work.

And the portion of the business is only one small portion and that in no way could ever repay the fact that actually this land was not of the ownership of the government of which we now serve today. So thank you for your efforts. I completely concur. I'd like to move the bill when it's appropriate. And I just wanna say that I think the permanency is so important that people will continue to be remembered and recognized and do better. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Now I'll turn it over to Senator Archuleta.

Thank you once again, Assembly Member. It's such an important bill. I know the others was, I guess, equally as important, but history is important. And AB 2115 makes a statement. And to me, if we here in California and throughout the United States of America always look at a written word, whether it be the constitution, whether it be something on a sign, something that's written in the laws that are written are on paper.

It's a document. And a document that gives a formal apology will be there forever for generations to to come, to see, to look, and even touch that document. But equally is to be able to walk in to our capitol on the grounds and touch a plaque with every child that is being educated in California to see and read exactly why the apology was necessary. And then to go back to school and actually get into the history of the Native Americans or California first people to see why the atrocities happened.

And to walk through the 1800s, 1700s, 1800s, and to realize when somebody says go home, you already are. It's amazing. We've got to acknowledge that. And so bringing this forward is so very, very important. And I'd be honored to be a co-author. And I appreciate your time, your effort. And Chief, thank you for being here as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay, but before I make my comments just want to ask Members who have bills before this committee to join us. We don't have any other authors and so we may have to recess. At this point just wanted to take it back to what I was saying. First of all, thank you again.

Assembly Member Ramos, again, ten years of teaching Native American history as a teacher, as an educator has given me a lot of insight, and I don't have the hour or the day to teach all of you everything that I've taught and I know just based on how we treated the first people of California, the atrocities and just the displacement and it continues in so many communities.

So I do believe this is a small token, and I think someone already said it. We can apologize, but just really formalizing it in a plaque would go a long way, and it's still a little down payment on reparations. And thank you for bringing it forward. I also would like to be added as a co-author, and you may close when you're ready.

Well, thank you so much and thank you for all the comments that are there. And thank you to the co-author request. I have Senator Dahle, Senator Rubio, Senator Cervantes, Senator Archuleta asking to be added as co-authors. Any others? Senator Richardson and Senator Blakespear. Thank you so much.

Way to pressure people on this dais. Okay.

Seeing the importance of this issue moving forward and the prior bill. Certainly, in the legislature today in 2026, it's a stark difference to what the legislature looked like in 1850 and those years of atrocities towards California's first people. But, the Senator does bring up a good point. How much do we truly know about California's first people?

Went from being invisible, speaking for myself on the San Manuel Reservation, people didn't even know we existed until after a bingo hall came, and now all of a sudden people know that we're there. But they don't know the underlying issues of the atrocities, the trauma, the impact that still plagues our people today.

Per capita wise, suicide, murder rates are higher than anywhere else against any other people in the state of California. Yet we're fighting those issues along with all your support on the missing and murdered indigenous women's crisis. And I am taking a longer time to close because there's no other authors that are here, but I will wrap it up. These are important issues. Certainly going through the analysis, why didn't it happen sooner could always be a, I guess, a critique of the system.

Then we got elected as a first California Indian in bringing these issues forward along with the support from tribal chairs along the way. But did it really have to take one of us to get here to start to change the mentality of the state of California? It's time that we move forward on this bill, do an apology where we could take back to our communities and talk about the lives of Indian people from our own areas. It's time that the legislature moves forward. I ask for your aye vote.

I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So again, we find ourselves without a quorum still and no authors. So I am going to take a ten minute recess to ensure that we give authors the ability to get here. So I hope that they're listening. We're looking forward to hearing your bills. So ten minute recess. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. I would also invite Members of this Committee to join us if they're also listening. So we can at least establish a quorum and take care of those bills on consent.

Welcome back. I wanted to go on record just to encourage, the following Assembly members, if they can, to please join us in GO Committee. Assembly member Jackson, Assembly member Jesse Gabriel, Assembly member Agia Curry, Assembly member Haney, Assembly member Hoover. We are waiting for authors. If you can make your way, we would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you. We will continue our recess for another ten minutes. Again encouraging all our authors to come and join us. There's no one waiting, so you'll be first. Tanya will announce we're we're back on Welcome back.

Thank you. We will continue our recess for another ten minutes. Again encouraging all our authors to come and join us. There's no one waiting, so you'll be first. Tanya will announce we're we're back on Welcome back.

Welcome back. We're back on record. We have an author, Assemblymember Hoover, who will be presenting AB 2211, item number 16. We have his speakers. So, if we have anyone in opposition, you may also join us upfront. And when you're ready, Assemblymember Hoover, you may begin. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2211. I would like to first accept the committee amendments. I appreciate the committee working with our office on this bill. Under current law, craft distillers are only permitted to operate one branch at the craft distiller's place of production, limiting their ability to reach customers across California. With committee amendments, this bill will simply allow California craft distillers to operate a satellite room separate from their craft distiller's place of production and manufacturer.

The bill also authorizes a craft distiller to purchase and use, common alcohol modifiers of vermouth, amaro, bitters, and liqueurs to combine with distilled spirits for consumption on its premises. With California leading the nation, with nearly 200 craft distillers, this bill will open up new economic opportunities. With me today is Ezrah Chaaban on behalf of the California Distillers Association. Thank you.

