ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO START
IN JUST A SECOND. ONCE AGAIN,
LET ME NOTE THAT 50% OF THE
REPUBLICAN DELEGATION IS HERE,
AND ONLY 33% OF THE DEMOCRATS
ARE HERE, RIGHT NOW, SOME OF THE
MOST, THE MOST IMPORTANT
DEMOCRATS ARE HERE, BUT WE WOULD
WELCOME AT LEAST, TWO OTHER IF
WE HAVE TWO OTHER MEMBERS, WE'LL
HAVE A QUORUM. BUT WE'RE GOING
TO START IN ANY EVENT, AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SO SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER, GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'RE
HOLDING THIS COMMITTEE HEARING
IN ROOM 2100 OF THE Ó STREET
BUILDING. I ASK THAT ALL MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE BE PRESENT IN
ROOM 2100. SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM, LET ME JUST ANNOUNCE
THAT WE HAVE THREE BILLS ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR TODAY. SO IF
YOU'RE HERE FOR ONE OF THESE
BILLS, IT IS LIKELY TO PASS ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ITEM
NUMBER THREE, SB 1333, BY
SENATOR EGGMAN, FILING NUMBER
FIVE, SB 1168 BY SENATOR LIMÓN.
AND FINALLY, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN,
SB 1108 BY SENATOR OCHOA BOGH
WITH AMENDMENTS. ALL RIGHT, LET
ME JUST GO OVER THE GROUND RULES
. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS, FOR EACH
BILL, WE'LL HAVE TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
EACH PRIMARY WITNESS WILL HAVE
TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. AND, OUR
COMMITTEE SECRETARY, MISS ERIKA,
WILL BE TIMING YOU, AND THEN AS
FOR OPPOSITION, OPPOSITION WILL
HAVE TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES, EACH
IN OPPOSITION, WITH TWO MINUTES
EACH. AFTER WE TAKE SUPPORT,
THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO PROVIDE
YOUR ME TO TESTIMONY, MEANING
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION,
YOUR POSITION ON THE BILL, YOU
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND GIVE
US YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION,
AND YOUR POSITION ON THE BILL.
WE'LL DO THAT FOR SUPPORT. WE'LL
ALSO DO THAT FOR OPPOSITION.
THEN WE'LL TURN TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE,
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE FURTHER
INFORMATION ON ANY BILL, PLEASE
GO TO OUR WEBSITE. AND THAT
PROVIDES YOU INFORMATION AS TO
HOW YOU MIGHT SUBMIT, COMMENTS
ON, PENDING LEGISLATION. ALL
RIGHT. SO I SEE WE HAVE SENATOR
BLAKESBURG, YOU'VE BEEN HERE
PATIENTLY WAITING. YOU MUST HAVE
RUN FROM CAUCUS OVER HERE, SO
LET US TAKE UP YOUR BILL, FILE,
NUMBER ONE, SB 1038. SENATOR
BLAKE'S FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
COMMITTEE STAFF. I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH I AM
HAPPY TO ACCEPT. DESPITE
CALIFORNIA HAVING THE BEST GUN
SAFETY LAWS IN THE NATION, WE
STILL HAVE AREAS WHERE WE NEED
TO IMPROVE. SPECIFICALLY, WE
NEED TO ADDRESS PLACES WHERE
EXISTING LAWS AREN'T WORKING
QUITE AS WELL AS THEY SHOULD.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE SEVERAL
INDICATORS THAT GUN TRAFFICKING
AND GUN INVOLVED CRIMES ARE
GROWING PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIA.
SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY GUNS IN
OUR COUNTRY, IT'S NOT SURPRISING
THAT MANY FIREARMS END UP LOST,
STOLEN, AND TRAFFICKED.
ACCORDING TO THE ATF, THERE WERE
OVER 1 MILLION MISSING GUNS
REPORTED BETWEEN 2017 AND 2021.
AS ALARMING AS THAT SOUNDS,
THESE NUMBERS SIGNIFICANTLY
UNDERREPORT WHAT THE ACTUAL
TOTAL OF MISSING GUNS, BECAUSE
MANY PEOPLE DON'T REPORT LOST OR
STOLEN FIREARMS, LOST OR STOLEN
FIREARMS ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY
BECAUSE THEY ARE PRONE TO BEING
TRAFFICKED AND USED IN CRIMES.
IN ADDITION, THE NUMBER OF CRIME
GUNS RECOVERED IN THE STATE PER
CAPITA HAS GROWN BY CLOSE TO 70%
OVER THE LAST DECADE, ACCORDING
TO A UC DAVIS STUDY. NEARLY
80,000 TRACEABLE GUNS USED IN
CRIMINALITY CAME FROM JUST 82
DEALERS IN CALIFORNIA, BUT THE
STRONGEST INDICATOR THAT WE HAVE
A GUN TRAFFICKING PROBLEM, ONE
THAT IS PARTIALLY FUELED BY
RETAILERS, IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF
GUNS RECOVERED SHORTLY AFTER
PURCHASE IS GROWING. THE
PERCENTAGE OF HANDGUNS RECOVERED
IN A VIOLENT CRIME WITHIN ONE
YEAR OF PURCHASE HAS TRIPLED. SO
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? SB
1038 DOES FOUR THINGS THAT WILL
HELP REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GUNS
TRAFFICKED WITHIN OUR STATE ONE.
IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS TO REPORT
MISSING FIREARMS FROM FIVE DAYS
TO 48 HOURS. THIS BRINGS US IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE 11 OTHER
STATES THAT HAVE SHORTER
REPORTING TIMES THAN WE DO.
NUMBER TWO, IT BETTER EQUIPS THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TRACK
FIREARMS AS THEY COME INTO OUR
STATE, NOT JUST AS THEY ARE
SOLD. THREE IT INCREASES
SCRUTINY ON THE DEALERS MOST
ASSOCIATED WITH CRIME GUNS, AND
FOUR IT REQUIRES DEALERS TO
ANNUALLY CERTIFY THEIR
INVENTORIES, GIVING THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS SOMETHING TO HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO. SB 1038
WILL HELP MODERNIZE OUR HANDLING
OF FIREARMS IN CALIFORNIA AND
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCEMENTS OVER THE LAST
DECADE. WITH ME TODAY, I'M HAPPY
TO HAVE THERESA HEIMER,
PRESIDENT OF THE SAN DIEGANS FOR
GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AS MY
LEAD WITNESS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I AM THERESE HEIMER,
THE PRESIDENT OF SAN DIEGANS FOR
GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION. WE ARE
A COALITION OF 18 LOCAL AND
NATIONAL GROUPS, AND OUR PROUD
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL,
TOGETHER WITH THE SAN DIEGO CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER COVERED THE CHANGES. THIS
BILL MAKES. I WILL ADDRESS A FEW
OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED IN OPPOSITION. FIRST, A
CLAIM WAS MADE THAT THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THIS BILL WILL REDUCE
GUN VIOLENCE. IN FACT, IN
ADDITION TO THE MANY STUDIES AND
STATISTICS CITED IN THE
COMMITTEE'S LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
, LAST WEEK, THE ATF RELEASED AN
IN-DEPTH REPORT ON GUN
TRAFFICKING IN THE US. IT FOUND
THAT NEARLY ONE QUARTER OF
TRAFFICKED FIREARMS ARE USED IN
FURTHER CRIMES, INCLUDING
HOMICIDE AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT,
AND NEARLY A QUARTER OF THE
CASES INVOLVED GUNS STOLEN FROM
FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSEES OR
PRIVATE PEOPLE. SECOND,
OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT REQUIRING
GUN STORES TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL
INVENTORY IS ONEROUS. I WORKED
ALMOST A DECADE FOR A NATIONAL
DISTRIBUTOR AND ANNUAL INVENTORY
IS THE BARE MINIMUM FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS. A DEALER
THAT DOESN'T TAKE INVENTORY IS
ONE THAT IS RIPE FOR ITS GUNS TO
BE STOLEN. EVEN THE LAPD ACADEMY
GUN STORE LEARNED THIS LESSON
BACK IN 2021, WHEN ITS
INADEQUATE INVENTORY PRACTICES
ALLOWED THEFT OF DOZENS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT WEAPONS. IN 2022,
THE ATF ONLY INSPECTED 9% OF
LICENSED FIREARM DEALERS IN THE
CAL. DOJ NOW WILL DO SO EVERY
THREE YEARS. ANNUAL INVENTORIES
BETWEEN THOSE INSPECTIONS ARE
NEEDED. THIRD, OPPONENTS CLAIM
THAT A 48 HOUR REPORT IS
UNREALISTIC. 48 HOURS IS ALREADY
THE STANDARD REQUIRED OF
DEALERS. THIS CHANGE MAKES THE
TIME FRAME CONSISTENT FOR ALL
REPORTING THEFT QUICKLY MEANS
LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN ENTER STOLEN
FIREARMS INTO THE DATA SYSTEMS,
WHICH ARE CONNECTED AND
DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY. SEE SOMETHING. SAY
SOMETHING IS A BEDROCK CONCEPT
TO KEEP US ALL SAFE. I ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WITNESS.
JAMIE MINER, ON BEHALF OF
GIFFORDS, AS WELL AS EXTENDING
OUR SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF OUR
COLLEAGUES OVER AT BRADY, I'M
PLEASED TO SUPPORT AND
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR'S ONGOING
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH.
DANNY OFER WITH EVERYTOWN FOR
GUN SAFETY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANKS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, AND
SENATORS ROSANNA CARVACHO
ELLIOTT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. SUPPORT. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE, NOW, LET'S CALL FOR
THE OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 1038, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE SEEING
NO ONE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S NOW TURN TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEEING NO
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. SENATOR
BARRASSO WILL MOVE THE BILL, WE
NOW ARE SHORT. TWO MEMBERS. SO,
WHAT WE'LL DO, SENATOR BLAKESLEE
, IS, IS WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM,
I UNDERSTAND SENATOR BARRASSO
WILL MAKE THE MOTION. AND WILL
THEY THEN TAKE IT UP FOR A VOTE?
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
I'M SORRY, I FORGOT. YES. GO
AHEAD. CLOSE THERE YOU GO. THAT
WAS IT. ALL RIGHT. FANTASTIC.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR BRADFORD, I
SEE SENATOR BRADFORD HERE, AFTER
SENATOR BRADFORD, THEN SENATOR
LIMÓN AND THEN SENATOR MENGIBAR.
SENATOR BRADFORD, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB
1403. THIS WOULD ESTABLISH THE
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN FREEDMEN
AFFAIRS AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF IMPLEMENTATION, OVERSIGHT AND
MONITORING OF POLICIES AND LAWS
ENACTED RELATING TO REPARATIONS
SIMILAR THAT WAS STOOD UP IN
THIS COUNTRY IN 1863. IT WOULD
ALSO REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO
OVERSEE AND MONITOR EXISTING
STATE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS
TASKED WITH ENGAGING AND DIRECT
IMPLEMENTATION OF REPARATIONS
POLICIES, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE
STOOD UP IN 2018 FOR THE TRIBAL
AFFAIRS DEALING WITH NATIVE
AMERICANS HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL IS A
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE, WHICH I SPENT TWO YEARS
OF MY LIFE ON, AND THE FINAL
REPORT CLEARLY SPEAKS TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS MEASURE.
MEASURE. IT IS ALSO AMONG THE
MOST ESSENTIAL OF THE REPORT'S
115 RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS AGENCY
WILL BE NECESSARY BE THE
NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND SUCCESS OF
REPARATIONS. THE MOST IMPORTANT
RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS AGENCY
WILL HAVE IS DETERMINING WHICH
INDIVIDUAL ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
REPARATION PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES. THIS LEGISLATURE WILL
ENACT, THESE INDIVIDUALS BEING
DESCENDANTS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
ENSLAVED PERSONS IN THE UNITED
STATES, OR CHATTEL SLAVERY OR
DESCENDANTS OF BLACK PERSONS
LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES
PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 19TH
CENTURY. SB 1403 WILL CREATE A
GENEALOGICAL OFFICE TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO EXPERT GENEALOGICAL
RESEARCH, TO CONFIRM REPARATIONS
ELIGIBILITY AND EXPEDITE
ASSISTANCE WITH THE REPARATIONS
CLAIMS PROCESS. MANY PEOPLE ASK
WHY CALIFORNIA? THEY SAID
CALIFORNIA WAS A FREE STATE, A
FREE STATE IN NAME ONLY. WE DID
EVERYTHING A SLAVE STATE DID. IF
YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE AS A
SLAVE, YOU WERE TREATED AS SUCH.
IF YOU WERE PREGNANT AND GAVE
BIRTH HERE AS A SLAVE, YOUR
CHILD WAS BORN A SLAVE. WE HAD A
FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. SO IF YOU
RAN AWAY AND CAME TO CALIFORNIA,
THERE WAS A BOUNTY TO TAKE YOU
BACK TO THE PLANTATION OR STATE
THAT YOU ESCAPED FROM. SO WE
WERE A FREE STATE AND NAME ONLY.
AND THE FIRST GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNED
SLAVES, PETER BARNETT. AND SO
WHY SHOULD WE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
REPARATIONS AT ALL? AND AS I
STATED, WHILE THERE'S NO WAY,
AND SHOULD I SAY, WHILE IN NO
WAY DOES THIS BILL EXCUSE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM TAKING ACTION,
CALIFORNIA STILL BEARS SOME
RESPONSIBILITY. K¾T STATE
GOVERNMENT PERMITTED AND
COMMITTED GRAVE INJUSTICES
AGAINST AFRICAN AMERICANS. THESE
INJUSTICES INCLUDE INCLUDED
ENSLAVEMENT, LEGAL, PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE SEGREGATION,
DISCRIMINATION AND STATE FUNDING
AND PROGRAMING, AND
STIGMATIZATION, STIGMATIZATION.
AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, I
CHALLENGE YOU TO READ THE 1100
PAGE REPORT. AND IF NOT THE 1100
PAGE REPORT, AT LEAST THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. THIS AGENCY
IS THE FIRST STEP FOR CALIFORNIA
TO TAKE, ACTIONS TO, RIGHT THESE
WRONGS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR SO
LONG HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. SB
1403 IS ABOUT DEMONSTRATE OUR
STATE'S COMMITMENT TO NOT ONLY
RECOGNIZING ITS PAST, BUT ALSO
TAKING MEANINGFUL ACTIONS TOWARD
EQUITABLE FUTURE. WITH ME TODAY
TO PROVIDE EXPERT TESTIMONY. AS
CAMILLA MOORE, ATTORNEY AND A
SCHOLAR, AND CHAIR OF THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE AND I
THANK YOU AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR
BRADFORD. MISS MOORE, ESTEEMED
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CAMILLA
MOORE, AND I AM PRIVILEGED TO
HAVE SERVED AS THE CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE. TODAY, I ADVOCATE WITH A
SENSE OF URGENCY AND PURPOSE FOR
THE PASSAGE OF SB 1403, A
GROUNDBREAKING BILL POISED TO
ESTABLISH THE CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FREEMEN AFFAIRS AGENCY.
THIS AGENCY SYMBOLIZES A CRUCIAL
STRIDE TOWARDS REPERTOIRE OF
JUSTICE, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE
WHOSE LINEAGE TRACES BACK TO
ENSLAVED ANCESTORS. LIKE SENATOR
BRADFORD SAID. THROUGH RIGOROUS
RESEARCH, THE CALIFORNIA TASK
FORCE HAS UNVEILED HARROWING
DISPARITIES THAT DESCENDANTS OF
SLAVES STILL FACE IN CALIFORNIA,
PAINTING A STARK PICTURE IN
INEQUALITY ACROSS MULTIPLE
SECTORS. FOR EXAMPLE,
DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES FAMILIES,
THEIR MEDIAN NET WORTH OF WEALTH
LANGUISHES AT LESS THAN ONE
TENTH OF A PERCENT OF WHITE
FAMILIES, EXPOSING SYSTEMIC
ECONOMIC BARRIERS IN TERMS OF
BUSINESSES, ENTREPRENEURS WHO
ARE DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES ARE
THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE
NOT TO BE DENIED BANK LOANS THAN
THEIR PEERS, CRIPPLING POTENTIAL
FOR GROWTH AND INNOVATION. IN
TERMS OF HEALTH, INFANTS WHO ARE
DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES ARE MORE
LIKELY TO DIE AT DOUBLE THE RATE
OF THEIR FIRST BIRTHDAY THAN
THEIR COUNTERPARTS, HIGHLIGHTING
GLARING INEQUITIES IN HEALTH
ACROSS OUTCOMES ACROSS HEALTH
ACCESS AND OUTCOMES. THESE
STATISTICS ARE NOT MERE NUMBERS,
BUT REFLECT REAL LIVES
DIMINISHED BY SYSTEMIC
INJUSTICES. A LEGACY OF SLAVERY,
AND SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION
PERPETUATED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND SO THIS AGENCY
SEEKS TO DISMANTLE THESE
BARRIERS, ADVOCATING FOR AND
IMPLEMENTING REPARATION MEASURES
THAT ADDRESS THESE DEEP ROOTED
DISPARITIES. THE AGENCY ALSO, I
WILL NOTE THAT THE BERKELEY
INTERGOVERNMENTAL STUDIES POLLS
INDICATES THAT, YES, 59% OF
CALIFORNIANS OPPOSE DIRECT CASH
PAYMENTS. BUT THAT SAME EXACT
SURVEY REVEALS A BROADER
CONSENSUS FOR ACTION. A MAJORITY
BELIEVE THAT THE STATE HAS NOT
DONE ENOUGH FOR DESCENDANTS OF
SLAVES IN THIS STATE, AND 60% OF
THOSE POLLED ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THE ENDURING IMPACT OF SLAVERY
STILL IMPACTS THE LIVES OF
DESCENDANTS TODAY, YES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE. IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE AND PROVIDE US YOUR
NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION, AND YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHRIS LAWSON.
COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION
OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA, BAY AREA, THE
CALIFORNIA BLACK LINEAGE
SOCIETY, THE LINEAGE EQUITY AND
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, ALL IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
KELSEY LILES WITH THE BAY AREA
REGIONAL HEALTH INEQUITIES
INITIATIVE AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, KIM
MIMS WITH CALIFORNIA COALITION
FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN REDRESS
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA, AAC
SACRAMENTO AND AMEND THE MASS
MEDIA IN STRONG SUPPORT. I URGE
AND I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. DARLENE
CROMARTIE, MEMBER OF THE
COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA, A MEMBER
OF THE AMERICAN REDRESS
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA BAY
AREA. AND I AM STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1403. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M SORRY
TO INTERRUPT, YOUR YOUR
PRESENTATION, SENATOR BRADFORD,
BUT LET US ESTABLISH A QUORUM
HERE, ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU WOULD CALL THE
ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING A QUORUM, UMBERG
HERE. UMBERG HERE. WILK PRESENT.
WILK PRESENT. ALLEN ASHBY. HERE.
ASHBY. HERE. CABALLERO DURAZZO.
DURAZZO. HERE. LAIRD HERE.
LAYARD. HERE. MINH. NHIÀU STERN.
STERN HERE. WAHAB, YOU HAVE A
QUORUM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'LL
EXCUSE ME. WE'LL TURN TO
OPPOSITION TO SB 1403. IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 1403, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. SEEING
NO ONE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE,
LET US NOW TURN TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. SENATOR LAIRD, I
ACTUALLY HAVE A COMMENT. I THINK
THIS IS A GOOD DIRECTION AND AN
IMPORTANT DIRECTION. AND I
WANTED TO POINT OUT, SINCE, THE
AUTHOR, STRUGGLED WITH THE WORD
GENEALOGICAL, BUT WE ALL KNEW
WHAT YOU MEANT, AND, AND THE,
ANCESTRY.COM HAS ACTUALLY POSTED
THE FREEDMEN'S RECORDS, AND
THERE WAS A SPECIAL WORKSHOP IN
THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL WITH
THEM TO WORK ON DESCENDANTS THAT
MIGHT WORK IN THE CAPITAL
COMMUNITY AND THEY MADE GREAT
PROGRESS. AND IT WAS REALLY OF
ASSISTANCE. AND SO CITING THAT
MEANS THAT THOSE RECORDS REALLY
EXIST IN A WAY THAT'S
MEANINGFUL. AND IN FACT, I KNOW
THERE WERE STATIONS ESTABLISHED
AT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM
IN LOS ANGELES TO TRY TO ALLOW
FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS THESE
RECORDS TO DETERMINE EXACTLY
WHAT THE AUTHOR AND THE
WITNESSES WERE SAYING. AND SO, I
THINK THIS IS A GOOD STEP
FORWARD. AND AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I WILL MOVE THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, SENATOR BRADFORD,
WE'RE OPERATING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE AT THE QUORUM. OH,
NO. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
SECRETARY. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A
QUORUM, AND IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR LAIRD. SO WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. THIS IS A COMMON
SENSE MEASURE. AGAIN, SOMETHING
THAT'S LONG OVERDUE FOR
CALIFORNIA AND THIS NATION TO
COME TO, RECKONING OF A DEBT
THAT IS OWED TO PEOPLE THAT
HELPED BUILD THIS COUNTRY. THIS
IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S COMMON
SENSE. AGAIN IT'S NOT CHARITY.
IT'S NOT A PROMISE. IT'S 160
YEARS OVERDUE. AND THIS WILL
HELP US IMPLEMENT, THE AGENCY TO
HELP MOVE FORWARD IN DETERMINING
WHAT REPARATIONS SHOULD LOOK
LIKE HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
DID YOU YOU ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS? YES YES. OKAY,
GREAT. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 1403. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION NUMBER
A, NUMBER I. WILK ALLEN ASHBY
HAVE A KHÓ. BARRASSO. YES DURAZO
I, LAIRD I LAIRD I MINH. MARLOW.
STERN. WAHAB 3 TO 0 THREE ZERO.
WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I SEE SENATOR
LIMON. SENATOR LIMON, MR. CHAIR,
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I WOULD MOVE
THE BLAKE SPEAR BILL AND THEN
THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF YOU WANT
TO CATCH UP, WHY DON'T WE DO
THAT? ALL RIGHT. THEN I WOULD
MOVE ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB 1038 BY
SENATOR, I THINK SENATOR
BARRASSO ALREADY REQUESTED THAT
SHE BE THE MOVING MEMBER ON SB
TEN, HAPPILY DEFERRED. WHATEVER
GETS US TO THE VOTE. SENATOR
DROSSOS MOVED SB 1038, MADAM
SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER ONE, SB 1038. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER A
NUMBER I WILK NØ. WILK NØ ALLEN.
ASHBY. CABALLERO. GROSSO GROSSO
I. LAIRD I. LAIRD I MINH. NILO.
STERN. WAHAB A 3 TO 1 THREE ONE.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT ON CALL.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR LIMON. AND
THEN YOU WANT ME TO CONSENT? I
WOULD MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA,
WHICH IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE ITEM
THREE, FIVE AND SEVEN. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR LAIRD, ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
UMBERG. I UMBERG I WILK I WILK I
ALLEN ASHBY CABALLERO GROSSO
GROSSO I LAIRD I LAIRD I MINH
NHIÀU. STERN WAHAB 4 TO 0 FOUR
ZERO. PUT THAT ON CALL. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR LIMON, YOU'VE
BEEN PATIENT, AFTER SENATOR
LIMON, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
SENATOR MENGIBAR THEN SENATOR
SKINNER. SENATOR LIMON, ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1036. THANK YOU.
I PRESENT TO YOU SB 1036, WHICH
WOULD ESTABLISH CLEAR
PROTECTIONS FOR PURCHASERS OF
CARBON OFFSETS. THIS BILL BUILDS
ON CALIFORNIA'S LONG STANDING
FALSE ADVERTISING LAW BY
SPECIFYING OUR EXPECTATIONS FOR
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
CARBON OFFSETS, CARBON OFFSETS
ARE TRADABLE FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS THAT CLAIM TO
REPRESENT A REDUCTION OF
GREENHOUSE GAS GASES IN THE
ATMOSPHERE. UNFORTUNATELY,
ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS AND
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS HAVE
UNCOVERED MANY EXAMPLES OF
OFFSET PROJECTS THAT SIMPLY FAIL
TO DELIVER THE CLAIMED CARBON
BENEFIT. THIS BILL FOCUSES ON
VOLUNTARY OFFSETS, AS IMPLIED BY
THEIR NAME. THESE OFFSETS ARE
PURCHASED ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS
AND ARE NOT RELATED TO LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS OR REGULATORY
PROGRAMS LIKE COMPLIANCE OFFSETS
IN OUR CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM,
THERE ARE TWO GENERAL PROBLEMS
WITH ALLOWING LOW QUALITY
OFFSETS TO REMAIN UNADDRESSED.
FIRST, CONSUMERS ARE HARMED WHEN
THEY DID NOT GET WHAT THEY PAID.
FOR A CONSUMER WHO PURCHASES AN
OFFSET TO MITIGATE THE EMISSIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL
FLIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, EXPECTS
THAT OFFSET TO ACTUALLY DELIVER
AN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT. AND
EVEN MORE COMMONLY, BUSINESSES
MAKE GREEN CLAIMS. GREEN CLAIMS,
SUCH AS THEIR PRODUCTS BEING NET
ZERO OR CARBON NEUTRAL. IF THAT
BUSINESS RELIES ON LOW QUALITY
OFFSETS TO SUPPORT SUCH CLAIM,
THE CONSUMER MAY BE MISLED TO
BELIEVE THAT THEIR CONSUMPTION
HAS NO NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS. THE SECOND GENERAL
PROBLEM WITH LOW QUALITY OFFSETS
IS THEIR POTENTIAL TO UNDERMINE
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. CORPORATIONS
WHO PURCHASE LOW QUALITY OFFSETS
MAY IGNORE CHANGES IN THEIR OWN
OPERATIONS THAT COULD REDUCE
THEIR EMISSIONS DIRECTLY. SB
1036 PROVIDES LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS FOR
VOLUNTARY CARBON OFFSETS, A
POLICY THAT IS LONG OVERDUE IN
CALIFORNIA AND OUR CLIMATE AND
FOR OUR CLIMATE. TESTIFYING IN
SUPPORT TODAY IS MELISSA ROMERO
FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MELISSA ROMERO WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1036. THIS
BILL IS A CRITICAL STEP TOWARDS
ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF
VOLUNTARY CARBON OFFSETS MARKETS
AND HOLDING CORPORATIONS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS. THE
PHILOSOPHY BEHIND CARBON OFFSETS
IS TO INCENTIVIZE GHG REDUCTIONS
THAT ARE MOST COST EFFECTIVE OR
MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN DIRECT
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. HOWEVER,
THE CURRENT LACK OF REGULATION
IN THESE MARKETS HAVE HAVE LED
TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES,
PARTICULARLY WITH LOW QUALITY
OFFSETS, AND THIS BILL REALLY
AIMS TO ADDRESS THE RAMPANT
PROBLEM OF JUNK OFFSETS, WHICH
OFTEN FAIL TO DELIVER THE
PROMISED CARBON REDUCTIONS.
THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF OFFSETS
BACKED BY PROJECTS WITH DUBIOUS
CLAIMS OF CARBON BENEFITS FROM
FALSELY LABELED FOREST LANDS
THAT WERE CLEAR CUT TO RENEWABLE
ENERGY PROJECTS THAT WERE
ALREADY IN MOTION. THESE OFFSETS
DO NOT LIVE UP TO THEIR PROMISES
. NOT ONLY DO THEY DECEIVE
CONSUMERS, BUT THEY ALSO
UNDERMINE OUR CLIMATE GOALS AND
DIVERT FUNDING FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE PROJECTS, RELYING ON
OFFSETS THAT LATER PROVED TO BE
INEFFECTIVE ONLY PERPETUATES
RISING EMISSIONS. AND SB 1036 IS
A COMMON SENSE MEASURE TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS AND OUR
ENVIRONMENT, ENSURING THAT
OFFSETS TRULY DELIVER ON THE
PROMISE. CLIMATE BENEFITS,
CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY IS
ESSENTIAL IN THIS CONTEXT.
COMPANIES THAT PURCHASE OFFSETS
TO MEET THEIR NET ZERO GOALS
MUST BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE
ACCURACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
THESE OFFSETS. OTHERWISE THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS BECOME
MEANINGLESS. RATHER THAN GENUINE
EFFORTS TO COMBAT CLIMATE
CHANGE. SB 1036 WILL ESTABLISH
THESE ENFORCEABLE PROHIBITIONS
ON THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
OFFSETS THAT FAIL TO DELIVER
REAL, QUANTIFIABLE AND
ADDITIONAL CLIMATE BENEFITS, AND
BY DEFINING CLEAR EXPECTATIONS
AND STANDARDS, THIS BILL WILL
RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN VOLUNTARY
OFFSET MARKETS AND PREVENT
CALIFORNIANS FROM FALLING VICTIM
TO FALSE PROMISES, WHILE
ENSURING THAT CORPORATIONS ARE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS. AND
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF SB 1036. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, SB
1036, MISS STONE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS KIM
STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF CONSUMER WATCHDOG IN
SUPPORT. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN
ASKED TO RELAY THE SUPPORT OF
NEXT GEN WHO COULDN'T MAKE IT
HERE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
PAUL MASON WITH PACIFIC FOREST
TRUST. ALSO IN SUPPORT. OFFSETS
CAN WORK WHEN THEY ARE RELIABLE.
VERY MUCH ALSO FOR DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. KENDRA HARRIS WITH
THE CLIMATE CENTER IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. WIENER TWEENER OKAY.
TWEENERS WE'LL HAVE ONE TWEENER
SUPPORTIVE AMENDED, PLEASE.
ISABELLA GONZALEZ, POTTER WITH
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. WE HAVE
A SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED POSITION
AND SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE
COMMITTEE TO REFLECT THAT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. LET'S TURN TO OPPOSITION.
THOSE OPPOSED. GOOD AFTERNOON.
JESSICA BEAD WITH ECR CARBON
CREDITING PROGRAM AND REGISTRY
SERVING CALIFORNIA'S COMPLIANCE
OFFSET PROGRAM AS WELL AS THE
VOLUNTARY MARKET. WE STRONGLY
OPPOSE SB 1036 AND URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO DO THE SAME. ECR
DEEPLY VALUES INTEGRITY WITHIN
THE CARBON MARKETS AND MY TEAM
WORKS EVERY DAY TO ENSURE THE
ACCURACY AND LEGITIMACY OF
CARBON CREDITS ISSUED TO PROJECT
DEVELOPERS WHO ARE DOING THE
WORK HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND
ELSEWHERE TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS. CARBON OFFSETS
ARE KEY TO ACHIEVING SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTIONS BEYOND WHAT IS
MANDATED AND OTHERWISE FEASIBLE.
IN RECENT YEARS, WE'VE SEEN A
SIGNIFICANT UPTICK IN CORPORATE
CLIMATE PLEDGES, REPORTING AND
DISCLOSURE RULES, AS WELL AS
GLOBAL FRAMEWORKS TO ENSURE
CREDIT QUALITY ALL EFFORTS THAT
WE SUPPORT. UNFORTUNATELY, SB
1036 WILL CRATER THE CARBON
MARKETS BY INTRODUCING
UNWORKABLE PROVISIONS AND
UNNECESSARILY INCREASING
LIABILITY FOR GOOD ACTORS. IF
THIS BILL PASSES, OPPONENTS OF
OFFSETS WILL RUSH TO FILE
LAWSUITS THAT WILL INEVITABLY
LEAD TO CONFLICTING RULINGS,
BECAUSE COURTS CANNOT REASONABLY
BE EXPECTED TO ADJUDICATE
ADJUDICATE THE INTRICACIES OF
THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE OF
GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING, LET
ALONE THE VAGUE, MISGUIDED, AND
ILL DEFINED PROVISIONS OF SB
1036. THE LANGUAGE CANNOT BE
FIXED, INTENTIONAL OR NOT, THE
UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY WILL
ELIMINATE CARBON MARKETS AS AN
INCENTIVE STRUCTURE FOR BOTH
DESPERATELY NEEDED INVESTMENTS
IN NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS, AS
WELL AS HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
REDUCTIONS IN POTENT SUPER
POLLUTANTS. THE NUISANCE
LAWSUITS WILL COME. THEY WILL
BOG DOWN THE COURTS. THEY WILL
SHUT DOWN SMALL NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE ONE I
REPRESENT, AND WILL IN TURN COST
THE STATE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFSET
PROJECT REGISTRIES, THE SERVICES
THAT WE PROVIDE IN TERMS OF
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND
INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD, WHICH I
WILL NOTE WAS NOT REFLECTED IN
THE COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS. THIS
BILL, ON ITS FACE, SOUNDS LIKE A
GOOD IDEA, BUT IT WILL ONLY
HINDER REAL PROGRESS ON URGENT
PUBLIC ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JODY
MANNING. I'M THE CEO OF COOL
EFFECT COOLING. IT IS A
NONPROFIT WOMEN LED 500 AND 1C3
BASED IN MARIN COUNTY. WE WERE
ESTABLISHED IN 2015 TO FIND AND
VET THE HIGHEST QUALITY CARBON
PROJECTS AROUND THE GLOBE, SINCE
THEN, WE SIGNIFICANTLY HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT SB
1036. THE BILL WILL DAMAGE ALL
SALES OF CARBON OFFSETS INCLUDE
THOSE OF VERY HIGH QUALITY.
BECAUSE OF THE THREAT OF
LITIGATION CAUSED BY THE
AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S
IN THE BILL, THEY WILL CHOKE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CLIMATE
FINANCE COMING FROM THE PRIVATE
SECTOR THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING
TO THE GLOBAL SOUTH,
PARTICULARLY AMONG WOMEN. THE
BILL WILL ALSO COST CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS ON A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT FRONTS. CAL FORNIA
WILL HAVE TO ENGAGE SUBJECT
MATTER EXPERTS FROM CARB OR
OUTSIDE EVALUATION ON HIGHLY
TECHNICAL TERMS SUCH AS
DURABILITY, LEAKAGE OR IS THE
CARBON OFFSET ACTUALLY REAL? I
CAN ONLY IMAGINE BECAUSE I'VE
SEEN BILLS, THE NUMBER OF
BILLABLE HOURS, CONSULTANTS TO
TRAIN STAFF AND UNDERSTAND KEY
ASPECTS SUCH AS, QUOTE,
ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF A
GREENHOUSE GAS REMOVAL VERSUS
ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF CARBON
DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, UNQUOTE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LEADING
SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS AROUND THE
GLOBE WORKING TO DEFINE CREDIT
QUALITY, INCLUDING THE ICMJE AND
THE CME. DOES THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA REALLY WANT TO SPEND
PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS TO ACTUALLY
REINVENT THIS LEVEL OF EXPERTISE
, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TWO YEARS
AHEAD OF US? WE HAVE AN URGENT
CLIMATE CRISIS, AND INSTEAD OF
SUPPORTING AND CUTTING SUPPORT
FOR NATURAL SYSTEMS, THIS BILL,
WE SHOULD BE DOING WHATEVER WE
CAN TO BOOST THEM ALL. PLEASE
OPPOSE SB 1036. AND THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS
LIKE A NO VOTE. 1305 GOT IT.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
ART. GOTHAM. TERRA. GLOBAL
CAPITAL. WE OPPOSED TO SB 1036.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. PAUL DIEGO REPRESENTING
WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
HELLO. MY NAME IS TERESA LANG
AND I REPRESENT A NEW CLIMATE
AND WE ALSO OPPOSE. 1036 THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. ASHLEY
HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
IN OPPOSITION, YOU, KATIE
LITTLE, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS IN
OPPOSITION, COURTNEY JENSEN, ON
BEHALF OF KJAC, IN OPPOSITION,
MELANIE CUEVAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION,
ALSO IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
JOANNE BETTENCOURT, ON BEHALF OF
SIFMA, THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY
AND FINANCIAL MARKETS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE, LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEEING NO
QUESTIONS. SENATOR RUSSO HAS
MOVED THE BILL. SENATOR LIMON,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I YOU
KNOW, THE ONLY THING I WILL SAY
IS THAT YOU'RE SEEING THIS BILL
AS YOU DID, A YEAR AGO, AND IT
IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE. BUT I DO
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE
DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS BILL
ARE TAKEN FROM CARB. SO THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THINGS ARE ALREADY.