Good morning, Ezrah. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thanks to the committee staff, and the Chair for the thorough analysis of the bill. Ezrah Chaaban, on behalf of the California Distillers Association, representing California's 200 craft distillers, this bill provides a really important opportunity for craft distillers to reach the market. It also provides parity for the authority that other alcohol manufacturers already have.

Wine growers are allowed duplicate licenses, as are brewers and this is an opportunity to continue to promote these California made products, as well as agricultural commodities that go into them.

I'm here to answer any technical questions you may have and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the bill, please register.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Madison Dwelley, on behalf of the Family Winemakers of California, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to register their support? We will now invite opposition to come and join us. Seeing none. I will bring it back to the members of this committee. Anyone wishing to speak?

Moved by Archuleta. Just wanna say thank you. Thank you for accepting the amendments, and you may close when you're ready.

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thanks so much.

Thank you. I will continue to leave the role open for absent members. We haven't established a quorum. Thank you. We will now invite Assemblymember Jackson to join us for item number five, AB 1578.

I will also invite your your speakers to join us. Anyone wishing to speak in support?

No speakers.

Opposition? Okay.

I give to you, Madam Chair. Happy to present AB 1578, which seeks to require elected local and state officials to take anti-hate speech training by incorporating it into their existing sexual harassment training. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We don't have any main lead or opposition, but I would like to invite anyone wishing to speak. Oh, you may join us. Sorry about that. You may begin when you're ready.

You'll have two minutes each. Thank you.

Chair members, my name is Greg Burt with the Vice President of the California Family Council, and we strongly oppose AB 1578. Remember what this bill does. It mandates anti-hate training for elected officials: not the public, the lawmakers themselves. Government deciding which views its own officials need to be retrained out of. The bill targets speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred.

But those words mean different things to different people. What humiliates depends upon the beliefs of the listener. At the last hearing, the author spoke passionately about his Christian faith. He said, the loving thing is to protect people who are hurting. I take him at his word, but notice what happened.

He defined love. He defined what faithful Christian witness sounds like. And his bill hands government the power to enforce that definition on every official who holds holds a different one. When one person's convictions about what love requires becomes a standard for speech, every competing conviction, becomes hateful by default. Two Christians can read the same scripture and reach different conclusions about pronouns, parental notification, and girls sports.

This bill does not referee that disagreement. The bill picks winners and brands the other side as hateful. So, let me ask you plainly. Is it hateful to say a child can not be born in the wrong body? That girl sports should be reserved for female bodies, and that school should not change a child's name without telling the parents.

Every one of those views can be called humiliating and hateful by someone. This is a censorship strategy dressed up as training. The question is not whether the author means well. The question is whether the government should have power over speech at all, and it should not.

We need you to wrap it up. Thank you.

These officials were elected to represent their constituent's values. The bill tells them that those values can no longer be spoken out loud. Please vote no. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Rochelle Conner. I'm an abolitionist and the past President of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California. Frederick Douglass was born in slavery, and he knew what it meant to be silenced.

He said, to suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as the speakers. Every freedom that my people have won was won through speech that the powerful tried to silence. What is hate speech and who gets to determine what words constitute hate? AB 1578 is similar to the same historical strategy used by Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and others to ensure that no dissent is ever uttered or ever heard.

Hate speech training can be used as a means to inflict self censorship. It violates the rights of free speech as guaranteed by the California and the US constitution. Each elected official takes a note of office to uphold the United States constitution. This bill would violate that oath by violating the first amendment. Since 2021, the California commission on the state of hate has doled out $200,000,000 to so called anti-hate groups.

That incentivizes the manufacturer of hate to fund their own related nonprofits. 800,000 went to the Nail Salon Association to fight hate. Just another gripped like BLM and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I cannot sit silently and let the civil rights of my people be used to pedal government controlled speech. Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Junior and Malcolm X, they sacrificed too much to be silent.

I urge respectfully a no vote on this bill.

Thank you for your testimony. I would like to now invite those wishing to again, let me take my time...those wishing to speak again in support if there's anyone I missed. Anyone else wishing to speak in up in opposition of the bill, you may also come and speak at the microphone. Please just state your your name and your opposition.

Nicole Young opposed.

Thank you.

Erin Friday, President of Our Duty, opposed. I'm also representing Cause, Women Are Real, LGB Alliance, LGB Courage Coalition, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, and Concerned Women of America.

Thank you.

Barbara Walker, oppose, with Our Duty and Women Are Real.

Thank you. Once again, anyone wishing to speak and support our opposition. I will now close. I would bring it back to the dais. Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When appropriate, I'd like to move the bill. The comments I'd like to make is, I think the point and, the author can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point is is that as elected officials, we can always use to be more informed. And that's what training is all about.

And I akin this training similar to training that we have on sexual harassment. And one of the first things that they start off with sexual harassment training for us that we're required to take every single year is that one's perspective of what may be an an inappropriate action, may be different from the receiver or the giver of the information.

And so it's helpful to know what people think, how people feel, how people take information, and how that can ultimately impact how they feel, how they work, and how they ultimately implement policy. So, that's how I view, what the author is working to do today. And, with that, I'll be moving for the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. So, where to start? Where to start? I have... I have real concerns about regulating or even trying to codify anti-hate speech and I think for the very reasons that were expressed earlier today, because primarily with the First Amendment. If I may, according to the state's Department of Justice website on hate crimes, "The US constitution allows for hate speech as long as it does not interfere with the civil rights of others."

While these acts certainly are hurtful, they do not rise to the level of criminal violations and thus may not be prosecuted. In addition, this bill lacks a clear definition of what anti hate speech would include. Considering elected officials are currently required to attend training sessions including ethics, sexual harassment and workplace violence prevention, it seems that what this bill seeks to do is already covered in these mandatory trainings.

And finally, the bill imposes another mandate on local governments at a time when the state does not have resources to reimburse cities and counties with new expenses. I do appreciate the author's intent.

I don't believe that bill is practical considering speech is protected unless it interferes with the civil rights of others. Elected members are receiving sufficient training and appropriate ways to interact while at work and the bill could impose an unfunded mandate. For these reasons, I will not be supporting the bill. But in addition to that, let me just state that I've been an advocate of civil discourse. I've been an advocate of having the ability facilitating the diversity of ideas.

I think that's incredibly important in today's environment and why I advocate in open discussions and not hiding away from my constituents. I don't hide from my constituents. We go and we facilitate and we talk about the tough issues and walk through the ideas and what I believe should be modeled in the highest level of decorum and level of respect with sensitivity.

And I think that is, as electives, we have incredible and I've always said, I don't have control over anybody else's speech or actions, only my own. So, let me model what I want to see.

And so, that has been my my advocacy since I've been elected to this office, treating everyone with respect, and and accepting the fact that they have a right to to say whatever it is that they may want to say towards me and be respectful that that is their right. But the same token have also advocated on the importance of emotional grit and emotional intelligence. In that, I remember two things that I want to put on the record.

I think it's important as we deal with hate speech and as we reference hate speech and one was something that I learned as a young parent in one of my parenting classes and that was to empower my children when it came to bullying. And they said, you know, you never give your power away to anyone.

Meaning, they wanted us to ensure that our children knew that regardless of what anybody said, they didn't have the power to make you feel anything unless you gave that power away to them. And so my kids were very little, including my little boy. And so, he was bullied and we had these conversations. Understanding what they were and understanding where they were and meeting those people at in their level of development.

So, empowering people with that intelligence is not to take everything and and disempowering them, but empowering them to say, "Hey, it's not about you, it's about them."

I think was incredibly important. Another lady that came into my life was a lady that empowered women who had suffered from domestic violence and and abuse. And once again, she also came back with the with this notion that, you know, we never we can never feel less than we allow other people to let us make us feel.

And so, I've been focusing a lot on that, especially on our youth who I've come to realize that many of them are very, very easily offended by what they hear and in a country like ours where we revere the first amendment, where we revere the first amendment and the ability to say whatever it may be that we want to say, unless it infringes on our civil rights.

I think we have to ensure that we are empowering people with self power and that emotional intelligence and that emotional grit so that we are not easily offended by what people may deem as hateful speech. With that, I will always preserve people's right to call me whatever they want knowing that knowing who I am up here and here. That is their right and hopefully having them and gaining their either their respect or their - at least neutralizing them how they feel on that.

But on that, that's why I won't be able to support the bill today. I understand the intent, but I think our focus should be on absolute respect, level of decorum, civility in the way that we treat others and understanding that we should be held to a higher level of conduct as electives and representatives.

And I hope that I've been continuously modeling that that behavior. And with that, I'm sorry. Doctor Jackson, I will not be supporting the bill today. But understand your heart.

Anybody else on this wishing to speak? Oh, Senator Archuleta.

You know, the word hate is an ugly word. I think it, it's even uglier when it's in the vocabulary of someone in power. Legislators, judges, police officers, anyone in power that has that power to use the hate in whatever way they want to. And I think this bill acknowledges that hate is a bad way to conduct business: the people's business. And I think that's the point.

We've just acknowledged the LGBTQ community. Hate is always an issue. The API community, hate is always an issue. The Latino community is facing hate, from immigration. Hate is out there, and I think what we're looking at is to educate and to have the ability for legislators or city council members, whomever that's in power, to understand how hate can devastate a community.

And this bill opens that door to understanding how that one word can devastate years and years of progress, if that's what we're shooting for, years and years of understanding and bringing communities together. The one word hate. So, I'm going to support the bill because I think it will bring peace, hopefully, unity, hopefully, to us as representatives to share that love, peace, and hope that I think we should all live by. And I thank you for bringing the the bill forward, Assemblymember. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Senator Weber.

Thank you, Chair. Wanna thank the author for for bringing this bill forward. I apologize for coming in after your presentation, but so many different committees and bills going on right now. You know, I generally, question more training, in certain things, and I believe, you know, the great Senator Ochoa Bogh, has had bills before that deal with mandatory training for, for individuals. But, I think that especially given not only the history of this country, but also the current environment that we're in, this training is extremely important.

Not only for individuals, so that they can monitor what they say and how they interact with other people, but also to provide a different level of empathy that many people just don't have.

When you're trained on some things that other communities hear or have to go through or words that are used that are very hurtful and offensive, my hope is that that would change something in you to that you so that you would not only use those words, but that you would also develop a different sense of understanding for that particular community that you happen to not be a part of.

And so, I will be supporting this bill and really think that the outcome can be much deeper than just teaching or training someone of what to say or what not to say. It can also help them understand what others have gone through so that we can truly become one community, one state, and one nation that is not divided. So, thank you so much, and we'll move the bill if it hasn't already been added.