SO IF THERE IS CONFUSION, THAT
MEANS THAT THERE IS ALREADY
CONFUSION WITH AGENCIES. SO
WE'LL ALSO WE YOU KNOW WE'VE
WE'VE DEFINITELY WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION, TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT AREAS. BUT SO
FAR MOST OF WHAT OPPOSITION HAS
BROUGHT US FORWARD WOULD
UNDERMINE NOT JUST THIS LAW, BUT
ALSO THE, CURRENT LAWS IN PLACE.
SO THAT IS A REAL BIG CONCERN TO
US THAT THEY JUST WANT TO BE
EXEMPTED ALTOGETHER FROM
EXISTING LAW, INDEPENDENT OF
THIS AND THIS AS WELL. SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
LEMON. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY
SENATOR RUSSO. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOR SB 1036. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
UMBERG A UMBERG I WILK NØ WILK
NØ ALLEN ASHBY CABALLERO.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. LAIRD.
LAIRD AYE. MINH. NHIÀU. STERN
WAHAB. 3 TO 1 THREE ONE. WE'LL
PUT THAT ON CALL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, SENATOR LIMÓN. ALL RIGHT,
NEXT UP WOULD BE SENATOR
MENGIBAR, AND THEN SENATOR
SKINNER, THEN SENATOR SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. I SEE NONE OF THOSE
AUTHORS HERE. SO FIRST COME,
FIRST SERVE.
ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE TAKE UP.
AND THE LAST SHALL BE NEXT,
SENATOR LAIRD, ITEM NUMBER 12,
SB 1272. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
SENATE BILL 1272 WILL RAISE THE
REDEEMABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT ON A
GIFT CERTIFICATE FROM THE
CURRENT $9.99 MAXIMUM TO $25,
WITH AN ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR
INFLATION ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST
WHOLE DOLLAR. IN 2008, SENATE
BILL 250, AUTHORED BY THEN
SENATOR ELLEN CORBETT,
ESTABLISHED A CONSUMER'S RIGHT
TO REDEEM CERTAIN GIFT
CERTIFICATES FOR ITS CASH VALUE.
IF THE VALUE IS LESS THAN $10.
THIS ENSURES CONSUMERS CAN
UTILIZE THE FULL GIFTED VALUE OF
A CERTIFICATE, AND THEY'RE NOT
LEFT WITH SMALL, UNUSABLE
AMOUNTS AFTER MAKING A PURCHASE.
AS 16 YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE
THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED THIS LAW
AND THE COST OF LIVING HAS GROWN
SIGNIFICANTLY IN THAT TIME. BUT
THIS HAS PROVEN ITSELF. IT'S
PROVEN ITSELF CONVENIENT FOR THE
CONSUMERS, AND IT HAS WORKED FOR
BUSINESSES, THE NATIONAL RETAIL
FOUNDATION FOUND THAT THE SECOND
MOST POPULAR GIFT OF THE HOLIDAY
SEASON WAS GIFT CARDS. AND NOW
THE ANALYSIS. REFERENCES A 2023
CNN REPORT THAT STATES ALMOST
TWO THIRDS OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS
HAVE AT LEAST ONE UNSPENT GIFT
CARD TUCKED AWAY IN A DRAWER,
POCKET, WALLET OR PURSE. AT
LEAST HALF OF THESE CONSUMERS
LOSE A GIFT CARD BEFORE THEY USE
IT, AND THE REPORT SAID THAT
THERE'S AS MUCH AS $21 BILLION
OF UNSPENT MONEY THAT IS TIED UP
IN USED, ALLOWING TO CONSUMERS
TO REDEEM A GREATER AMOUNT OF
MONEY, CAN ACTUALLY CIRCULATE IT
THROUGH THE ECONOMY AND USE IT
ON GOODS AND SERVICES AS IT WAS
ORIGINALLY INTENDED. NOW, I HAVE
MET WITH THE OPPONENTS AND DID
IT THIS WEEK. I KNOW THEY'VE
BEEN ENGAGING WITH THE
COMMITTEE. I REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR A
THOUGHTFUL AND DETAILED ANALYSIS
. AND WHILE I SHOULD WAIT FOR
THE TESTIMONY, LET ME JUST DO A
2 OR 3 THINGS BECAUSE THERE WAS
AN ARTICLE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED
TO SOME OFFICES THAT I THINK IN
MY RUSH, I JUST LEFT AT MY DESK.
BUT IT'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT A
CASE, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH REDEEMABLE A GIFT,
CERTIFICATES. THERE'S CONCERN
THAT, THAT BUSINESSES IS, WILL,
WILL BE GAMED ON THIS BECAUSE
FOR ANY OF A NUMBER OF REASONS.
BUT THE WORRIES OF STOLEN GOODS
BEING RETURNED TO GIFT CARDS,
THAT'S JUST NOT BEEN THE
PRACTICE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. THERE'S
BEEN OPPOSITION CONCERN THAT
THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOTS
OF CASH ON HAND TO DO THIS.
WELL, IT JUST SAYS REDEEM. YOU
CAN DO IT WITH STORE CREDIT.
MANY MAIL IT TO PEOPLE. THERE'S
NO REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE
CASH ON HAND. I THINK THAT IS
NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. AND THERE
WERE CLAIMS THAT THERE HAD BEEN
FRAUD SINCE THIS WAS ENACTED IN
2007. WE HAVE ASKED CLEARLY FOR
CASES OF FRAUD AND NONE HAVE
BEEN PRESENTED TO US. AND SO I
THINK AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER
CONCERNS, WE'LL SEE IF THEY COME
UP. BUT WHAT I WOULD COMMIT TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
OPPONENTS, IF THERE ARE ANY
REALISTIC, CONCERNS THAT ARE
DOCUMENTED THAT COME UP AND I
PROMISE TO WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE IF THERE ARE ANY
ONGOING CONCERNS. BUT I BELIEVE
THAT THIS IS OVERDUE. IT HAS
BEEN 16 YEARS, AND IT'S THE
CONSUMERS THAT HAVE LOST BY THE
FACT THAT THERE'S BEEN A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INFLATION
SINCE IT WAS $9, $0.99 TO DO
THIS. SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. I DON'T
THINK I HAVE A LEAD WITNESS
HERE, BUT WE'LL COUNT YOU AS
LEAD WITNESS. PERFECT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, OTHER THOSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1272, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE ATTACKER
WITH THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S TURN NOW TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1272, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MARGARET GLADSTEIN
KEFLAVIK, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE STRONGLY
OPPOSED TO SB 1272, WHICH WOULD
INCREASE THE AMOUNT CASH BACK
FROM $10 TO $25. WE ALREADY HAVE
THE HIGHEST CASH BACK AMOUNT IN
THE COUNTRY AT $10 BACK. NEW
YORK JUST RAISED THEIRS AND IT
ONLY WENT TO $5 BASED ON THE
LATEST DATA AVAILABLE. THE
AVERAGE GIFT CARD AMOUNT FOR
THESE TYPE OF CLOSED LOOP CARDS
IS LOADED WITH $26 ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, WITH A $25 CASH BACK
REQUIREMENT THAT THESE WILL
ESSENTIALLY BECOME CASH
EQUIVALENTS. CRLA IS DEEPLY
APPRECIATIVE OF THE SENATE
TAKING A HARD LOOK AT LAWS THAT
NEED TO BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO
PREVENT ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT.
WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF MANY EFFORTS
OF THE SENATE THAT IS PUTTING
FORWARD, IN THAT LIGHT, IT MAKES
NO SENSE TO PASS A LAW LIKE SB
1272. THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE
RETAILERS OF ALL SIZES AND ALL
TYPES NAIL SALONS, SPAS,
RESTAURANTS AND OTHERS TO KEEP
CASH BACK. I REALIZED THAT THE
SENATOR REFERENCED THAT THERE
ARE OTHER WAYS THAT PEOPLE COULD
OFFER TO SEND CHECKS. THE
REALITY IS, BUSINESSES LARGE AND
SMALL DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO SET UP A SYSTEM
WHERE THEY CAN PROVIDE CASH
BACK. OTHER THAN DOING IT
DIRECTLY AT THE AT THE TILL.
IMAGINE HOW MAD A CONSUMER WOULD
BE IF THEY HAD TO WAIT FOR A
CHECK AND GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE
PROCESS. ON DAYS LIKE DECEMBER
26TH, BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO
KEEP A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CASH
ON HAND. IF WE KNOW THAT THE BAD
GUYS WILL KNOW IT TOO. AND SO WE
THINK THAT THIS HAS A TREMENDOUS
OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE RETAIL
THEFT, FURTHER, GIFT CARDS ARE
NOT GIVEN WITH THE INTENTION OF
BEING CASH EQUIVALENT. THEY ARE
GIVEN WITH THE INTENTION OF
EITHER HELPING A LOCAL BUSINESS
OR, PERHAPS EVEN, FOR SOMETHING
LIKE FOOD OR NUTRITION. MANY
NONPROFITS AND OTHER FOOD
INSECURITY, ORGANIZATIONS
FOCUSED ON FOOD INSECURITY
INSECURITY WILL PURCHASE GROCERY
STORE GIFT CARDS, GIFT CARDS
WITH THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. OKAY YOU URGE AND I AND
EXCUSE ME A NO VOTE. I URGE A NO
VOTE. LOTS OF OTHER REASONS.
THANKS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, MATT SUTTON WITH THE
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION. THÀNH.
DO I HAVE SOME TIME OR WHERE ARE
WE IN TWO MINUTES? TWO MINUTES?
GREAT THANKS. WE'RE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. WE MET
WITH SENATOR LAIRD. APPRECIATE
THE MEETING AND APPRECIATE THE
INTENT, WHEN THE ORIGINAL CASH
OUT BILL FOR GIFT CARDS WAS DONE
UNDER SB 250 BY SENATOR CORBETT,
THE IDEA THEN WAS TO TRY TO COME
UP WITH SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T
LEAVE A SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT
STRANDED, THAT YOU COULDN'T USE
AT THAT LOCATION OR AT MOST
LOCATIONS, FRANKLY. SO THAT'S
WHERE THE $10 CAME FROM. IT WAS
NOT INTENDED, TO BASICALLY BE A
CASH OUT SYSTEM. AND OUR CONCERN
IS THAT RESTAURANTS USE GIFT
CARDS ALL THE TIME. AND WHAT
WE'RE WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING WHEN
SOMEONE BUYS A GIFT CARD IS AN
EXPERIENCE. IT'S NOT SO MUCH A
PRODUCT THAT YOU SEE WITH A LOT
OF GIFT CARDS. IT'S AN
EXPERIENCE. AND SO THE INTENTION
OF THE GIVER, I THINK, SHOULD
MATTER HERE. AND AT MOST PEOPLE
GIVE RESTAURANT GIFT CARDS TO
GIVE THAT EXPERIENCE. THE
LOGISTICAL ISSUES AND FINANCIAL
ISSUES ON THE RESTAURANT SIDE
ARE DIFFICULT BECAUSE MOST OF
OUR MEMBERS ARE THOSE MOM AND
POP COMMUNITY RESTAURANTS, 85%
OF OUR MEMBERSHIP. SO TO CUT TO
THE CHASE, WE OFFER GIFT CARDS.
WE DO THAT AS AS A WAY TO
SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES. OFTEN
THERE'S CAMPAIGNS TO SUPPORT
RESTAURANTS THROUGH GIFT CARDS.
WE DID THIS COMING OUT OF COVID.
THESE GIFT CARDS WON'T HAVE MUCH
VALUE TO RESTAURANTS IF WE HAVE
TO CASH THEM OUT AT $25 AND
LESS, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT
MOST RESTAURANTS, OUR GIFT CARD
PRICE POINTS ARE FIVE, TEN, 15,
20, $25. SO THESE ARE THE ENTIRE
GIFT CARD AND IT COSTS US MONEY,
TO BE ADMINISTERING THOSE. AND
THEN OF COURSE, OUR CONCERN,
JUST ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF CASH,
THERE'S NO WAY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE
PERSON COME CASH IT OUT TODAY OR
12. AND SO THAT'S THESE ARE ALL
LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES THAT WE
HAVE. BUT I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY,
THE GIVER HAD A CERTAIN INTENT
WHEN THEY BUY OUR GIFT CARDS.
AND WE'D LIKE TO PRESERVE THAT
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND FOR
THAT REASON, WE ARE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
APPROACH. GOOD AFTERNOON, DEVIN
ANDERSON, ON BEHALF OF TARGET IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. JACKIE ONIS, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA FUELS AND
CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE, LET'S TURN TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS,
BUT IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
YES, SENATOR RUSSELL, I
UNFORTUNATELY, I'M ONE OF THE
TWO THIRDS, RIGHT, TWO THIRDS
WHO HAVE NOT CASHED IN. LIKE I
CARRY MY LITTLE PLASTIC BAG
AROUND AND I HAVE LOTS AND LOTS
OF THESE CARDS AND I CAN'T
REMEMBER WHEN AND HOW MUCH IS
LEFT ON ALL OF THEM. SO I
APPRECIATE I'M, NOT QUITE SURE
WHY THERE IS SUCH OPPOSITION,
BECAUSE THE MONEY HAS ALREADY
BEEN PUT OUT, TO BUY THE CARD BY
SOMEBODY. RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO
LOSS THERE. THEY WILL. THE
MERCHANTS WILL BE ABLE TO GET
THE MONEY THAT WAS PAID FOR BY
THE BUYER OF THE CARD. SO I'M
NOT SURE WHAT IT IS. AND FRANKLY
, I JUST DON'T SEE A WHOLE SWARM
OF PEOPLE JUST RUSHING TO GO.
I'M GOING TO GET A CASH BACK. SO
I'M GOING TO TURN MY CARD IN. I
JUST THINK I DON'T THINK THAT'S
VERY PRACTICAL. AND I DO A LOT
OF SHOPPING. SO I JUST, I JUST
CAN'T IMAGINE THE KINDS OF
PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
HERE. SO, I SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
SO A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS, FIRST
THOUGHT IS, SENATOR RUSSELL, MY
BIRTHDAY IS SEPTEMBER 25TH. JUST
YOU MAY WANT TO NOTE THAT.
SECONDLY IS THAT I MET WITH THE
OPPONENTS AND THEY'VE RAISED
SOME POINTS AND I'VE RAISED THEM
WITH YOU, SENATOR LAIRD. AND I
KNOW THAT YOU'RE AMENABLE TO
HEARING MORE. AND I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT THAT THERE HAS
NOT BEEN PERHAPS ADEQUATE TIME
TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE
QUESTIONS THAT I HAD. THERE WERE
3 OR 4 BASIC ISSUES. ONE BASIC
ISSUE WAS THE CASH ISSUE, WHICH
WAS RAISED TODAY. THE SECOND,
THOUGH, WAS MONEY LAUNDERING.
HOW THIS SOMEHOW FACILITATES
MONEY LAUNDERING. AND I AM
INTERESTED IN RECEIVING
INFORMATION FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT
SOURCES OR OTHER SOURCES AS TO
HOW THIS MAY FURTHER FACILITATE
MONEY LAUNDERING. THE THIRD IS
THAT THIS MAY BE IF WE RAISE IT
$25, IT'S IN VIOLATION OF
CERTAIN FEDERAL REGULATIONS OR
MAYBE EVEN STATUTES THAT REQUIRE
THAT WHEN YOU REDEEM SOMETHING
AT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, THAT YOU
HAVE TO COLLECT PERSONAL DATA,
WHICH WOULD BE VERY CONCERNING
TO ME IF YOU HAD TO COLLECT
PEOPLE'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
ADDRESS ANY PERSONAL DATA WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE I THINK EVEN A
WOULD REQUIRE AN ONEROUS BURDEN
ON THE RETAILER AS WELL AS A
POTENTIAL SACRIFICE ON THE PART
OF THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY
ACQUIRED THE GIFT CARD. SO I
WELCOME THAT. AND I THE, THE
THIRD OR FOURTH POINT WAS THE
LENGTH OF TIME, WHETHER THERE
WAS SOMETHING MAGICAL ABOUT 25
YEARS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S
ANYTHING MAGICAL ABOUT 25 YEARS,
WHETHER IT'S 15 YEARS OR 20
YEARS. IF THERE'S SOME OTHER
DATE THAT MAY WORK. WE'VE
DISCUSSED ALL THOSE ISSUES, AND
I KNOW SENATOR LAIRD, YOU'VE
TOLD ME THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT
THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE HAS TO
COLLECT PERSONAL DATA OR TO THE
EXTENT THAT THIS IS, SOMEHOW
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE,
ABILITY AND THE VULNERABILITY OF
THE PUBLIC WITH RESPECT TO MONEY
LAUNDERING, THAT YOU WILL
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THOSE TWO
ISSUES. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S
CORRECT. AND EVERYTHING YOU
SAID, I APPRECIATE IN YOU KNOW,
I THINK IT'S HARD BECAUSE I KEEP
FEELING LIKE I HAVE REBUTTED
EVERY ISSUE AND IT KEEPS COMING
BACK. AND MASSACHUSETTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THEY DO THEIRS A
DIFFERENT WAY. THEY DO IT AS A
PERCENTAGE OF THE GIFT CARDS. SO
THERE'S ACTUALLY A LEVEL IN
MASSACHUSETTS THAT'S HIGHER THAN
WHAT IF YOU HAVE $100 GIFT
CHARGE IN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE,
THAT'S HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'RE
PROPOSING IN THIS BILL. IT
HASN'T KICKED IN THIS FEDERAL
THING. AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR
SPECIFICS. IF THIS EXISTS,
PRODUCE IT. THAT WAS RAISED TO
THE COMMITTEE AND MY STAFF AFTER
I HAD THE MEETING IN THE MIDDLE
OF LAST WEEK, WHEN IT DIDN'T
COME UP AT ALL WITH THE
OPPONENTS, CONTINUED TO WORK ON
ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
AND I RECOGNIZE I ASKED FOR THIS
INFORMATION RELATIVELY RECENTLY.
SO TO THE EXTENT YOU ARE
OPPOSED, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY,
COLLECT, GATHER OR INQUIRE AS TO
THESE ISSUES. SO I KNOW AS THIS
TRAVELS THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE,
I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU THAT THAT
I MAY CONTINUE TO RAISE THESE
CONCERNS SUCH THAT IF THERE'S
SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, WE MAY EVEN
ASK FOR THE BILL TO BE BROUGHT
BACK, SO WITH THAT, SENATOR
LAIRD, YOU AGREE TO THAT?