Thank you. Sorry to put put a little pause on this. I don't wanna lose members. We're gonna take a pause just to establish a quorum if I may. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

And now if I may because I'm gonna lose members, I'd like to go through consent calendar really quickly and vote on that item. I'm gonna brief the the items that are on on the list. I'm a mess director. I'll make the motion. But the items that we will be voting on are 13 items.

I'll go really quickly. Item number three, AB 744 by Rodriguez. Item number four, AB 1334 by Assembly Wallace. Assembly Member Wallis, item number seven, AB 1652 by Assembly Member Patterson. Item 12, AB 2187 by Assembly Member Ramos.

Item 13, AB 1947, Assembly member Ta. Item number 17, AB 2272 by Assembly member Caloza. Item number 18, AB 2360, Arambula. Item number 19, AB 2375, Assembly member Blanca Rubio. Item number 20, AB 2536 by Assemblymember Rubio.

Item 21, AB 2644 by Assemblymember Rubio. Item number 22, AB 2507 by Assemblymember Wynne. Item number 23, AB 2792, GO Committee. Item 24, AB 2793 GO Committee. At this point, those are the items. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Open. We're gonna continue to hold that open for absent members and thank you for allowing us this time to establish a quorum before we lose any other members. So, any other members wishing to speak on this item? So, well, thank you for bringing this forward. I am very sympathetic to all the by yourselves.

I know that this item had considerable debate in GO committee in the Assembly. I also know that that was there was more opposition and you worked to get to a good place where we can get some people off the opposition. But I know that in Appropriation, they took great care in making sure that there was a clear definition of tight speech that everyone can get behind.

I know it doesn't satisfy everyone, but essentially and I don't wanna belabor the point and add to the comments already made, but I think as elected officials, we set the tone. We really invite others to follow our lead in our communities and just getting those reminders of how, you know, how important it is that we measure our words because it has real life impacts.

You know, I'm just reminded of all the reports that I hear constantly, not only in adults, but children are committing suicide because someone said something to them online and on the playground. It's happening more and more. And anytime we take the opportunity just to remind adults that, it's important that we understand the power of our words. I think it's a good thing. I know the burden is minimal.

There is a burden, but the potential benefits are significant. And I know this bill takes the finding of the commission on the state of hate and turns that into action. So, it's not just a random statement, but it came from somewhere where it was vetted and there's real information and data behind this. And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You know, there has been a lot of references to offensive language, to humiliating language. But actually, this bill has nothing to do with that. This bill is based upon two facts, which is why it's a recommendation on the Commission on Hate. Number one, California is has been experiencing its highest level of hate crimes in its history.

And then number two, the Commission on Hate has empirical data that suggest, that confirms that there is a direct correlation between the speech targeted and dehumanizing specific groups there at different times and a rise in hate crimes with those specific groups that elected officials were targeting, describing, and dehumanizing. So this has actually nothing to do with how you feel. It actually has to do with how people have been harmed and killed based upon the constant dehumanization of people.

This bill simply says, we're gonna give elected officials the benefit of the doubt. We're going to assume that you really don't understand how your words can actually lead to the killing of people if you're not careful about the words that you use and how you spread those words.

So, we're gonna educate you so that then you can make an informed decision. And once you do that, it is completely up to you what you do and what you say because this is not a regulation bill. And so, this is basically saying that if you really believe in supporting and caring and loving people, you're gonna wanna make sure that you know the things that you can do that could actually do the opposite of that. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

May I have a motion?

Oh, we have a motion by Richardson?

Richardson. Thank you.

Item five, AB 1578: motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

We will hold that open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. At this point, we will invite Assemblymember Aguiar Curry to join us upfront. We'll invite her her supporters to as well, lead witnesses and support to join us.

We have Anna Ferrera from the Wine Institute, Tim Lynch from Napa Valley Vintners. And I don't see any lead opposition, but if there's any that I missed. Yes. Well, I'm I I apologize. We've been waiting for people to come in, and we do have some members that need to leave.

So if I can pause for a second so we can vote on the bills that we've already presented. That's fine. Thank you for your patience. And we are gonna start with I don't know. Because we just did that.

We're gonna start with item number one, AB 1729 by Assemblymember Lee. Please call the roll.

Make sure we get a motion.

Oh. Archuleta did a motion. Mister Archuleta, Senator Archuleta, make the motion.

Motion is do passed through appropriations committee. Rubio. Aye. Rubio, aye. Valadares.

[Roll Call]

We will now go to item number eight at AB 1754 by Assemblymember Pacheco. Oh, I'm sorry. Item number two. I did skip over that. AB 458 by Assemblymember Stefani. Mister Senator Archuleta made the motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We just voted on item number five. That one is item number two will remain open for absent members. We just voted on item number five by Assembly member Jackson. Item number six was pulled at the request of the author. I will I will not be heard.

Item number eight, fifty four by Assemblymember Pacheco. I'm sorry. Senator Archuleta make the motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's eight votes. We're gonna hold that open for absent members. We will now move over to item number 10, AB 1841 by Assemblymember Ramos. I believe it was Senator Archuleta who made the motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will hold that item open for absent members. We will now move over to item number 11, AB 2115 by another one by Assemblymember Ramos. I believe it was Senator Richardson who made the motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will hold that open for us and members. We will now move over to file item 16 AB 2211 by Assemblymember Hoover. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That has 10 votes. We will hold that open. For clarification purposes, we have three items to present left. File item number nine, by Assemblymember Gabriel, that will be presented by a member of this committee. File item 14, AB 1991 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry, who is currently here.

And file item number 15, AB 2017 by Assemblymember Hoover. Thank you everyone for your patience. We are just, you know, we have to navigate a lot of committees happening. So, my apology, Assemblymember and you may begin when you're ready. And just for the record, we are now on item 14, AB 1991 by Assembly member Aguiar-Curry.

You may proceed.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments today. AB 1991 allows wineries, breweries, and craft distilleries to conduct sensory testings.

Sensory testings are used for market research across the food and beverage industry. They help gather consumer feedback on characteristics like taste, aroma, and overall product quality. The Department of Alcohol Beverage Control used to allow manufacturers conduct these tastings. However, they pulled back that guidance because it was not explicitly allowed under current law. As a result, California producers lack clarity and cannot fully test or improve their products, putting them at a disadvantage nationally and globally.

AB 1991 simply provides this authority. Amendments from committee include strong guardrails to ensure tastings are conducted responsibly and strictly for research, not advertising or promotion. This way, California producers can use consumer feedback to improve quality, innovate responsibility, and remain competitive in a fast moving market. With me today, I have Anna Ferreira on behalf of the Wine Institute and Tim Lynch on behalf of the Napa Valley Vintners.

Thank you. When you're ready, you may proceed and both of you will have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair Rubio and members of this Senate GEO committee. I'm Anna Ferreira, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs at Wine Institute. It's an association of almost a thousand wineries across the state responsible for 80% of the nation's wine production. Wine Institute is pleased to sponsor AB 1991 at a very challenging time for our industry. These research tastings allow manufacturers to receive first hand information regarding participants perceptions, opinions on various characteristics of our products as well as branding and packaging. Information from these sensory level studies allow our members to learn, lean in, and develop wine blends and taste profiles that respond to what consumers want and find appealing. And through this bill we will have the opportunity to conduct these research tastings with the authority of the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

We appreciate the author's leadership in this space along with the Chair, the committee, and the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Everyone work together to make this bill better.

Recent amendments provide additional guardrails. I'm happy to take any questions you may have and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed. Tim.

Good morning. Tim Lynch on behalf of the Napa Valley Vintners; wanting to thank the author and the committee for their work on this bill. We think it resource rates that we previously had and on behalf of the 550 wineries in the Napa Valley that strive every day to make the best wine in the world, we think this bill contributes to those efforts and we appreciate your support.

Thank you. I would like to invite anyone wishing to be the lead opposition on this bill to join us upfront. Okay. Seeing none, I'm now going to invite those that wish to speak in support to state your name and your affiliation, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Kirk Kimmelshue, on behalf of Anheuser-Busch, in support.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Madison Dwelley, on behalf of the Family Winemakers of California, in support. Thank you to the author. Thank you.

Gavin McHugh, on behalf of the Distilled Spirits Council, in support and wanna thank you.

Ezrah Shaaban, on behalf of the California Distillers Association and Jackson Family Wines, in support. Thanks to the author.

Thank you. Once again, I know we're moving kind of fast. Anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition? You may come up. Seeing none, I would like to invite members of the committee if anyone has any comments.

Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. We have one more person.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Raul Verdugo, on behalf of Alcohol Justice, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry about that. So, moved by Mister Archuleta, and I will just wrap it up by saying thank you for taking the committee amendments. I know there was important safeguards that we wanted guardrails to ensure that, number one, it makes it clear that participants and interviewers have to be 21 years of age. We talked about making sure that they're not providing more samples than reasonably necessary to ensure that that they actually can give their opinion.

And of course, this is important, to make sure that there's a sunset because we wanna assess if it's working, opportunity to expand. But if it's not, then we have the opportunity to fix what's not working. And with that, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam, please call the roll.

Item 14, AB 1991, motion is do passed as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. So, as I am inviting Senator Weber Pierson to present on behalf of Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel on AB 1807, item nine, as he is stuck in his committee and won't be able to present. But, we wanna thank Weber Pierson for moving this forward. But, before we move forward, we will have one last person that needs to present.

That is Assemblymember Haney. So, we encourage him to join us so that we can wrap up this committee. Any other witnesses in support or opposition, please join us in the front. Thank you, Senator Weber Pierson for taking this on. And you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and colleague. I will be presenting AB 1807, on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel and would like to start by accepting the proposed committee amendment and he would like to thank the committee for their thoughtful work on this bill. AB 1807 will prevent state resources from being commandeered to advance the Trump's administration dangerous and chaotic immigration agenda.

Since June 2025, federal agents have conducted sweeping indiscriminate enforcement operations across California and our nation, deploying unmarked vehicles, wearing masks, and carrying heavy tactical gear.

These operations have taken place in workplaces, near residences, and previously recognized sensitive locations, and in some cases, on state-owned property, including CSU and community college facilities. They have often unfolded in front of children, families, and community members. Reckless federal enforcement activity across this country demands a response. California cannot stand idly by and support this cruelty, allowing our own property to become a base for operations that terrorize our communities.

AB 1807 would prohibit the use of state-owned property, including parking lots, vacant lots, and garages for federal immigration enforcement operations such as staging, processing, or detention activities.