CORRECT? I DO ALL RIGHT WITH
THAT. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE JUST THAT I CAN SYMPATHIZE
WITH? SENATOR DROSSOS. I
MENTIONED TO THE PEOPLE THAT
VISITED, I HAVE A MAJOR GIFT
CERTIFICATE THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME
BY MY ASSEMBLY STAFF FOR MY
MARRIAGE, AND WE HAD OUR 15TH
ANNIVERSARY, AND WE HAVE NOT
REDEEMED THE GIFT CERTIFICATE AT
THE KITCHEN. AND I'M GOING TO
GET IN TROUBLE IF WE DON'T, IT'S
GOING TO INFLATE DOWN TO THIS
AFTER. IF WE'RE MARRIED LONG
ENOUGH THAT MAYBE I CAN CASH IT
IN, BUT THE THING IS, IS THAT I
HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THESE
CONCERNS HAVE BEEN MET BY THE
INTENT OF THE BILL, AND THAT IF
YOU REALLY LOOK AT THIS, THIS
THESE CONCERNS HAVE NOT COME UP
WITH THE EXISTING BILL, AND WE
HAVE HAD 16 YEARS SINCE THAT
INITIAL AMOUNT WAS SET, AND IT
IS TIME FOR THE CONSUMERS TO GET
TO A POINT THAT IT MOVES WITH
WHERE IT IS. SO I WOULD CONTINUE
TO WORK, BUT I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AND I THANK YOU, AND
I'LL DIRECT YOU TO MY COMMENTS
TO SENATOR BARRASSO, TO WITH
RESPECT TO YOUR CERTIFICATES.
SO, ALL RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW IF
MY SPOUSE WANTS TO HAVE DINNER
WITH YOU ON YOUR BIRTHDAY. ALL
RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU WOULD. LET'S
SEE. SENATOR RUSSELL, DID YOU
MOVE THE BILL? YES. SENATOR
RUSSELL MOVED THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT. IF YOU WOULD, MADAM
SECRETARY, CALL THE ROLL. THIS
IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 12, SB 1272.
THE MOTION IS Dð. PASS UMBERG A
UMBERG I WILK NÓ WILK NØ ALLEN
ASHBY. CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
DURAZO RUSSELL I. LAIRD I. LAIRD
I MINH. NHIÀU STERN. WAHAB.
WAHAB I YOU HAVE 5 TO 1 FIVE
ONE. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD, I DO
NOT SEE SENATOR MENGIBAR,
SENATOR SKINNER OR SENATOR
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS. SO YES. OH, I
DO SEE SENATOR SMALLWOOD. THANK
YOU. THERE I OKAY, I'VE GOT TO
WRITE. I GOT TO BE MORE
ATTENTIVE. THANK YOU. SENATOR
SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS, SB 1137, ITEM
NUMBER NINE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND I WORE MY YELLOW
JACKET. WELL, I COULD STAND OUT,
GETTING OLDER, SO. ALL RIGHT.
THANKS. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MEMBERS, AND GOOD AFTERNOON. I
AM PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 1137,
WHICH WOULD MAKE CALIFORNIA THE
FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO
RECOGNIZE INTERSEX PERSONALITY
IN OUR CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS BY
CLARIFYING THAT DISCRIMINATION
IS PROHIBITED, NOT ONLY BECAUSE
OF ONE'S PROTECTED ONE TRAIT,
BUT ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OR
MORE PROTECTED TRAITS. I'D LIKE
TO REMIND FOLKS, AS I STAND
HERE, I AM A WOMAN, I AM BLACK,
AND I'M A WORKER AND ALL PARTS
OF ME DESERVE TO BE PROTECTED.
AND SOMETIMES THESE THINGS
INTERSECT AND WHERE THE
INTERSECTION HAPPENS, WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT CALIFORNIANS HAVE
THE FULLEST PROTECTION OF THE
LAW. BUT UNDER CURRENT LAW, ALL
INDIVIDUALS ARE PROTECTED FROM
DISCRIMINATION, OF COURSE. BUT
THESE CASES ARE EXACERBATED WHEN
AN INDIVIDUAL HAS EXPERIENCED
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A
COMBINATION OF INTERSECTIONS OF
PROTECTED CLASSES. FOR EXAMPLE,
WHEN A BLACK WOMAN BRINGS
FORWARD A DISCRIMINATION CASE,
SHE MAY BE FORCED TO ADDRESS HER
RACE AND HER GENDER CLAIMS.
SEPARATELY, THE SEPARATION OF
IDENTITIES, AS WE KNOW, IS NOT
HOW DISCRIMINATION OPERATES IN
PRACTICE. IT HAS REAL EFFECTS ON
OUTCOMES AND IN CASES WHERE
INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
OCCURS, THE DEFENSE MAY ATTEMPT
TO USE THE SEPARATION OF
CHARACTERISTICS TO DEFEAT THE
CLAIM ENTIRELY. IN AN LAMB
VERSUS THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII,
AN ASIAN AMERICAN FEMALE
PROFESSOR ALLEGED THAT SHE
ENCOUNTERED DISCRIMINATION BASED
ON RACE, SEX, AND NATIONAL
ORIGIN. THE LOWER COURT RULED
AGAINST PROFESSOR LAMB BECAUSE
THE DEFENDANTS HAD SUPPORTED AN
ASIAN MAN DEFEATING HER. RACE
CLAIM, AND A WHITE WOMAN
DEFEATING HER GENDER CLAIM, BUT
THAT DID NOT DENY THE FACT THAT
PROFESSOR LAMB HAD FACED
DISCRIMINATION AS AN ASIAN
AMERICAN WOMAN. THE NINTH
CIRCUIT ULTIMATELY REVERSED THE
RULING BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED
THAT WHERE TWO BASES OF
DISCRIMINATION EXIST, THEY
CANNOT BE NEATLY REDUCED TO
DISTINCT COMPONENTS. THE COURT
WENT ON TO CLARIFY THAT ASIAN
WOMEN ARE SUBJECTED TO A UNIQUE
FORM OF DISCRIMINATION THAT IS
LEGITIMATE, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE
OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN
MEN OR WHITE WOMEN. THEY ARE IN
FACT NEEDING PROTECTION OF BOTH
ASPECTS OF THEIR IDENTITY AS A
WOMAN, AS AS AN ASIAN PERSON.
DESPITE THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CIVIL RIGHTS
LAWS HERE IN CALIFORNIA FAIL TO
EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE THE
INTERSECTIONALITY, LEAVING
COURTS TO ADDRESS THESE KINDS OF
CASES INCONSISTENTLY.
INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IS
NOT LIMITED TO RACE AND GENDER
DISCRIMINATION CAN BE EXPRESSED
BASED ON ONE'S AGE, BASED ON
NATIONAL ORIGIN. AND ALL OF THIS
IS ABOUT HOW DO WE ADDRESS THE
COMBINATION OF THESE CLASSES AND
THE COMPLEXITY OF IDENTITY IN
OUR COURTS. THOSE OF US WHO HAVE
LIVED AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF
MULTIPLE PROTECTED CLASSES KNOW
THAT THESE EXPERIENCES CANNOT BE
SEPARATED, BUT THEY ARE
INEXTRICABLE, LINKED, AND WE
CARRY ALL OF OUR IDENTITIES WITH
US AT ALL TIMES. AND IT IS
NECESSARY THAT OUR THAT OUR LAWS
REFLECT THAT AND THAT WHEN WE
ARE ABLE TO BRING THESE CASES,
THAT WE ARE MADE WHOLE AS PEOPLE
. I MYSELF HAVE SEEN THIS
FIRSTHAND IN CASES WHERE WE HAD
BEEN ADDRESSING DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST A WORKER, FOR EXAMPLE,
AND THE WORKER IS BEING PAID
LESS THAN WHAT MEN ARE BEING
PAID LESS, BUT ALSO BEING PAID
LESS AS A BLACK WOMAN THAN WHAT
WOMEN ARE BEING PAID ON THE JOB.
AND SO IT BECOMES COMPLEX. AND
THERE'S A NEED FOR THE COURT TO
RECOGNIZE THIS. I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY. AND
FIRST WE WILL HEAR FROM JASMINE
EDWARDS, WHO WILL SHARE HER OWN
EXPERIENCE OF GOING THROUGH THE
LEGAL SYSTEM AFTER FACING
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
RACE AND GENDER AND HER
CHALLENGE OF BEING PROTECTED.
AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM
PROFESSOR SHEILA CHOWDER FROM
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, WHO
CAN DISCUSS THE UNIQUE NATURE OF
INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION.
WE HAVE A MAN, FERNANDO, WHO
REPRESENTED JASMINE EDWARDS, AND
SHE WILL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTION THAT, THIS
MEMBERS MAY HAVE. AND SO WE WILL
START WITH OUR FIRST WITNESS.
ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU, MISS
EDWARDS. WHOMEVER, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
HELLO. MY NAME IS JASMINE
EDWARDS. THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY
EXPERIENCE WITH YOU. IN 2017, I
WAS HIRED AS A MANAGER OF A
RETAIL STORE IN SAN LEANDRO OF A
LARGE RETAIL CLOTHING COMPANY.
WHEN I WAS HIRED, I WAS PROMISED
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME STORE
MANAGER. SOON AFTER, HOWEVER, A
NEW DISTRICT MANAGER TRANSFERRED
A MALE MANAGER TO BE MY
CO-MANAGER AT THE STORE AND THEN
GAVE THE STORE MANAGER POSITION
TO HIM, EVEN THOUGH I WAS FULLY
QUALIFIED, IF NOT MORE
QUALIFIED, AND HAD LONGER TENURE
IN THE STORE, I WAS CONTINUOUSLY
HARASSED BY THIS MALE MANAGER
BECAUSE OF MY RACE AND GENDER.
WHILE MY MANAGER FREQUENTLY MADE
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT REMARKS ABOUT
WOMEN'S BODIES, TOLD ALL THE
FEMALE EMPLOYEES TO DRESS SEXIER
, AND OFTEN MADE RACIST REMARKS
ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AND EVEN
RACIALLY PROFILED CUSTOMERS IN
THE STORE. I FELT LIKE HE
RECEIVED. I FELT LIKE HE
RESERVED THE WORST TREATMENT FOR
ME AND OTHER BLACK FEMALE
EMPLOYEES. FOR EXAMPLE, HE
FREQUENTLY BLAMED ME WHEN
ANYTHING WENT WRONG AT THE STORE
, EVEN WHEN IT WAS OUTSIDE OF MY
CONTROL. RAISED HIS VOICE WHEN
SPEAKING TO ME, MADE
DISRESPECTFUL COMMENTS TOWARDS
ME AND CONTINUOUSLY HUMILIATED,
HUMILIATED ME IN FRONT OF MY
COLLEAGUES. HE OFTEN COMMENTED
THAT HE DIDN'T THINK I WOULD BE
AN EFFECTIVE LEADER AS A
MANAGER, BECAUSE I WAS TOO MUCH
DRAMA, EVEN THOUGH I WAS A
STRONGER PERFORMER AND OTHER
SALES ASSOCIATES REPEATED. HE
TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN
THE STORE MANAGER. HE DID NOT
TREAT MEN, NOR BLACK, MOSTLY
LATINO FEMALES AS POORLY AS HE
TREATED ME. NOT ONLY DID HIS
SEXIST AND RACIST COMMENTS AND
CONDUCT INCREASE IN FREQUENCY
AROUND ME AND OTHER BLACK FEMALE
EMPLOYEES, LIKE GROPING
MANNEQUINS IN FRONT OF BLACK
FEMALE COWORKERS, HE ALSO
FALSELY ACCUSED ME FROM STEALING
MONEY FROM THE STORE WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION. IN THE SAME WAY,
HE ACCUSED BLACK CUSTOMERS FROM
STEALING WITHOUT ANY PROOF.
AFTER MY REPEATED COMPLAINTS TO
MY DISTRICT MANAGER AND HR FELL
ON DEAF EARS AND MY MANAGER
STARTED TO RETALIATE AGAINST ME,
MY HEALTH TOOK A TOLL AND I
RESIGNED. WHEN I FOUND AN
ATTORNEY AND FILED MY LAWSUIT.
MY CASE WAS LITIGATED AS
SEPARATE CLAIMS OF GENDER AND
RACE DISCRIMINATION. THOUGH I
BELIEVE THAT THE TREATMENT I
ENDURED WAS BASED ON A
COMBINATION OF THESE IDENTITIES
AND THE HARM I SUFFERED. CANNOT
BE. THANK YOU, MR. EDWARDS. IF
YOU'D WRAP IT UP. OKAY. AND TWO
DISTINCT PARTS. IT IS CRITICAL
THAT THE LAW BE CLARIFIED. SO IT
REFLECTS THE REALITIES OF THE
VERY REAL HARMS THAT WORKERS
LIKE ME SUFFER WHEN WE FALL
VICTIM TO A COMBINATION OF
BIASES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS. MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
DOCTOR SHAYA CROWDER. I'M A
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY,
SPECIALIZING IN RESEARCH THAT
EXAMINES THE INTERSECTION OF
RACE, GENDER AND POLITICAL
BEHAVIOR. MY BOOK PROJECT
EXAMINES HOW AWARENESS OF
INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
OFTEN INFLUENCES POLICY
PREFERENCES. THE TERMS
INTERSECTIONALITY REFERS TO THE
UNIQUE FORM OF DISCRIMINATION
THAT PEOPLE EXPERIENCE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF MULTIPLE
MARGINALIZED IDENTITIES. IT WAS
COINED BY LEGAL SCHOLAR KIMBERLÉ
CRENSHAW, WHO USES THE ANALOGY
OF AN INTERSECTION AT A TRAFFIC
SIGNAL TO VISUALIZE THE WAYS IN
WHICH BLACK WOMEN EXPERIENCE
BOTH RACIAL AND GENDERED FORMS
OF DISCRIMINATION THAT PLACE
THEM AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE
THEY EXPERIENCE THE SIMULTANEOUS
IMPACT OF GENDERED AND RACIAL
OPPRESSION. THE THEORY WAS
DEVELOPED DUE TO EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCED BY
BLACK WOMEN. CRENSHAW EXPLAINED
THAT IN THE CASE OF
DEGRAFFENREID VÆ GENERAL MOTORS,
FIVE BLACK WOMEN FROM MISSOURI
BROUGHT A SUIT AGAINST GM,
ALLEGING THAT THE COMPANY'S
SYSTEM OF SENIORITY PERPETUATED
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACK
WOMEN DURING A RECESSION.
GENERAL MOTORS IMPLEMENTED A
LAST HIRED, FIRST FIRED POLICY
IN WHICH PEOPLE WHO WERE LAST
HIRED WOULD BE LAID OFF. THIS
POLICY DISPROPORTIONATELY
AFFECTED BLACK WOMEN BECAUSE NO
BLACK WOMEN HAD BEEN HIRED PRIOR
TO THE PASSAGE OF THE 1964 CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT. WITH THIS, IN MIND,
BLACK WOMEN ARE OFTEN THE
PROTOTYPICAL INTERSECTIONAL
SUBJECTS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE
NUMEROUS IDENTITIES THAT
INTERSECT TO CREATE UNIQUE FORMS
OF MARGINALIZATION. PEOPLE OF
COLOR IDENTIFIED AS LGBTQIA,
AND WOMEN OFTEN EXPERIENCE
MULTIPLE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION
SIMULTANEOUSLY. WHEN POLICIES
FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
INTERSECTIONAL NATURE OF
DISCRIMINATION, PRACTITIONERS
ARE UNABLE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THE UNIQUE EXPERIENCES THAT
THESE MARGINALIZED GROUPS FACE.
BASED UPON THE DISCRIMINATION,
ON INDIVIDUALS WHO POSSESS TWO
OR MORE PROTECTED
CLASSIFICATIONS, I URGE THIS
COMMITTEE. COULD YOU WRAP IT UP,
PLEASE? YEP. THANK YOU. I URGE
THIS COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT SB
1137 BY SENATOR SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
GIVE US YOUR YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION AND YOUR POSITION.
MARIKO YOSHIHARA, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT JESSICA
STENDER ON BEHALF OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT ALSO ON
BEHALF OF VOICES FOR PROGRESS
CHILD CARE LAW CENTER, RACE AND
CHILD POVERTY AND LEGAL AID AT
WORK. ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ERIC HARRIS WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YANNI
CHOW WITH THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU JACKIE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT, THANK
YOU, MICHELLE DURAN WOOLFORK
WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION
ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
CRAIG PULSIPHER, EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, GEORGE TH¤U WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. HELLO. MY NAME IS
SABINA CROCETTI. I AM WITH LEGAL
AID WORK PROUD CO-SPONSORS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SAYING NO ONE
APPROACHES THE MICROPHONE. LET'S
TURN NOW TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1137,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE
SEEING NO ONE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. SENATOR LAIRD, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
COAUTHOR FOR BRINGING THE BILL.
AND WHEN I WAS IN THE ASSEMBLY,
THERE WAS THIS LONG, THERE WERE
144 CODE SECTIONS FOR
NONDISCRIMINATION IN STATE LAW.
AND THEY HAD ALL BEEN PUT
TOGETHER PIECEMEAL, EVEN THOUGH
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ARE
THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ARE
GUIDED, IT. AND SO IN OUR CODE
AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE TIMES
WHEN IT SAID HANDICAP RATHER
THAN DISABILITY. OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, MANY HAD GENDER
WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT WORDS.