The use of state-owned property to facilitate federal immigration operation interferes with California's authority over its own resources, property, and personnel, and undermines public trust and confidence. Simply put, we cannot be complicit in federal actions, which are inciting chaos and violence and harm to our communities. AB 1807 is supported by a robust coalition of labor, immigrant rights, legal aid, and civil rights organization.

And I am pleased to have with me today to testify in support of this bill, Shiu Ming here on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, and Anica Walls, on behalf of SEIU Local 1000. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Both will have two minutes each. Whoever likes to start, you may proceed.

Sure. Good morning. My my name is Shiu Ming Cheer, and I'm a Deputy Director with the California Immigrant Policy Center. We're a proud cosponsor of AB 1807 because it provides a practical way of preventing state resources: in this instance, state owned property, from being commandeered for oppressive and frequently unlawful federal immigration enforcement actions. As a Los Angeles resident, I've seen firsthand the chilling effect and consequences of masked armed immigration agents on our streets.

Last year, over 14,300 Angelenos were arrested in mass raids and warrantless arrests at workplaces, such as car washes and day labor centers, on public streets while selling fruits, and in front of court houses, churches, and schools amongst many other locations. This has heightened fear amongst local families and residents who avoided particular areas and sometimes did not go out at all.

The federal immigration operations that are taking place in public spaces, including on government-owned properties, endanger public health and safety, and impede and disrupt the ability of the state to provide services and information to constituents. These attacks will, unfortunately, likely only increase as the federal government turbocharges immigration enforcement with 70 billion allocated last month and new funding for DHS. AB 1807 proactively helps prepare our state for this by exercising control over the uses of its property.

Ensuring that state owned property cannot be used for immigration enforcement purposes will increase community confidence that state facilities and services are safe to access for all Californians. The visible signs that will be posted will signal to both the public and immigration agents that state property cannot be used for harmful immigration enforcement purposes. Over 60 immigrant justice, labor unions, community groups, and civil rights organizations across California have signed on to support this bill. And I also urge you to to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and members. I am Anica Walls, and I'm a state worker as well as the proud president of SEIU Local 1000 here today in support of AB 1807. Local 1000 is California's largest public sector union. We represent nearly a 100,000 employees across 10 different bargaining units who work at over 1,400 work sites.

AB 1807 ensures that our buildings, our parking lots, and our public grounds are not repurposed as basis of operation for federal enforcement activities that have nothing to do with those facilities, why those facilities were built nor their intended purpose.

When state-property is used as a staging area for immigration enforcement operations, it intervenes and disrupts access to the public and the work that our members are there to do. It threatens vulnerable community members and undermines trust in state government. To ensure that California retains the trust of public employees and all Californians, the state as an employer should have clear protocols and procedures in place to respond to immigration enforcement concerns on state property. This bill helps provide that clarity.

For these reason Local 1000 supports AB 1807 is grateful to Assemblymember Gabriel, for his leadership on this important issue and respectfully urge an eye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Now I would like to invite anyone wishing to speak in support of this bill to please line up and state your name, affiliation, your position. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Christopher Sanchez here on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARES, and in strong support.

Madam Chair and senators, Adam Keigwin, on behalf of California LULAC and support.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Krystal Coles. I am a worker with the state, and I'm also with SEIU Local 1000, in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Krista Ramos on behalf of Orale, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Oakland Privacy, South Bay Power Partners, New Light Wellness, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning. Camden Sai, on behalf of the California Public Policy Center, we are proud cosponsor. Also registering support for Public Council, CHILA, Working Partnerships USA, La Defensa, California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, Change Begins With Me Indivisible, California's United for a Responsible Budget: CURB, and CURS California. Thank you.

Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Good morning. Kehinde Ojeikere with the Weideman Group, on behalf of NextGen California, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Sherrill with SEIU Local 1000 in support.

Hi. Omega Brewer Gonzalez, on behalf of SEIU Local 1000 and SEIU California, representing over 700,000 workers throughout the State of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Chair members. Omar Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Elizabeth Moreno with SEIU, a former Chair for the Latino Committee, and also a member of governing board of student, group, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Once again, anyone wishing to speak in support come to a microphone at this time. Now, I'd like to invite those wanting to speak in opposition to also do the same. State your name in opposition. Seeing none. I will bring it back to our committee members.

Anyone wishing to speak on this item. Okay. I will start with us. I mean I'm sorry. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Weber. So, a couple of things on here that have been brought to my attention as far as some concerns with with the current bill. It it appears that...let's see. A couple of things.

So, in the Supreme Court case, right now, that's going on in US versus Newsom Ninth Circuit 2026, the court held that it's unconstitutional for a state statute to regulate the conduct of the federal government or interfere with federal functions. Given this information, it's not hard to imagine that should this bill be signed into law, it would also be found to be unconstitutional because it obstructs federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause.

If we allow states to impede federal actions and trespass on what is clearly federal authority, we do run the risk of compromising all federal authority and inherently making the country more polarized and ungovernable. Also, I have notes here that state that in February 2026, the US Department of Justice sued New Jersey, arguing that the New Jersey's executive order number 12, which limits ICE access to state owned property obstructs federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause; that court case is currently pending.

So, it seems that we may be this bill might be a little premature. It's something that's already in the courts.