AND THERE HAD BEEN THIS
PIECEMEAL ADDITION OF THE
NONDISCRIMINATION CODE WITHOUT
THIS CLEAR STATEMENT THAT
REFERENCED ALL THE WAY THROUGH
THE CODE. AND I DID BILLS THAT
INDEXED IT TO THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, SO THAT
IF WE EVER CHANGED FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING BY
REFERENCE, WE CHANGED MOST OF
THE NONDISCRIMINATION CODE
SECTIONS. AND IT SEEMS TO ME
THIS IS THE NEXT STEP, BECAUSE
IT'S THE RECOGNITION THAT THAT
THAT THERE ARE THE INTERSECTIONS
BETWEEN SO MANY DIFFERENT
THINGS. AND WHEN I WAS WORKING
FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN HUMAN
RESOURCES AND WAS THE PERSON
THAT WORKED ON EMPLOYMENT
COMPLAINTS, GRIEVANCES AND
ASSISTED ON DISCRIMINATION
COMPLAINTS, WE WOULD SEE IT. BUT
THERE WAS NO FORMAT FOR IT
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T THAT
RECOGNITION THAT THAT THESE
CROSSED OVER AND SO I THINK THIS
IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND, AND,
AND A GOOD BILL AND, AND FOR
MANY PEOPLE THIS WILL BE A
CHANGE. IT WILL BE A CHANGE THAT
ALSO PROBABLY EDUCATES THEM
ABOUT DIFFERENT PIECES OF THIS
THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. AND
I SUSPECT YOU MAY HAVE A FEW
MORE FUN TIMES WHEN THIS BILL
MOVES ALONG, BUT, AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, I WILL BE
READY TO MOVE THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT, OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, SENATOR LAIRD MOVES
THE BILL, ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SENATOR SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS, YOU
CARE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AND I WANT TO THANK THIS
COMMITTEE FOR ITS COMMENTS AND
WORKING WITH MY TEAM ON THIS.
AND THANK YOU FOR SO MANY OF YOU
WHO ARE ON THIS DAIS THAT HAVE
BEEN FIGHTING AND STANDING UP
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE
PROTECTIONS OF OUR OF OUR
COMMUNITIES FOR ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT. THIS IS THE STRUGGLE
CONTINUES. AND THIS IS A
CONTINUATION OF MODERNIZE AND
UPDATING OUR FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
HOUSING LAWS SO THAT WE ARE
RECOGNIZING THE FULLNESS AND THE
WHOLENESS OF PEOPLE AND MAKING
SURE OUR LAWS TAKE THAT INTO
ACCOUNT WHEN IT'S TIME TO
PROTECT THEM. AND TO PROVIDE THE
REMEDIES NECESSARY TO DO SO. I
AM GRATEFUL AGAIN FOR THE
COMMITTEE'S HELP ON THIS, AND I
WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKERS FOR
SHARING THEIR STORIES, AND
COMING BEFORE YOU WITH THEIR
COURAGE, IT'S LONG OVERDUE. AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU'D
CALL THE ROLL, THIS IS ITEM
NUMBER NINE, SB 1137. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSED. THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG I UMBERG I
WILK ALAN ASHBY CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DURAZO GROSSO I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH. NILO.
STERN. WAHAB WAHAB I. 5 TO 0
FIVE ZERO. WE'LL PUT THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU, SENATOR SMALL
CUEVAS. ALL RIGHT. I SEE A
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH
DISTINCTIVE HEADGEAR THAT HAVE
PROBABLY BEEN WAITING FOR
SENATOR MENJIVAR. SO THE LINEUP
IS SENATOR MENGIBAR THEN SENATOR
SKINNER, THEN SENATOR ASHBY.
SENATOR MENGIBAR, ITEM NUMBER
SIX, SB 1124.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS
LIKE THE BROKEN ONE. OKAY SO
IMAGINE YOU SPEND A MINIMUM OF
FOUR YEARS IN THE MILITARY WHERE
YOU MAY BREAK A BONE, YOU MAY
HAVE BEHAVIORAL NEEDS THAT NEED
TO BE MET. YOUR BACK PAIN IS
CONSTANT AND UNTREATED BECAUSE
YOU'RE TOLD CONSTANTLY TO JUST
TAKE IBUPROFEN AND, CHANGE YOUR
SOCKS AND KEEP ON TRUCKING. NOW,
IMAGINE YOU LEAVE THE MILITARY
AND THOSE SYMPTOMS STILL
PERSIST, AND YOU'RE NOW SEEKING
TO GET TREATMENT OR DISABILITY.
FOR WHAT, SOME OF THE THINGS
HAPPEN TO YOU IN THE MILITARY.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE PROOF
OF THAT BECAUSE, WELL, FOR THE
PAST FOUR YEARS IN THE MILITARY,
YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU'RE OKAY,
YOU'RE FINE. PUSH FORWARD
ATTEMPTING TO FILE FOR A VA
DISABILITY RATING COULD BE
DAUNTING AND TIME CONSUMING.
IT'S HARD SOMETIMES TO PROVE
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU DID HAPPEN
TO YOU. THERE AND IT CAN BE A
VERY VULNERABLE SITUATION WHEN
YOUR PAIN IS SYMPTOMS ARE NOT
VALIDATED BY THE VA THROUGH
THEIR DENIAL OF YOUR CLAIMS.
FINALLY, IMAGINE FEELING
EVERYTHING I JUST DESCRIBED AND
CONNECTING WITH A COMPANY THAT
ROLLS OUT THE RED CARPET FOR YOU
AND PROMISES YOU A HIGH RATE,
BUT INSTEAD STEALS YOUR MONEY
WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO YOUR
RATING, CHARGES YOU AN
EXORBITANT AMOUNT OR USES YOUR
PERSONAL INFORMATION TO ACCESS
PRIVATE INFORMATION. THIS IS
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO A LOT OF
VETERANS WHO ARE GOING TO UN TO
UNACCREDITED AGENTS TO PROCESS
THEIR VETERAN BENEFITS. NOW, I
DON'T WANT TO GROUP EVERY SINGLE
AGENT OR UNACCREDITED AGENT IN
THE SAME UMBRELLA BECAUSE I
MYSELF UTILIZED AN UNACCREDITED
AGENT TO HELP WITH MY VA
DISABILITY, AND I DID HAVE A
POSITIVE EXPERIENCE. BUT MY
STORY IS NOT THE SAME AS OTHER
VETERANS WHO DID NOT HAVE
POSITIVE EXPERIENCES AND HAD A
COMPLETE OPPOSITE EXPERIENCE
THROUGH FRAUD AND SO FORTH.
BECAUSE WHEN THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION TESTIFIED LAST YEAR
IN CONGRESS THAT THEY RECEIVED A
50% INCREASE IN COMPLAINTS,
AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN 150,000
COMPLAINTS OF FRAUD AND ILLEGAL
BUSINESSES PRACTICING IN 20
2022, IT RESULTED IN MORE THAN
450 $414 MILLION IN DAMAGES. WE
KNOW WE HAVE AN ISSUE. STORIES
LIKE GRANT GALLAGHER, AN AIR
FORCE VETERAN WHO SIGNED A
CONTRACT WITH THE CLAIMS
CONSULTING FIRM THAT OFFERED HIM
VERY LITTLE HELP IN
COMMUNICATION, WAS CHARGED
$7,500 ONCE HIS CLAIM WAS
APPROVED AFTER HE DID MAJORITY
OF THE WORK ON HIS OWN, AND HIS
RATING WAS INCREASED THE
INDUSTRY, THE COMPANY CAME BACK
AND SAID, WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE
YOU. EVEN THOUGH HE DID THE
WORK, OR CHRISTIAN HAMEL, WHO
TURNED TO VETERANS WHO TURNED TO
AN UNACCREDITED AGENT FOR HELP
AFTER LEAVING THE MARINE CORPS,
ONLY FOR THEM TO ABANDON HIM. HE
EVENTUALLY SOUGHT THE HELP BY A
COUNTY VETERAN SERVICE OFFICERS
TO GET ASSISTANCE FOR HIS CLAIM
FOR FREE. THIS IS WHY CALIFORNIA
NEEDS REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF
THIS SYSTEM. WE NEED TO ENSURE
THAT VETERANS DISABILITY CLAIMS
ARE HANDLED, THAT IS HANDLED IN
A MANNER THAT IS MOST BENEFICIAL
TO THEM AND PROTECTS THEM FROM
WRONGDOING. WRONGDOING NOW,
PERHAPS WE DON'T ALL AGREE WITH
THE WAY THE VA HANDLES RATINGS,
THEIR DENIAL PERCENTAGE, AND SO
FORTH, BUT WE'RE WORKING WITH
WHAT IS FEDERAL LAW RIGHT NOW.
CURRENT FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES
ACCREDITATION OF AGENTS WHO WANT
TO HELP VETERANS OBTAIN THEIR
VETERAN BENEFITS. SO SB 1124 IS
ONLY SEEKING TO MATCH THE
FEDERAL LAW. THE FEDERAL LAW IS
A KEY PRINCIPLE THIS BILL IS
SEEKING TO UPHOLD IN CALIFORNIA
THE LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL
OVERSIGHT OVER THESE
UNACCREDITED ACTORS IS THE CRUX
OF THE PROBLEM THAT I'M SEEKING
TO ADDRESS. SPECIFICALLY, SB
1124 WOULD DO A COUPLE OF
THINGS. IT WILL PROHIBIT ANY
PERSON FROM SOLICITING,
CHARGING, CONTRACTING FOR, OR
RECEIVING ANY FEE OR
COMPENSATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
PREPARATION, PRESENTATION, OR
PROSECUTION OF ANY CLAIM UNDER
THE VA FOR VA BENEFITS, UNLESS
THEY ARE ACCREDITED. THERE IS
CURRENTLY AN ACCREDITATION
PROCESS THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW,
AND ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO WORK
ON THIS CAN APPLY FOR THE
ACCREDITATION. IT WILL
STRENGTHEN PROTECTIONS TO
PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
VETERANS PERSONAL INFORMATION
THROUGH SECURE VA WEBSITES LIKE
EBENEFITS OR VA.GOV WEBSITES
THAT YOU NEED YOUR OWN PERSONAL
INFORMATION TO ACCESS, AND IT
WILL REINFORCE EXISTING FEE CAPS
ON SERVICES BY CLARIFYING THAT A
FEE CHARGED WITH RESPECT TO A
VETERAN BENEFITS IS
UNREASONABLE. UNREASONABLE IF IT
EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT THAT A VA
ACCREDITED ATTORNEY OR CLAIMS
AGENT COULD CHARGE FOR THESE
SAME SERVICES. IT'S ABOUT
OVERSIGHT AND MAKING SURE THAT
THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE
INDUSTRY ARE IN ADHERENCE TO
WHAT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN
FEDERAL LAW. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE
TO NOW TURN OVER TO MY,
WITNESSES WHO WERE FURTHER SPEAK
ON THIS MATTER. WE HAVE ANTHONY
LU, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE
HAVE VFW STATE QUARTER MASTER
ROGER MEYER, AND WE HAVE SCOTT
HOWELL FROM KING COUNTY, COUNTY
VETERANS SERVICES OFFICE AND
LEGISLATIVE CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, AT THE REQUEST
OF THE AUTHOR AND THE OPPONENTS,
THAT WE'RE GOING TO DEVIATE
SLIGHTLY FROM OUR NORMAL
PROCEDURE, THERE WILL BE FOUR
MINUTES FOR THE SUPPORT SIDE AND
FOUR MINUTES FOR THE OPPOSITION
SIDE. I'M TOLD THERE ARE THREE
WITNESSES. SO THOSE FOUR MINUTES
MAY BE DIVIDED AMONG THOSE THREE
WITNESSES, BUT WE'RE GOING TO
LIMIT IT TO FOUR MINUTES FOR
EACH SIDE. SO GO AHEAD. THOSE IN
SUPPORT PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
ANTHONY LIU. I'M A DEPUTY AG IN
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AG.
BONTA IS THE PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS LEGISLATION. WE THANK
SENATOR MENGER FOR HER
LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORING THIS
BILL AND OUR CO-SPONSORS, THE
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, FOR
THEIR PARTNERSHIP. YOU KNOW,
THIS BILL STEMS FROM DISCUSSIONS
BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
THE MILITARY AND VETERANS
COMMUNITY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF ENSURING THAT THOSE WHO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS
AND FILING A CLAIM FOR VA
BENEFITS ARE ACCREDITED BY THE
VA. THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON
PAGES FOUR AND FIVE DOES AN
EXCELLENT JOB OF DESCRIBING THE
CURRENT SYSTEM OF VA
ACCREDITATION. THE PUBLIC POLICY
PURPOSE OF ACCREDITATION, AND
HIGHLIGHTING THE FEDERAL LAW
THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES SOMEONE
TO BE VA ACCREDITED IN ORDER TO
ASSIST A VETERAN WITH INITIATING
A CLAIM FOR VA BENEFITS. AS THE
AUTHOR HIGHLIGHTED, THIS FEDERAL
LAW REQUIRING ACCREDITATION IS
THE UNDERPINNING THE
UNDERPINNING OF SB 1124. THE KEY
PRINCIPLE THAT THE AG, THE VFW,
AND THE MANY MILITARY AND
VETERAN GROUPS THAT SUPPORT THIS
BILL SEEK TO UPHOLD IN
CALIFORNIA LAW. SIMPLY, IF
SOMEONE WANTS TO CHARGE VETERANS
FOR HELP WITH THEIR BENEFITS
CLAIMS, THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE
RULES AND BECOME VA ACCREDITED.
THE CHAIR OF THE OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE US HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
VETERAN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTATIVE
CHRIS PAPPAS, EXPLAINED THIS WAY
IN A RECENT CONGRESSIONAL
HEARING, QUOTE, SOME VETERANS
MAY BE WILLING TO PAY A FEE IF
THE SERVICES THEY RECEIVE ARE
WORTHWHILE AND A COMPANY'S
BUSINESS PRACTICES ARE ABOVE
BOARD, BUT WITHOUT ADEQUATE
OVERSIGHT THROUGH THE
ACCREDITATION PROCESS, WE CANNOT
BE ASSURED THAT THAT THAT THIS
IS THE CASE, IN SHORT, BECAUSE
AN ACCREDITED CLAIMS
REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO THE VA'S RULES AND
OVERSIGHTS, WE FEEL THEY POSE AN
UNACCEPTABLE RISK, CONSUMER RISK
TO VETS. IN CONCLUSION, SB 1124
STANDS FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT
ANY BUSINESS OPERATING IN THE
ARENA OF PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO
VETERANS AND FILING A CLAIM FOR
VA BENEFITS SHOULD HAVE TO PLAY
BY THE SAME SET OF RULES. IT
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO
THE PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL
STANDARDS SET BY THE VA AND THEY
SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO NOT
EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTIONS
PROVIDED BY VA ACCREDITATION AND
OVERSIGHT, INCLUDING FEE CAPS.
THAT BEING SAID, THE AG'S OFFICE
IS VERY COMMITTED AND WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR TO
CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS WITH
OPPONENTS AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD. AND SHOULD THE BILL
PASS TODAY, IT'S REFERRED TO THE
SENATE MILITARY AND VETS
COMMITTEE, AND WE REALLY WELCOME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER
ENGAGE ON THESE ISSUES THERE. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIRMAN.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
ROGER MEYER AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING THE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS OF THE VFW
IN CALIFORNIA. UNACCREDITED
CLAIMS CONSULTANTS CONTINUE TO
OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE LAW
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO
BECOME ACCREDITED. TO BE CLEAR,
THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THEM
FROM HAVING THEIR EMPLOYEES
ACCREDITED TODAY. THESE
COMPANIES MAKE EXCUSES THAT THAT
IT'S TOO HARD TO GET EVERY
INDIVIDUAL ACCREDITED. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT ATTORNEYS ARE
ADMITTED TO THE BAR, NOT LAW
FIRMS. DOCTORS HAVE MEDICAL
LICENSES, NOT THE HOSPITAL. THE
VFW IS NOT ACCREDITED, BUT OUR
SERVICE OFFICERS ARE THESE
UNACCREDITED CLAIMS COMPANIES
SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME
STANDARD AND NOT ALLOWED A FREE
PASS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE
IT'S TOO HARD OR IT DOES NOT FIT
THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. IT SHOULD
NOT MATTER WHETHER THEIR CLIENTS
WILLINGLY CHOOSE TO USE THESE
SERVICES. IT SHOULD NOT MATTER
THAT SOME OF THEIR CLIENTS ARE
SATISFIED WITH THE RESULTS OF
THE UNACCREDITED COMPANIES. WE
DO NOT LEGISLATE BASED ON YELP
REVIEWS. COMPANIES OPERATING
OUTSIDE THE LAW MUST BE REINED
IN. IT SHOULD BE OUR RESPONSE
ABILITY TO REQUIRE ANYONE WHO
HANDLES A VETERANS CLAIM. THANK
YOU. IF YOU COULD WRAP IT UP. OH
SO OUR WE REPRESENT 70,000
VETERANS, IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND WE HAVE, BROUGHT
IN $370 MILLION IN COMPENSATION
SINCE OCTOBER 1ST, ALL FOR FREE,
I SEE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU
URGE, AND I VOTE. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S NOW TURN TO THE OPPOSITION
. EXCUSE ME. STRIKE! I'M. I
APOLOGIZE. NO. IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE AND GIVE US YOUR YOUR
NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION. THE ATTACKER WITH THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, DON
HARPER. WITH AMERICAN LEGION. WE
HAVE 100,000 MEMBERS IN
CALIFORNIA. WE RECOMMEND I VOTE
ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. CHAIR,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
SCOTT HOLLOWELL, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY VETERAN
SERVICE OFFICERS, 30 YEAR NAVY
VETERAN. WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 1124. THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS RANDY PERRY
WITH AARON REED AND ASSOCIATES,
ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO
MILITARY ADVISORS AND THE CAL
VET FOUNDATION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS.
DENETIAH BOATNER, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DANITA
STROMGREN, VOLUNTEER WITH
CALIFORNIA AARP Ã REPRESENTING
2.3 I'M SORRY, 3.2 MILLION
MEMBERS IN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT
OF 1124. THANK YOU, JESSICA
STENDER ON BEHALF OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT,
THANK YOU, CHARLES WRIGHT ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS SERVICE
AGENCIES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CHRIS ARCHULETA WITH MILITARY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, STEVE
REEVES, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
KENNETH OTTO AND VETERANS
SERVICE FOR FOREIGN WARS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANDREW MILLER, VETERAN SERVICE
VETERAN FOREIGN WARS AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MARCUS, ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, IN SUPPORT. THANKS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, DYLAN
ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF KERN AND NEVADA IN
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
SETH REEB, WITH REEB GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS REPRESENTING ABOUT
HALF A MILLION VETERANS
REPRESENTING AMERICAN LEGION OR
EXCUSE ME, AMVETS DEPARTMENT OF
CALIFORNIA MILITARY OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AND THE
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHUCK
JAMESON, SCOTTISH AMERICAN
MILITARY SOCIETY, AND WE SUPPORT
THIS. THANK YOU, MARK ORLANDO,
SONOMA COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
STEVE SPRIGGS, AUSA NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. WE SUPPORT THANK YOU
. DAVID KUDO WITH THE VFW OF
CALIFORNIA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, DAVID WEST PRESIDENT
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTY VETERANS SERVICES
OFFICERS, AND WE SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. MAC ADAMS,
RETIRED COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR,
41 YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS, 11 DAYS
REPRESENTING MILITARY FAMILY
SUPPORT FOR EL DORADO COUNTY.
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
SERGEANT MAJOR. I SPENT 33 YEARS
IN THE MILITARY, 33 OF THEM
AFRAID OF SERGEANTS MAJOR. SO
RIGHT? RIGHT. FOR REAL, MY NAME
IS ALFRED SIMS, DIRECTOR OF
VETERANS SERVICES FOR SOLANO
COUNTY, REPRESENTING 33,000
VETERANS IN SOLANO COUNTY. AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. SEEING
NO ONE APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE, NO ONE OTHER. NO ONE
ELSE APPROACHING MICROPHONE, NOW
LET'S TURN TO THE OPPOSITION.
SAME DEAL WITH THE OPPOSITION.
FOUR MINUTES IN TOTAL, BEFORE I
BEGIN, WE'LL HAVE TWO MEMBERS
TODAY DOING TWO MINUTES EACH.
ALRIGHTY, CHAIRMAN YOUNGBERG,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY
IN OPPOSITION OF SB 1124. MY
NAME IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL
RETIRED BILL TAYLOR, AND I'M THE
FOUNDER OF VETERANS GUARDIAN VÀ
CLAIM CONSULTING. WE ARE VETERAN
OWNED WITH OVER 200 EMPLOYEES,
ALL OF WHICH ARE VETERANS
SPOUSES OF VETERANS OR SPOUSES
OF ACTIVE DUTY. WE ARE A
TRANSPARENT AND ETHICAL COMPANY
HELPING ENSURE VETERANS RECEIVE
THE BENEFITS THEY ARE ENTITLED
TO BASED ON THEIR HONORABLE
SERVICE TO OUR NATION. I'D LIKE
TO ADDRESS TWO AREAS THAT WERE
SPOKEN ABOUT TODAY THAT WE
BELIEVE ARE NOT ACCURATE. THE
FIRST IS CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS
TESTIMONY. WE ARE NOT OPERATING
ILLEGALLY AND WE ARE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW AS
IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, NOT AS
THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE OUR
INDUSTRY WISH THAT IT WAS
WRITTEN. WE ARE NOT ACTING AS AN
AGENT OR ATTORNEY. WE NEVER
REPRESENT, WE NEVER PRESENT, AND
WE NEVER PROSECUTE A CLAIM. WE
MERELY ACT AS CONSULTANTS TO
HELP THE VETERANS NAVIGATE THE
PROCESS. ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.
AND UNDER CURRENT LAW, IF YOU
DON'T TAKE THAT STEP INTO AGENCY
, YOU ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW. THE FEDERAL LAW
DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T DO THIS
UNLESS YOU'RE ACCREDITED. THE
SECOND IS THAT WE ARE ACCUSED OF
NOT WANTING TO BECOME ACCREDITED
. I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR FOUR
YEARS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL TO
TRY AND BECOME ACCREDITED AND
CHANGE THE ACCREDITATION RULES
THAT CREATE A PATH FOR COMPANIES
LIKE OURS TO BECOME ACCREDITED
AND ALLOW US TO OPERATE AND
ASSIST VETERANS WITH INITIAL
CLAIMS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT,
WE HAVE, WE SHARE THE CONCERNS
OF THE PREDATOR OF ABOUT
PREDATORY ACTORS AND THE
PRACTICES, BUT IT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED BY MANY OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS HERE. HOWEVER, WE
BELIEVE THIS IS THE WRONG
APPROACH TO ADDRESSING THESE
CONCERNS. WE BELIEVE THAT A
BETTER APPROACH IS THE, THE
LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE
PROPOSED THAT IDENTIFIES ALL THE
NEGATIVE PRACTICES THAT WE DO
NOT LIKE. LET LEGISLATE AGAINST
THEM, BUT ALLOW VETERANS TO MAKE
THE CHOICE ON HOW THEY WANT TO
PURSUE THEIR CLAIM, GIVEN THE
ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE WORKING
IN RIGHT NOW, WE SHOULD BE
STRIVING TO GIVE VETERANS A
GREATER NUMBER OF CHOICES, NOT
REDUCING THOSE CHOICES, WE
BELIEVE THAT IT WE CAN ADDRESS
THE PREDATORY CONCERNS WHILE
STILL MAINTAINING A VETERAN'S
RIGHT TO CHOOSE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. PERFECT
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS DONATO CLAY, AND I'M THE
COO OF VETERAN BENEFITS GUIDE,
OR VBG, WHICH WAS FOUNDED IN SAN
DIEGO. I'M ALSO A CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL GUARD VETERAN. I'M HERE
TODAY TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION
TO SB 1124 UNLESS AMENDED. WE
SUPPORT THE BILL IF AMENDED
BECAUSE WE AGREE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE PROTECTIONS FOR
VETERANS IN ATTAINING THEIR VA
DISABILITY, BUT THOSE
PROTECTIONS SHOULDN'T FORCE OUR
VETERANS TO RELY ON A LEGACY
SYSTEM THAT THE VA ADMITS IS
PREJUDICIAL AND INEQUITABLE.
THERE IS AN ACTIVE LAWSUIT
AGAINST THE VA THAT CALLS OUT
THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC
DISPARITIES IN VA DISABILITY
CLAIMS, BASED ON FOIA DATA FROM
2001 TO 2020, THE VA'S OWN DATA
SHOWS THAT BLACK VETERANS LIKE
ME ARE 22% MORE LIKELY TO HAVE
OUR CLAIMS DENIED THAN OUR WHITE
COUNTERPARTS, AND THAT IS BY
USING THE LEGACY SYSTEMS,
REMOVING ACCESS TO GOOD ACTORS
WITH HIGH OPERATING STANDARDS
AND INNOVATIVE AND EFFICIENT
SOLUTIONS CREATES A DISSERVICE
TO CALIFORNIA'S VETERANS BY
FORCING THEM TO ACCEPT A BROKEN
SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T LOOK OUT FOR
EVERYONE. EQUALLY, THE STATUS
QUO BEING ARGUED FOR BY THE
LEGACY SYSTEMS WOULD FORCE MANY
VETERANS TO CONTINUE TO BE
DENIED TO RECEIVE LOWER
DISABILITY RATINGS THAN THEY
DESERVE, OR TO SIMPLY WAIT YEARS
BY SUFFERING THROUGH LENGTHY
APPEALS. JUSTICE DELAYED IS
JUSTICE DENIED, AND VBG HELPS
VETERANS NAVIGATE A CONFUSING
BUREAUCRACY TO GET WHAT THEY ARE
OWED BY DOING MORE THAN THE FREE
SERVICES. TO DATE, VBG IS
SUCCESSFULLY GUIDED OVER 11,000
CALIFORNIA VETERANS THROUGH THE
CLAIMS PROCESS, AND OVER 70% OF
OUR CLIENTS HAVE USED THE FREE
SERVICES BEFORE COMING TO US.
THESE VETERANS HAVE RECEIVED AN
AVERAGE INCREASE IN LIFETIME
MONTHLY BENEFITS OF $1,300. FOR
EVERY VETERAN THAT USES VBG, NO
LESS THAN SIX INDIVIDUAL
DEPARTMENTS ASSIST IN
DETERMINING WHAT CLAIMS OR
INCREASE THEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NETWORK
SUPPORT. COORDINATION OF TRAINED
INDEPENDENT PROVIDER NETWORK TO
COMPLETE DISABILITY EXAMS. WE
HEAVILY INVEST IN OUR DATA
ANALYTICS AND CYBERSECURITY TO
REMAIN UP TO DATE WITH VA
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES, AND
FOCUS ON A STRATEGY OF
INNOVATION AND CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT. REPRESENTATION ALSO
MATTERS IN THIS SPACE. A RECENT
YALE UNIVERSITY. YOU COULD WRAP
IT UP, PLEASE. YES, SIR, SO
PRIVATE COMPANIES IN THIS SPACE
CAN'T GO THROUGH THE VA'S
ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND CHARGE
FOR SERVICES WHICH IS WHY WE'RE
CURRENTLY SEEKING ACCREDITATION,
ACCREDITATION REFORM IN CONGRESS
. ALRIGHTY. SO ULTIMATELY, WE
REQUEST THAT WE SUPPORT THE BILL
IF AMENDED. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHES
THE MICROPHONE, LET'S NOW TURN
IT TO THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS
BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES,
SENATOR RUSSO. THANK YOU, IF I
CAN, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD ASK A
QUESTION OF THE FIRST SUPPORTING
WITNESS. SURE I THINK MR. MEYER,
MR. LIU, I THINK, WAS THE FIRST
WITNESS IN SUPPORT. MR, MR.
MEYER, THE VFW. OH, OKAY. THANK
YOU. MA'AM. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I WAS WONDERING IF
YOU COULD EXPLAIN ABOUT HOW,
BESIDES HELPING A VETERAN
INITIATE A CLAIM, HOW DOES AN
ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE ASSIST
VETERANS WITH OTHER ISSUES? WHAT
KIND OF OTHER ISSUES? OR HOW IS
THAT ASSISTANCE? SO WHEN A
VETERAN COMES IN TO ONE OF OUR
SERVICE OFFICES, THEY MEET WITH
AN ACCREDITED SERVICE OFFICER TO
INITIATE THEIR CLAIM DURING THAT
TIME, WE TAKE OTHER THINGS INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN, ALSO
CONCERNING THEIR MENTAL HEALTH,
THEIR CURRENT HOME OR HOMELESS
STATUS, ANY MEDICAL CONDITIONS
THAT THEY NEED. WE'RE ABLE TO DO
THAT BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY MEET
ONE ON ONE WITH THE VETERAN. AND
SO WE PROVIDE, IF YOU WANT TO
CALL IT A WHOLE HEALTH FOR THAT
VETERAN, HAVING SOMEBODY SUBMIT
INFORMATION OR TALK TO THEM OVER
THE PHONE, YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO
THAT TYPE OF TRIAGE OF THAT
VETERAN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY
MAY NEED. BESIDES JUST A VA
CLAIM. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
I HAVE SOME YES. SENATOR
CABALLERO WELL, I HAVE A
QUESTION. AND, I GUESS THE
QUESTION SHOULD BE PUT TO THE,
AG'S OFFICE OR TO THE AUTHOR OF
THE BILL, WHICH IS, YOU'VE HEARD
SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY
THE OPPOSITION, AND I'M
WONDERING IF THERE IS A, AN
INTEREST TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO MAKE
SURE THAT, WELL, TO SEE WHETHER
THE BILL NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. I
GUESS THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION
IS, DO YOU THINK THE BILL NEEDS
TO BE AMENDED, I AM FOCUSING ON
THE RACIAL DISPARITIES, I THERE
ARE GOVERNMENT PROCESSES THAT
DON'T WORK VERY WELL. AND AND,
AND HAVING SAID THAT, KNOW THAT
I RAN THE IMMIGRATION BILL TO
GET RID OF IMMIGRATION
CONSULTANTS IN MUCH THE SAME
SITUATION BECAUSE THERE ARE
PREDATORY PEOPLE WHO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF IMMIGRANTS, TAKE
LOTS OF MONEY AND GIVE LEGAL
ADVICE WHEN THEY'RE NOT LAWYERS.
AND SO, SO I'M REALLY SENSITIVE
TO TRYING TO CLEAN UP A SYSTEM
THAT'S NOT WORKING VERY WELL,
BUT I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT
THE, THE, RACIAL DISPARITIES AND
THE POTENTIAL FOR PEOPLE WHO
HAVE SPENT WHO WHO MADE SOME
SACRIFICES TO BE ABLE TO, TO,
DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AND WHO ARE
ENTITLED TO BENEFITS AND, AND
THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GET
THOSE BENEFITS. YEAH. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION,
SENATOR. AND I THINK THAT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION
BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT. BUT WHETHER YOU'RE
ACCREDITED OR UNACCREDITED, THE
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS
GO THROUGH THE SAME QUÊ. SO THE
PROBLEM THAT WE'RE SEEING AND
THEY DON'T WORK, NEITHER ARE
ACCREDITED OR UNACCREDITED WORK
FOR THE VA AS A WHOLE OR THE,
YEAH, THE US DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS. SO THE PROBLEM
WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THE BACK
END ON THE VA SIDE, THE ONES WHO
THEN LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE THING
COMING IN THROUGH THE SAME C¯
AND THEN DECIDING WHO GETS 10%
VERSUS THE 80. SO IT'D BE
DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS THAT IN
THIS END, BECAUSE NO ONE IS
GETTING TURNED AWAY FROM AN
ACCREDITED AGENT OR AN
UNACCREDITED AGENT WHO IS
SEEKING HELP TO TURN IN AN
APPLICATION. AND MR. ANDREW, IF
THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE
TO ADD TO THAT, MR. CHAIR, IF
THAT'S OKAY. IF NOT SURE. MR.
MR. LIU. SURE, YES. IF, SO
THERE'S TWO POINTS HERE, I
THINK, ONE IS WE WILL FOLLOW OUR
AUTHOR. OF COURSE, WE AT THE
AG'S OFFICE. OF COURSE. VERY
OPEN TO CONTINUING TO WORK WITH
THE OPPOSITION TO SEE IF THERE'S
A CREATIVE SOLUTION ABOUT
AMENDMENTS THAT CAN BE THAT CAN
BE TAKEN, THAT ACCOMPLISH SOME
OF THESE GOALS, BUT ARE ALSO
ACCEPTABLE TO OUR MILITARY AND
VETS GROUPS. AND WE ARE A LITTLE
BIT BOXED IN, OBVIOUSLY, BY THE
FEDERAL LAW. SO THIS IS NOT JUST
DROPPING IT INTO A BLANK SLATE.
I WOULD SAY THE RACIAL
DISPARITIES ISSUE I DO I DO WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT AGAIN WHAT THE
AUTHOR HAS JUST POINTED OUT,
WHICH IS PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE
SYSTEM, THE VA SYSTEM IS BROKEN
AND THERE'S INEQUALITIES IN THE
SYSTEM. BUT AND MAYBE ROGER OR
OTHER FOLKS CAN SPEAK TO THIS,
BUT THIS SYSTEM DOES NOT. THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VA
SOS AND THE COUNTY VSOS AND THE
OTHER FINE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA
WHO WORK TO HELP VETERANS AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF US VETERANS
AFFAIRS, THE US DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, WHERE THERE
MAY OR MAY NOT BE INEQUALITY,
YOU KNOW, INSTITUTIONAL
INEQUALITY SORT OF BAKED INTO
YOU KNOW, 100 YEARS OF WORKING,
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP
THAT DISTINCTION. THE VETERANS
IN CALIFORNIA, HAVE A LOT OF
OPTIONS SO THEY CAN GO TO A
COUNTY VSO, THEY CAN GO TO A
NONPROFIT VSO, THEY CAN HIRE
SOMEBODY ELSE. IT DOESN'T MEAN,
I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY
IS THAT EVEN IF THERE IS, A
HISTORY OF RACIAL DISPARITIES
HERE, EVEN IF THAT'S TRUE, I
DON'T THINK THAT THE SOLUTION IS
THAT UNACCREDITED FOR PROFIT
COMPANIES, THE SOLUTION IS THAT
THEY COME IN AND START, YOU
KNOW, CHARGING PEOPLE AND HIRING
PEOPLE TO DO THAT KIND OF WORK,
LET'S USE LIKE A JUDICIARY KIND
OF EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE
WOULD ALL AGREE THAT THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM OVER TIME HAS SOME, YOU
KNOW, SUFFERS FROM SOME RACIAL
INEQUALITY AND IT'S NOT PERFECT.
AND WE SHOULD REALLY SEEK TO
CHANGE THAT. BUT AT THE SAME
TIME, I DON'T THINK THE SOLUTION
TO THAT IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO
ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE STATE
BAR TO COME IN AND START WORKING
AS, YOU KNOW, DEFENSE COUNSEL OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S NOT
APPLES AND ORANGES. THERE ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
CABALLERO. WELL, I MEAN, I THE
BOTTOM LINE IS MY IMMIGRATION
BILL ARGUED JUST EXACTLY THAT,
WHICH IS TO ALLOW PEOPLE THAT
ARE UNLICENSED TO COME IN AND
GIVE LEGAL ADVICE ON COMPLICATED
IMMIGRATION ISSUES DIDN'T MAKE A
WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. BUT BUT I
GUESS WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
IS THAT THERE ARE TWO
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW AND
ON THE ONE HAND, THE OPPOSITION
SAYS, LOOK, WE DON'T FALL UNDER
THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT
REQUIRE US TO BE ACCREDITED.
AND, AND SO, SO THAT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING IS DRIVING THEM OUT OF
BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH IT, IT
DOESN'T, VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW. IN
OTHER WORDS, THE ARGUMENT IS,
WELL, YOU SHOULD BE ACCREDITED
BECAUSE FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES
REQUIRES IT. BUT IF, IF, IF THE
INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, THAT
THEY DON'T NEED TO BE
ACCREDITED, THEN THE QUESTION
BECOMES, IS THERE IS THERE
ANOTHER WAY TO REGULATE OTHER
THAN TO RUN THEM OUT OF
BUSINESS, WHICH IS TO SAY, YOU
CAN'T DO MORE THAN YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T CHARGE MORE THAN THIS
AMOUNT OR YOU CAN'T DO THIS, AND
, AND REGULATE IT SOMEHOW. SO
I'M JUST I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT
BECAUSE I, I'M, I'M, I AM SOME
SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT, THAT
PEOPLE OF COLOR JOIN THE
MILITARY, IN LARGE NUMBERS. AND
IT'S BECOME, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY,
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
THAT. AND I KNOW YOU AGREE WITH
THIS, THAT, THAT ARE THE MORE,
COMMITTED TO DEFENDING OUR
COUNTRY. AND SO THEY OUGHT TO
RECEIVE THE BENEFITS THAT
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO. AND SO I,
HOWEVER THE RACIAL DISPARITY
HAPPENS, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT
HAPPEN. I MEAN, YOU YOU HIT SOME
REALLY GOOD POINTS, SENATOR. AND
I MEAN, I AGREE WITH A LOT OF
WHAT YOU'VE MENTIONED AND TO
WHAT ANDREW MENTIONED, JUST A
LITTLE BOXED IN, UNFORTUNATELY,
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW,
BOTH ON THE CONGRESS LEVEL, ON
THE NATIONAL LEVEL, ON THE STATE
LEVEL, THE AG'S LEVEL HAS THE
SAME INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW
THAT IS IN, THAT IS THAT IS THAT
IS NOT WHAT THE LIEUTENANT
COLONEL HAS. YOU KNOW, HE
MENTIONED HIS INTERPRETATION.