It's being tested. I, and because of the other previous bill or case that happened, which really is trying to highlight the Supremacy Clause as far as enforcing the immigration laws, it seems that this bill would be either one, premature, or number two, it would be violating the supreme clause right now, when it comes to the federal government and its ability to do its job. And California coming in and saying this, you can and cannot do your job in these certain particular spaces.

So, we currently have these in the court cases.

So, with that, I will not be supporting the bill today and I look forward to seeing what the what the court the courts decide on on this this very issue that we're trying to address with this bill.

Thank you. And, I appreciate that, and we'll see what happens with the the bill that's happening in New Jersey. I would disagree that it's premature. I think that we have seen what has happened and that we need to act, to protect the residents that we were all actually elected to serve. And so, that's with that point.

And with the initial thing that you mentioned, this bill does not interfere with what the federal government is gonna do. If they're going to do some ICE raid or immigration raid, it's not stating that you can't. It's just stating that you can't do it on state owned property, just like you could say you can't do it in my house because I own my house.

And so, as of right now, we can say that you cannot come on state-owned property, just like you cannot do certain things in your house or certain things on private property. And we're not telling them that they can't do it.

We're just saying that we own these properties and you can't do it on these properties. So, as of right now, it's perfectly legal. We'll see what they say in New Jersey, but that initial case that you cited does not apply to this particular bill.

Could I respond to that also? Yeah. I also wanted to point out that under the tenth amendment anti-commandeering principle, it's been well founded that, the federal government cannot commandeer local or state resources. So that's the principle that we're looking at here. Again, the state has authority to exercise it, what to do over its own resources and property.

Also there's been a spate of bills that have been passed in recent years that limit immigration enforcement at health facilities, as well as on the grounds of schools and universities. Those haven't been challenged so we do feel that we're on strong legal ground in terms of the state being able to exercise control over its own property.

Anybody else on the state is wishing to speak? Senator Valladares.

Thank you. I'm not gonna be able to support this bill today, mostly because it doesn't distinguish between a dangerous criminal subject to immigration and deportation and someone with a civil violation. It treats all immigration enforcement as something California should resist and I have serious concerns with that. I mean, from my perspective, the question we should be asking is who is this protecting? It's protecting gang members. It's protecting the human trafficker, the convicted violent felon.

And there's no - this bill doesn't distinguish that. And that's where I have the major challenge with that. Because I believe that it's government's most basic responsibility to provide public safety. And if we're not cooperating on these with with immigration services on these violent criminals, that brings grave concern for me when it comes to public safety. Therefore, I cannot support the bill.

Anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Senator Archuleta.

Good. Thank you. Oh, standing in. We appreciate it. But this is an issue that's been facing California for months and months now and I think the general public has spoken.

I think all minorities across California have spoken. Not just one, all have spoken about equality and fairness and opportunity. And this pushes itself to say that, one entity is gonna do it regardless of what the state says. Well, I think the State of California is ready to fight again. Quite a few lawsuits have taken place, and California has won quite a few lawsuits.

So, there's no doubt this is another one. But if we don't fight, we're not gonna win. And this is the way to do it because ICE has gone to Los Angeles and Downtown, the Highway Patrol Station. They've gone to our community colleges. They've gone to our cities, and they will continue unless we actually put something on the table.

So, I think this is the way to go. And if we don't have a motion, I will make the motion.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Anybody else wishing to speak on this? Okay. Seeing none. First of all, thank you for stepping in.

I know we don't have the author here, but, I know there's some concerns about, us impeding in any federal investigation or obstructing, but the Supremacy Clause prevents states from obstructing the law, but it doesn't require the states to enforce their laws. And so, simply put, we have traditionally made decisions on what to do in our own properties. That's always been the case. And so again, it remains state owned properties and we have that right to put safeguards and make decisions even when we protest.

Sometimes, we have they have to pull permits and organize especially on our properties.

That's just to keep order. And so I do wanna make sure that we highlight the fact that when we talk about criminals and people that commit crimes, I think we could all get on board. But what is happening is that they are, you know, picking up people in churches. So, we know that they're not in church to commit the crimes. We're picking up kids in schools, families, and in my own committee - I'm sorry, community; I can share that US citizens have been picked up, disappeared for days. Parents trying to find them. They have no idea where their children went. And again, as they're being taken off, they're yelling, "I'm a US citizen. I am a US citizen," and that's not being respected.

So, again, this is not about immigration, I would say. This is about a state deciding what to do with its property, and and we have the right to do that. And so with that, would you like to close on his behalf?

Yes. Thank you. I will close on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel. Wanna thank both of the witnesses that came forward to testify in support and for all of those who also registered their me-too. Wanna thank the Chair and committee ,again, for your thoughtful work on this bill and reiterate that, Assemblymember Gabriel will be taking the committee amendments.

You know, this is, in my opinion, a common sense bill. Of course, as the Chair stated, if we were just talking about dangerous criminals, people who should be locked up, people who sexually assaulted people, that would be a completely different story. But we all have eyes. We all saw what was happening in our communities and communities across this country. It was not the dangerous criminals.

It was just everyday Californians on the street, at schools, at church, minding their own business, being wrapped up in something that they should not have had to deal with. And that is what this bill is dealing with. It is basically stating that here in California, we have certain values that at this time are not aligned with the federal government's values. And therefore, they should not be able to commit the terror and the chaos that we are left to deal with on our state property.