OAN, IT'S NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY
IN OUR COUNTRY HAS INTERPRETED
THE LAW, UNDER THE LAW RIGHT
NOW, THEY ARE LOOKING AT HIM AS
AN UNCREDITED, AGENT GOING
AGAINST FEDERAL LAW. SO WITH
THIS BILL, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT
FOR ME TO FIND OTHER AVENUES
THAT WOULDN'T GO CONTRARY TO
FEDERAL LAW. I MEAN, YOU CAN THE
CHAIR CAN ATTEST COMMITTEES,
STAFF COULD ATTEST THAT WE
LOOKED FOR WAYS THAT WE COULD
ADD SOME FURTHER AMENDS, BUT A
LOT OF THEM JUST WENT AGAINST
FEDERAL LAW. THANK YOU, SENATOR
WAHAB. I'M SORRY, SENATOR WILK.
I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND. ARE YOU
RAISING YOUR HAND? OH, YES, MR.
LIU. OH, I, I DIDN'T THINK I
NEGLECTED TO ADDRESS THAT PART
OF YOUR OF YOUR EARLIER
QUESTION. SO THE SENATOR IS
RIGHT. I THINK WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT ARE
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
LAW. SO THE FEDERAL LAW 58, I'M
SORRY, CHAPTER 58, TITLE 58,
THERE'S WORDS THERE. AND THEY
SAY THAT YOU CANNOT ACT AS AN
ATTORNEY OR AGENT TO ASSIST IN
THE PREPARATION AND PROSECUTION
AND PRESENTATION OF AN INITIAL
BENEFITS CLAIM. SO IN OUR VIEW,
THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY CLEAR
AND WHAT AN ACCREDITED COMPANY
IS DOING NOW FIT INTO THE BOX OF
PREPARING AN AND THEY ARE ACTING
AS AN AGENT. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
FEDERAL LAW THAT, THAT WE VERY
MUCH BELIEVE IN. AND I THINK IS
REALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTENT
OF THE STATUTE, THAT IS THE
PROPER INTERPRETATION, OUR
FRIENDS ON THE UNACCREDITED
SIDE, I THINK TAKE A MORE NARROW
VIEW OF HOW THAT LAW IS TO BE
INTERPRETED, PARTICULARLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE WORD AGENT. AND
ALSO THE WORD PREPARATION AND
SO, IN THEIR VIEW, I THINK AND I
WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THEIR
MOUTH, BUT AN AGENT IS ONLY
SOMEONE IF THERE IS AN AGENT OF
RECORD OR SOMEONE WHO HAS LIKE
AN AGENT AGREEMENT. AND I THINK
IF WE WERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT
VERY NARROW DEFINITION OF AGENT,
IT WOULD KIND OF SWALLOW THE
INTENT OF THE OF THE WHOLE
STATUTE OF THAT PARTICULAR
PROVISION. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE
WE'RE NOT QUITE READY TO ACCEPT
THAT PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION.
AND ALSO WITH THE WORD
PREPARATION, YOU KNOW, DO,
UNACCREDITED FOLKS HELP PREPARE
FOR THE APPLICATION? I THINK
THEY WOULD SAY THEY DON'T THEY
ASSIST OR SOME OTHER, YOU KNOW,
VERB, BUT THAT THEY DON'T THAT
ACTUALLY THE VETERAN IS THE ONE
WHO PREPARES IT WITH THEIR OWN
HAND. FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THAT IS
KIND OF A NARROW INTERPRETATION.
SO IT IS A BATTLE OF
INTERPRETATIONS IN A SENSE. ALL
RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. THANK YOU, LET ME TURN TO
SENATOR WAHAB, THEN. SENATOR
WILK, THANK YOU, SO I JUST WANT
TO SAY JUST HAVING THE
CONVERSATION, HEARING THE
QUESTIONS, I THINK OBVIOUSLY
THIS BILL NEEDS A LITTLE BIT
MORE WORK, WHICH I TRUST THAT,
YOU KNOW, YOU WILL TALK TO
OPPOSITION AND SEE IF AS WELL AS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
AND, BASICALLY ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS TO FIND SOME TYPE
OF AGREEMENT OR SOME COMMON
GROUND MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW,
I THINK SENATOR CABALLERO'S
COMMENTARY REGARDING MILITARY
SERVICE AND SO FORTH, YOU KNOW,
WE I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT ON
THIS JUST BECAUSE I WISH THAT
THERE WERE MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FROM THE GET GO FOR EVERY
AVERAGE RESIDENT IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES,
TO BETTER THEIR LIVES AND SO
FORTH. BUT MANY PEOPLE SIGN UP
FOR THE MILITARY, ESPECIALLY IN
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES,
BECAUSE OF A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY
IN GENERAL. AND HOW ARE THEY
GOING TO PAY FOR SCHOOL? HOW ARE
THEY GOING TO PAY FOR THEIR
LIVELIHOODS AND MUCH MORE. AND
WITH THAT SERVICE, OBVIOUSLY
COMES A GREAT DEAL OF POTENTIAL
TRAUMA, WHETHER THAT'S INJURY,
WHETHER THAT'S MENTAL HEALTH,
WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW,
SERVICE ABROAD AND SOME OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT OBVIOUSLY OCCUR
DURING WAR, AND WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF
OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN. AND I
WILL MOVE THE BILL WHEN
APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. SENATOR.
SENATOR WILK, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I GUESS I'M KIND OF
ECHOING THE SAME COMMENTS. NO
DOUBT YOU'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT
THIS ISSUE, THESE ARE THESE ARE
YOUR PEOPLE. BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT REALLY STRUCK ME,
AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE
OF THE OPPONENTS THEY TALKED
ABOUT, THAT 70% OF THEIR CLIENTS
HAD ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE
EXISTING PROCESS AND DIDN'T
RECEIVE SATISFACTION. THÀNH. AND
AGAIN, THESE PEOPLE DESERVE OF
THE BENEFITS THAT THEY DESERVE.
AND FOR ME, IF I IF I HAD TO PAY
SOMEBODY TO GET WHAT I DESERVE
BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET IT
SOMEWHERE ELSE, I PERSONALLY
WOULD WANT TO DO THAT. SO I
WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AGAIN TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION AND SEE
IF THERE'S SOME PATH FORWARD
THAT BENEFITS ALL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WILK, SENATOR LAIRD, I
WOULD LIKE TO JUST VERY BRIEFLY
PICK UP ON SENATOR CABALLERO'S
COMMENTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT A
LOT OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE
MOTIVATION FOR YOUR BILL IS TO
PROTECT VETERANS, MAKE SURE THEY
GET THE SERVICES THEY DESERVE,
AND GET THEM IN A LEGAL,
APPROPRIATE MANNER. AND YET,
BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THIS
BILL, AND IT MAY BE BECAUSE OF
FEDERAL LAW, THE STRUCTURE OF
THIS BILL, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S GOOD ACTORS, AND PUSHES
AWAY THE BAD ACTORS. IT ALSO
PUSHES AWAY SOME GOOD ACTORS.
AND THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS CAN
YOU FIND A WAY WITHIN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE LAW AND YOUR
BILL TO PROTECT ALL THE GOOD
ACTORS AND PUSH AWAY THE BAD
ACTORS? AND I THINK THAT'S THE
CONUNDRUM YOU'RE HUNG UP ON. AND
AND I JUST WOULD SAY THAT,
SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LITTLE
CREATIVITY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
DO IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE
THE SOLUTION OF THE BILL IS
HERE. AND IT'S LIKE I STRETCH
FOR OTHER MEMBERS AND I WILL
VOTE TO MOVE THIS ALONG, BUT
THAT'S WHAT I WILL LOOK FOR OVER
TIME IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN
BRIDGE THAT, TO TRY TO PROTECT
ALL THE GOOD ACTORS IN THE
STRUGGLE TO MAKE SURE THE BAD
ACTORS ARE OUT OF THE PICTURE.
WELL, I MEAN, THE CHAIR AND I
BECAME BEST FRIENDS ON THIS
TOPIC TO TRY TO FIND CREATIVE
WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT. YOU
WEREN'T HERE EARLIER WHEN HE WAS
TELLING EVERYBODY WHAT HIS
BIRTHDAY IS. SO THAT'S WHEN
WE'LL FIND OUT WHETHER YOU'RE
REALLY HIS BEST FRIEND. YOU
KNOW, WE HUDDLED ON THIS ISSUE,
A LONG TIME BECAUSE WE WERE
TRYING TO FIND THAT PATH. AND
YOU'LL KNOW THAT THERE'S NO
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR THIS
BILL BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS
DIFFICULT TO WORK OUTSIDE OF THE
FEDERAL BOX. AND I WILL CONTINUE
TO, FIND A WAY THAT WITHIN THAT
BOX, THERE COULD BE SOMETHING I
CAN CHANGE. BECAUSE YOU'RE
RIGHT, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT
COULD HAPPEN, RIGHT? WE'RE
ADDRESSING THE BAD APPLES AND
THEN THE GOOD APPLES GO AWAY,
BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE. I WAS ONE
OF THOSE PEOPLE. THE 70% THAT I
USED THE FREE SERVICE. AND THEN
I TURNED TO A PAID SERVICE
BECAUSE JUST LIKE SENATOR WILK,
I MYSELF WANTED TO PAY FOR IT,
AND I DID GET A GOOD RESULT, BUT
JUST ONE VETERAN, HAVING FRAUD
COMMITTED AGAINST THEM IS ONE
TOO MANY, BECAUSE BECAUSE WHILE
I DIDN'T PAY AN EXORBITANT
AMOUNT, WE HAVE OTHER VETERANS
THAT PAID AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT
OF MONEY JUST TO GET THEIR GOD
GIVEN RIGHT OF ENTITLEMENT FOR
DISABILITY, AND IT'S NOT FAIR.
SO I WILL CONTINUE. I MEAN, I
WILL IF THERE'S I WILL TURN TO
ANYBODY UNDER THE SUN TO HELP ME
FIND A WAY THAT WE CAN WORK
WITHIN THIS BOX ON THAT DOESN'T
GO GO AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LAW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
ADDRESSING THE BAD APPLES AND
ALSO SHOW A PATH FOR THE GOOD
APPLES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS LET ME
DIRECT SOME QUESTIONS TO MR.
MEYER AND MR. TAYLOR. I JUST IN
TERMS OF TRYING TO ASSESS OUR
POINTS OF AGREEMENT, LET ME ASK
MR. MEYER. START WITH, YOU KNOW,
THE SYSTEM OF DISABILITY
ASSESSMENT BY THE VA. IS, IN MY
VIEW, ANALOGOUS TO THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM. IN OTHER
WORDS, WHEN YOU GET HURT ON THE
JOB SITE OR IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF YOUR JOB, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO
SOME SORT OF, IF YOU'RE
DISABLED, SOME SORT OF
COMPENSATION. AND THE VA SYSTEM
IS AN ADVERSARIAL OR AT LEAST A
QUASI ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM. IN
OTHER WORDS, YOU APPLY AND YOU
MAY NOT GET WHAT YOU THINK
YOU'RE ENTITLED TO. AND THEN IT
BECOMES SOMEWHAT ADVERSARIAL. DO
YOU AGREE WITH THAT? I DO ALL
RIGHT, MR. TAYLOR, BUT CAN I CAN
I EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, A
VETERAN WHO GOES IN TO FILE A
CLAIM AUTOMATICALLY THINKS THEY
SHOULD BE 100. NOT EVERYBODY IS
100, DISABLED. AND SO THIS IS
WHERE SOME OF THE APPEALS COME
FROM. WHEN THEY GET RATED LOWER
THAN WHAT THEY THINK THEY SHOULD
BE. BUT YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT
IT IT'S NEW MATH VOODOO MATH
WITH HOW THEY FIGURE OUT THE
RATING SYSTEM. BUT THERE'S NEVER
IN THE HISTORY OF THE VA SYSTEM
HAS A VETERAN SAID YOU'VE GIVEN
ME TOO MUCH DISABILITY, CORRECT?
NEVER. YOU OUR VETERANS ARE NOT
STUPID. RETURN SOME MONEY. HAS
THAT EVER HAPPENED IN YOUR
EXPERIENCE? NO, SIR. AND IN
FACT, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE,
SOMETIMES THE VA RATES PEOPLE
LOWER THAN WHAT THE VETERAN
THINKS. YOU JUST GAVE AN EXAMPLE
OF EVERY VETERAN THINKING
THEY'RE 100% DISABLED, BUT SOME
DON'T. SOME THINK THAT MAYBE
THEY GOT A RATING AT 10, THEY
SHOULD BE AT 30. IS THAT
ACCURATE? YES, SIR. YES. ALL
RIGHT. LET ME ASK, MR. TAYLOR,
DO YOU THINK IT'S A EITHER
ADVERSARIAL OR QUASI ADVERSARIAL
PROCESS? ABSOLUTELY ANY PROCESS
THAT REQUIRES EVIDENTIARY
EVIDENCE TO PROVE SERVICE
CONNECTION AND TO PROVE THAT YOU
CURRENTLY HAVE THAT CONDITION IS
INHERENTLY ADVERSARIAL. IF IT
WAS NOT AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM,
MY SERVICES WOULD NOT BE NEEDED.
ALL RIGHT. SO IN THE SYSTEM,
YOU'VE GOT ONE SIDE, THE VA THAT
HAS EXPERIENCE REPRESENTING
LAWYERS AND OTHERS WHO HAVE
GREAT EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA,
IS THAT RIGHT? MR. TAYLOR, YOU
CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'M
SORRY. YES. ON ONE SIDE, ON THE
VA SIDE, YOU HAVE LAWYERS AND
EXPERIENCED REPRESENTATIVES WHO
ARE ASSESSING AND HANDLING ONE
SIDE OF THE EQUATION IN TRYING
TO ARRIVE AT WHAT'S JUST IS THAT
YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT,
MR. MEYER? YES, THEY HAVE. SO
WE'VE GOT AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM.
WE'VE GOT ONE SIDE WITH
EXPERIENCE AND WE'VE GOT THE
OTHER SIDE, THE VETERAN. RIGHT.
AND WE DO. WE AGREE THAT
EVERYONE WHO REPRESENTS WE MAY
NOT ALL AGREE. I THINK EVERYONE
WHO REPRESENTS A VETERAN SHOULD
HAVE SOME BASIC LEVEL OF
ACCREDITATION. MR. MEYER, DO YOU
AGREE WITH THAT? YES, BECAUSE IT
CREATES ACCOUNTABILITY. K¾T. AND
IT ALSO CREATES A SYSTEM WHERE
IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO, YOU ARE
PENALIZED FOR IT. YOU LOSE YOUR
ACCREDITATION, MUCH LIKE IF
YOU'RE REPRESENTING SOMEONE IN
WORKERS COMP, LOSE YOUR
ACCREDITATION AND A $15,000
FINE. OKAY. GOT IT. MR. TAYLOR,
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY
WHO REPRESENTS A VETERAN SHOULD
BE ACCREDITED? I BELIEVE IN THE
CONCEPT OF ACCREDITATION. IF
IT'S AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD THAT
ALLOWS ALL PLAYERS TO BECOME
ACCREDITED. SO CURRENT MODEL, IT
IS AT LEAST MY BELIEF THAT IF
YOU'RE REPRESENTING A VETERAN,
YOU SHOULD BE ACCREDITED, RIGHT?
THAT'S MY BELIEF. SO YEAH. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT QUESTION IS SO IN
THE WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM
YOU CAN HIRE ANYONE YOU WANT.
YOU CAN PAY THEM OR YOU CAN GET
PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICE. BUT YOU
NEED SOMEONE WHO IS IN
ACCREDITED A MEMBER OF THE BAR
IN THE VA SYSTEM. RIGHT? RIGHT.
NOW YOU MAY NOT PAY SOMEONE TO
ACTUALLY, PROVIDE BASICALLY
ASSISTANCE IN SUBMITTING YOUR
APPLICATION. ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
OR LET ME ASK MR. TAYLOR, IS
THAT CORRECT? YES. UNDER THE
FEDERAL LAW. UNDER FEDERAL LAW,
YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THREE OPTIONS
THROUGH THE VETERAN SERVICE
OFFICERS. RIGHT. AND SAME THING
WITH YOU, MR. MEYER. YES. ANY,
SERVICE OFFICER WHO IS FILING AN
INITIAL CLAIM, IT'S FREE TO THE
TO THE VETERAN. AND IN FACT,
IT'S REQUIRED TO BE FREE, RIGHT.
SO WE'VE GOT THIS SYSTEM THAT,
IN MY VIEW, IS ENTIRELY
INEQUITABLE, WHERE YOU HAVE A
VETERAN, UNLIKE SOMEONE WHO'S
INJURED IN THE WORK SITE, WHO
MAY NOT PAY SOMEONE TO HELP THEM
PUT THEIR INITIAL CLAIM
TOGETHER. IS THAT THE CURRENT
SYSTEM I SEE HEAD SHAKING? YES,
THAT IS CORRECT. UNDER THE
CURRENT FUNDAMENTALLY, IN MY
VIEW, INEQUITABLE, FUNDAMENTALLY
INEQUITABLE AND IT MADE ME ASK
MR. MEYER, WHY IS IT THAT WE
DON'T THINK THAT VETERANS SHOULD
BE ABLE TO CHOOSE SOMEONE WHO'S
ACCREDITED TO BE PAID FOR THEIR
SERVICE, THEIR EXPERTISE, THEIR
EXPERIENCE? WE'RE BASING IT OFF
OF THE FACT THAT THE VA SAYS, OR
THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS SAY THAT
YOU CAN'T CHARGE, AND THAT'S WHY
THE VA FOR SOME OF THESE
UNACCREDITED COMPANIES HAS
ORDERED, HAS GIVEN CEASE AND
DESIST LETTERS TO THESE
COMPANIES IF THE FEDERAL LAW
CHANGES. WE AGREE. RIGHT. BUT I
THINK THE FEDERAL LAW IS WRONG.