And, with that, I respectfully ask an aye vote on AB 1807 on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel. Thank you.

Thank you. I was moved by Senator Archuleta. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item nine, AB 1807: motion is do passed as amended to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call].

That bill has seven to three. We're gonna have to hold it open again for absent members. Thank you so much and thank you for presenting the bill.

We are now at our last presentation. Assembly member Haney, if you are listening, we are gonna go and open up the role for every single item while we wait for Assembly member Haney to join us. So, I think we have members that have joined us. Why don't we start with, the we're gonna start with the consent calendar for those members that were absent.

That would be item number one, item two, item five, item six, item eight, item nine, item 10, item 11, item 14, item 15, and item 16. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will hold that open for absent members. I did see that, Assembly member Haney is here. So let's just expedite that so that everyone that's here can vote on everything together. Welcome, Assembly member Haney. Yes.

Can I invite your supporters to join me upfront? And the opposition has the same right to join us upfront to state your opposition. And you'll have I'll make sure that everyone has a chance to join us. And when you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 2017, the California Eid State Holiday Act, which recognizes Eid Al Fitr and Eid al-Adha as state holidays in California. California is home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, yet our state calendar does not reflect these deeply significant observances. Eid al Fitr and Eid al-Adha are among the holiest days in Islam, marked by prayer, reflection, charity, and community, and are observed by over 1,900,000,000 Muslims worldwide.

Despite this, Muslim students across California are often forced to choose between attending school and fully observing their holidays.

Even when absences are excused, students miss instructional time and can feel isolated from their peers. Employees face the same burden when their workplaces do not formally recognize Eid. California prides itself on being one of the most diverse and inclusive states in the nation, but our laws have not yet caught up. Other jurisdictions, including Washington State, New York City, and several major school districts have already taken steps to formally recognize Eid.

AB 2017 will bring California in line with these efforts by adding Eid al Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the state holiday calendar while maintaining flexibility for courts and other local educational agencies.

This approach mirrors how California recognizes observances such as Lunar New Year and Diwali, and this bill comes at a particularly important moment. Across our country, we are seeing rising hate division and misunderstanding directed at many communities, including Muslim Americans. Just a few weeks ago, we saw a horrifying act of violence in San Diego that has deeply shaken many in our communities and reminded us that hate and extreme extremism still exist in many ways.

One of the most powerful ways we can combat bigotry is through education recognition and inclusion, ensuring that when children grow up, they will respect each other's traditions and holidays and grow up understanding that our diversity is something to celebrate, not fear. Here to testify with me today is Khydeeja Alam, executive director of the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs, and Leticia Preza, a teacher at San Francisco Islamic School.

Welcome. You're both gonna have two minutes each to present. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Good morning. My name is Khydeeja Alam and I proudly serve as the Executive Director of the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs. California is home to over 7,000,000 AANHPI Californians. Our commission was created to advise state leaders on issues affecting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities and to help ensure community voices are reflected in public policy.

Every day, our work brings us into conversation with students, families, nonprofit organizations and community members and leaders throughout California. As a proud cosponsor, I'm here today in strong support of AB 2017. I want to thank Assemblymember Haney and Senator Aisha Wahab for their leadership in advancing this important measure. At the Commission, we talk about our responsibility to serve as a bridge between communities and government.

One of the most important things we can do in that role is to help ensure that California's institutions reflect the people they serve.

AB 2017 does exactly that. For Muslim Californians, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adhar are among the most important days of the year. Their moments centered in culture, traditions, service, and community. Yet for many Californians, these observances continue to require special accommodations simply because they are not formally recognized in the same way as other significant holidays. For many families across California, including my own, this issue is deeply personal.

California is home to more than 1,000,000 Muslim Americans who contribute to our sector of our state as educators, healthcare professionals, public servants, business owners, students, and community leaders. Yet many Muslim families still feel that the most important days of their year are not formally recognized. Growing up, celebrating Eid often meant missing school and navigating a system that did not recognize a day that held deep significance for my family.

My parents would have to explain my absence, and there was always an underlying feeling that our traditions existed outside the norm. Many Muslim students and families continue to have that experience today.

As a parent, I think about what this recognition could mean for many, for my children and many across the state. Across our state, students learn about important traditions such as Lunar New Year and Diwali, helping them understand the cultures and communities around them. I look forward to a day

Thank you. Wrap it up.

Yes. I look forward to a day when Muslim children can share their holiday traditions with their classmates in that same spirit of understanding, visibility, and belonging. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. You're going to have less than two minutes. So let's see if we can streamline the comments. Thank you.

Oh, there we go. Okay. My name is Leticia Preza. Thank you. I am a lifelong San Francisco resident, Latina convert to Islam, and a mother of children who attend schools in San Francisco.

Growing up Catholic, I always look forward to Christmas vacation. Even now, when I think back on those years, I remember more than just a holiday. I remember the feeling of being carefree, of waking up and hearing Christmas carols on our record player. No worries of schedules and gathering with family, sharing tamales made with love, and creating memories that became a part of who I am today. Those moments taught me the importance of family and belonging and tradition.

Today as a mother, I want my children to experience the same sense of joy and connection during Eid. I want them to wake up excited, put on their new clothes and share meals, exchange gifts, even with our wonderful neighbors, and fully immerse themselves in the celebration. I want their memories of Eid to be filled with warmth and family and community, not the concerns about missed assignments or tests and attendance records.