THE FEDERAL LAW SHOULD BE THAT
IF YOU'RE ACCREDITED, YOU SHOULD
BE ABLE TO REPRESENT A VETERAN
IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION SO
THAT THE VETERAN GETS HIS OR HER
FAIR SHARE OF WHAT THEY DESERVE.
CAN I TAKE THIS OFF AND SPEAK
JUST AS ROGER, IT'S GO AHEAD. I,
I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR
THAT FEDERAL LAW TO CHANGE, BUT
UNTIL IT CHANGES, WE'RE WE'RE
STUCK WORKING WITHIN THE
CONFINES. LET ME ASK MR. LU. MR.
LU, DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE
THE CALIFORNIA'S POSITION THAT
VETERANS SHOULD HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HIRE
SOMEONE WITH EXPERTISE AND
EXPERIENCE AND PROSECUTING THEIR
CLAIM? OR DO YOU THINK THAT
SHOULD BE CALIFORNIA'S POSITION?
IF ARE YOU ASKING ME TO SPEAK
FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I
CAN'T ANSWER. WHAT'S YOUR POINT
OF VIEW? MY POINT OF VIEW IS
THAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER
STATES, AND WE HAVE MANY HIGH
QUALITY OPTIONS TO VETERANS WHO
ARE TRAINED AND EXIST UNDER
OVERSIGHT AND PROVIDE. AND THIS
IS IMPORTANT. THIS IS A POLICY
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEY
SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR THE
FILING OF AN INITIAL BENEFIT
APPLICATION. AND SO THAT THAT'S
HOW I FEEL. I THINK THERE IS.
LET ME INTERRUPT THAT THERE IS
ON BEHALF. I GET IT. AND I THINK
THAT THE VA SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T
BE ABLE TO PAY BECAUSE THE VA IS
IN A POSITION WHERE IT IS
BASICALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE VETERAN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT
IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO KEEP
THAT DISABILITY RATING AS LOW AS
IS POSSIBLE. AND IF A VETERAN
CAN HIRE SOMEONE WHO'S
ACCREDITED TO BE ABLE TO GET
THEIR JUST DUE, THE CALIFORNIA
SHOULD TAKE THE POSITION THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS WRONG
AND PUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO THEIR PROOF TO COME IN AND
SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE THINK
VETERANS SHOULD BE IN A SPECIAL
CATEGORY FOR WHATEVER REASON
THAT THEY MAY NOT. UNLIKE EVERY
OTHER CALIFORNIAN, HIRE SOMEONE
TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST THEM TO GET
THE FULLEST, BASICALLY
DISABILITY. AND I SEE MR. MEYER
HAS A QUESTION. WELL, NOT A
QUESTION. SORRY, CHAIRMAN, NOT A
QUESTION, BUT THE WAY IT'S BEING
STATED, IT'S AS IF THE PAID
PERSON IS A HIGHER CALIBER THAN
MY NON PAID VETERAN SERVICE
OFFICERS. AND I'LL PUT MY
VETERAN SERVICE OFFICERS UP
AGAINST ANY OF THE PAID FOLKS AT
THESE OTHER COMPANIES, BECAUSE I
SEE THEM DAILY WORKING WITH THE
VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES 100.
WE HAVE SOME OF THE BEST
VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS IN
ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. WE HAVE
EXCELLENT FEDERAL VETERANS
SERVICE OFFICERS. MY SISTER IN
LAW WAS ONE FOR MANY YEARS AND
WE HAVE SOME GREAT VETERAN
SERVICES OFFICERS. BUT WE ALSO
HAVE SOME THAT ARE NOT SO GREAT.
WE ALSO HAVE SOME THAT THAT
DON'T PROVIDE, AS WAS
ILLUSTRATED BY SENATOR MENGIBAR,
THAT DON'T PROVIDE THE KIND OF
SERVICE THAT A VETERAN DESERVES.
AND SO WHAT WE SAY IS WE'RE
SAYING, NO, YOU MAY NOT HIRE
SOMEBODY, BUT ANYWAY, I'M GOING
TO I'M GOING TO BASICALLY STOP.
I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL,
BUT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE
BILL WITH THE CAVEAT THAT I DO
THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I DO THINK
WE SHOULD CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE
VETERANS HAVE THE OPTION OF
CHOOSING SOMEONE WHO IS
ACCREDITED TO BE ABLE TO PAY
THEM TO HELP IN THIS ADVERSARIAL
PROCESS THAT WE ALL AGREE IS AN
ADVERSARIAL PROCESS. AND SO
RATHER THAN KEEPING VETERANS AT
A DISADVANTAGE, NOT ALLOWING
THEM TO PAY FOR THE BEST
EXPERTISE THAT WE SHOULD PUT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THEIR
PROOF. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THE BILL. BUT AND SENATOR
MENGIBAR AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT
THIS UNTIL I THINK BOTH OF US
ARE BLUE IN THE FACE. AND I
THINK THAT I'M NOT GOING TO ASK
YOU TO, TO OPINE AS TO WHETHER
YOU AGREE OR NOT AGREE WITH ME.
BUT I THINK BEFORE THIS THING
GETS TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK,
THAT WE OUGHT TO MAKE A POINT
THAT CALIFORNIA STANDS WITH
VETERANS AND WOULD PERMIT
VETERANS ACTUALLY TO PAY FOR
EXPERTISE. SO HAVING SAID THAT,
I'LL SHUT UP. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
MENGIBAR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO IS
THERE A MOTION? SENATOR WAHHAB'S
MOVED THE BILL. SENATOR
MENGIBAR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, YOU KNOW, COLLEAGUES, MR.
CHAIR, I YOU KNOW, I COMPLETELY
COMMIT TO FINDING GOING BACK TO
THE DRAWING BOARD. IF THERE'S A
WAY FOR US TO DO THAT 100.
YOU'VE HEARD MY STORY, AND
YOU'VE HEARD THAT, AND YOU KNOW,
I AGREE WITH SOME A LOT OF THE
POINTS THAT WERE SAID TODAY, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
PROTECTING VETERANS RIGHT TO
THEIR BENEFITS. I WANT TO ALSO
MAKE SURE WE'RE PROTECTING
VETERANS AGAINST FRAUD. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE ARE
THAT THERE IS AN ABILITY FOR A
VETERAN TO CHOOSE, SHOULD THEY
WANT TO CHOOSE TO PAY OR GO
THROUGH THE FREE SERVICES. THE
FREE SERVICES ARE ARE ARE VSOS
ARE AMAZING, AND NOT EVERYONE
HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY OUT OF
POCKET, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SO
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
PROTECTING THAT OPTION AS WELL,
THERE ARE MANY, MANY VETERANS,
ESPECIALLY FEMALE VETERANS THAT
DON'T EVEN SEEK, THEIR BENEFITS
BECAUSE THEY'RE SO STRUGGLING TO
EVEN BE, CLAIM THEY'RE STILL
STRUGGLING TO EVEN FIND
THEMSELVES BEING TITLED A
VETERAN. RIGHT. AND THE VSOS
PLAY A BIG PART IN CREATING A
SAFE SPACE FOR THEM TO COME
FORWARD AND ASK FOR THOSE
BENEFITS. SO, SENATOR LAIRD, YOU
TO YOUR POINT, SENATOR
CABALLERO, AND A LOT OF THE
MEMBERS WHO BROUGHT UP THE
POINT, I AM COMMITTED TO WORK
ALONGSIDE THE OPPOSITION'S,
WHICH IS MADE UP OF VETERANS,
AND THE SUPPORT, WHICH IS ALSO
MADE UP OF VETERANS, TO FIND A
COMMON GROUND THAT ELEVATES AND
SUPPORTS ALL VETERANS. SO WITH
THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR A
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
MENDOZA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PASSION. YOU'RE NEW TO THIS
INSTITUTION, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY
TAKEN THE LEAD ON VETERANS
ISSUES. YOU'RE FORMING THE
VETERANS CAUCUS, AND I KNOW YOU
DO THAT. AND ALL THE VETERANS
THAT ARE HERE THAT HAVE COME TO
SACRAMENTO TO TESTIFY, YOU'VE
COME HERE BECAUSE YOU FEEL AN
AFFINITY, A BOND WITH YOUR
COMRADES IN ARMS, AND YOU'RE
DOING THIS NOT FOR YOURSELVES.
YOU'RE DOING THIS FOR OTHERS.
AND I AND YOU INSPIRE ALL OF p
SO THANK YOU, SENATOR MENGIBAR.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
THERE'S BEEN A MOTION. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX, SB 1124. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS THE SENATE MILITARY
AND VETERANS AFFAIRS UMBERG. I
UMBERG I WILK I WILK I ALLEN
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DURAZZO. DURAZZO I
LAYERED LAYERED I MIN MIN I
NILO. STERN. WAHAB WAHAB I. 8 TO
0 EIGHT ZERO. PUT THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR SKINNER.
YOU'VE BEEN VERY PASSIONATE.
EXCUSE ME. PATIENT I'M SURE
YOU'RE GOING TO BE PASSIONATE AS
WELL, BUT YOU'VE BEEN VERY
PATIENT. THANK YOU.
YOU MIGHT KNOW THAT THIS HITS A
SWEET SPOT. IF YOU NOTICE THAT.
YEAH. THIS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
SENATOR. SENATOR SKINNER, ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1022. THANK YOU
SO, FIRST I'LL START WITH I'M
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENT. THAT WOULD REDUCE THE
TIME FRAME THAT THE BILL
PROVIDES. THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT TO FILE A LAWSUIT
BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS A
DIRECTOR'S COMPLAINT. SO THIS IS
THE DIRECTOR'S COMPLAINT.
TERMINOLOGY IS SPECIFIC TO THE
CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT. AND
DIRECTOR'S COMPLAINTS INVOLVE
COMMON WICKS SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION. THEY DO NOT
RESPOND TO A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL'S
COMPLAINT AGAINST, SAY, A
HOUSING OR A WORKPLACE OR OTHER,
SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I'M
ACCEPTING THAT AMENDMENT. I
ALSO, WHEN THE BILL FIRST WAS
INTRODUCED, THE BILL HAD A
RETROACTIVE AND ASPECT. I HAD
ALREADY DONE AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS
BEFORE THE BILL'S WAS PRESENTED
TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THE
COMMITTEE DID ITS ANALYSIS SO
THAT RETROSPECTIVE WAS ALREADY
REMOVED. SO THE BILL IS
PROSPECTIVE. SO I WANT TO MAKE
THOSE CLARIFICATIONS. WELL, THEN
I DESCRIBE WHAT IT DOES. SO WHAT
SB 1022 DOES IS PROVIDE OUR
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT TIME, ADDITIONAL TIME
, AND THE TIME NEEDED TO
EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE AND
RESPOND TO SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION IN WORKPLACE OR
HOUSING. AND DISCRIMINATION.
COMPLAINTS THAT THEY INVESTIGATE
ARE USED BASED ON RACE, GENDER,
GENDER IDENTITY, SEXUALITY, AND
DISABILITY. SO THUS THEY MOSTLY
IMPACT OUR RESIDENTS OF COLOR,
LGBTQ INDIVIDUALS, WOMEN, AND
THOSE WHO ARE DISABLED. THE
CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATES THOUSANDS OF CIVIL
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ANNUALLY, AND
IN MANY CASES, THEY OR
SITUATIONS. RATHER, THEY MEDIATE
AND SETTLE RIGHT AWAY. BUT SOME
COMPLAINTS MAY COME FROM
MULTIPLE PARTIES AGAINST THE
SAME ENTITY OVER A PERIOD OF
YEARS, WHICH INITIATES TO THE
DEPARTMENT TO LOOK AT. MAYBE
THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO
LOOK AT IN TERMS OF THIS ENTITY
HAVING REALLY SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION. AND SB 1022 AND
ADDRESSES THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BY
ENABLING, AS I OPENED THE
DEPARTMENT TO EFFECTIVELY
ADDRESS THOSE SYSTEMIC,
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, SORRY.
BY ALLOWING THIS LONGER TIME
PERIOD FOR DIRECTOR'S COMPLAINT.
BUT LET ME ALSO MAKE CLEAR AND
SOME OF YOU KNOW ALL THIS, YOUR
LAWYERS, I'M NOT. BUT THIS DOES
NOT IMPACT AN INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINT. SO IF I SUBMIT A
COMPLAINT, I FEEL I WAS
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. THIS
GIVES ME NO MORE TIME TO ACT OR
TO INITIATE A LAWSUIT. IF I FEEL
LIKE I FEEL, YOU KNOW, SHOULD
INITIATE A LAWSUIT, IT DOES NOT
GIVE ME ANY MORE TIME. IT ONLY
GIVES THE DEPARTMENT AN
ADDITIONAL TIME ON THOSE CASES.
THEY HAVE DECIDED NEED THAT
SYSTEMIC LOOK IN OUR SYSTEMIC
CASES. SO NO ONE MIGHT, YOU KNOW
, NOT ALWAYS GREAT TO DO THIS
WHEN YOU'RE PRESENTING A BILL,
BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A CASE
RIGHT NOW, IT'S MUCH IN THE
MEDIA WHERE THE DEPARTMENT IS
INITIATED, WHAT IS CONSIDERED A
SYSTEMIC COMPLAINT AGAINST TESLA
FOR RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES WITHIN THE WORKPLACE.
AND THAT'S PROCEEDING. SO THEY
INITIATED A LAWSUIT. SO ANYTIME
THE DEPARTMENT INITIATES A
LAWSUIT, THEY COULDN'T COME TO A
SETTLEMENT. NOW, THIS BILL DOES
NOT PREVENT THE DEPARTMENT FROM
COMING TO SETTLEMENTS. OF
COURSE, WE ALWAYS PREFER THAT
THEY WORK OUT WHATEVER THE
PROBLEM IS WITH THE AFFECTED
PARTY AND NOT HAVE TO PURSUE A
LAWSUIT. THEY ONLY PURSUE THE
LAWSUITS WHEN THEY FEEL THAT
THEY'VE HAD NO OTHER COURT. YOU
KNOW, THEY CAN'T GET, REMEDY
OTHERWISE, SO, LAST POINT I WANT
TO MAKE IS THAT IN FEDERAL
CASES, THROUGH THE EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, COURTS HAVE RULED
THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT ON
THE EEOC TO INVESTIGATE AND THUS
TO INITIATE SUCH, SUCH CASES, SO
I'D LIKE TO ALLOW FOR MY
WITNESSES TO PRESENT AND I HAVE
SHEILA STEIGER, WHO IS THE STAFF
ATTORNEY AT LEAGUE FROM LEGAL
AID AT WORK AND JESSICA STENDER,
WHO IS THE POLICY DIRECTOR AND
DEPUTY LEGAL DIRECTOR AT EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES. THANK YOU.
MA'AM, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AND I WANT TO START BY
THANKING SENATOR SKINNER FOR
BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. THÀNH. MY NAME IS
SHEILA STEIGER. I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY AT LEGAL AID AT WORK.
WE ARE A LEGAL NONPROFIT
SUPPORTING LOW WAGE WORKERS IN
EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND HAVE BEEN
DOING SO FOR OVER 100 YEARS
THROUGH OUR WORK, WE HAVE
REPRESENTED WORKERS AND
SETTLEMENT IN NUMEROUS
INDIVIDUAL CASES WITH CRD, BUT
ALSO IN GROUP AND CLASS
COMPLAINTS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE WERE
RECENTLY INVOLVED IN CASES WITH
EMPLOYERS WHO IMPLEMENT MAXIMUM
LEAVE POLICIES, WHICH ARE
UNLAWFUL FOR EMPLOYEES WITH
DISABILITIES AS THEIR
ACCOMMODATIONS NEED TO BE
DETERMINED ON A CASE BY CASE
BASIS, WE'VE ALSO BEEN INVOLVED
WITH NUMEROUS SEXUAL HARASSMENT
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES THAT
OFTEN GO BACK YEARS, AS YOU MAY
KNOW, IT TAKES TIME FOR
EMPLOYEES TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO
BRING THESE CASES FORWARD, AND
EXTENSIONS OF TIME HAVE BEEN
RECOGNIZED IN THESE PARTICULAR
CASES IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS,
THROUGH RECENT LOOKBACK WINDOW
LAWS, REALISTICALLY, THE CRD
PROVIDES THE ONLY REMEDY FOR
MANY LOW WAGE WORKERS WHO DO NOT
HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEEK
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO LITIGATE
THEIR CLAIMS. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR WORKERS
WHO FACE SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION, WHERE REPORTS OF
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES OFTEN GO
IGNORED. EMPLOYEES ARE SINGLED
OUT, HARASSED, UNLAWFULLY
TERMINATED, TARGETED, AND MADE
TO FEEL LIKE COMPLAINING AT ALL
WOULD BE FUTILE. IN SOME CASES,
IT MAY EVEN TAKE YEARS FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL TO REALIZE THAT THERE
WERE LAWS PROTECTING THEM FROM
DISCRIMINATION, OR WHAT THEY DID
EXPERIENCE WAS DISCRIMINATION,
THESE CLAIMANTS ARE OFTEN FACING
SEVERE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AS A
RESULT OF DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES, MAKING INDIVIDUAL
LITIGATION UNFEASIBLE AGAIN, AND
ALSO MAKING SETTLEMENT THROUGH
THE CRD THAT MUCH MORE
MEANINGFUL, AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, INCREASING THE PERIOD
WILL ALSO BRING CALIFORNIA LAW
INTO BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH THE
FEDERAL COUNTERPART OF THE CRD,
THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION. WHILE THERE IS,
THERE IS SUPPORTIVE PRECEDENT,
TO SUPPORT THAT. THE EEOC DOES
NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE SAME
INVESTIGATION AND FILING
DEADLINES FOR PATTERN AND
PRACTICE OR SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION CASES, INCLUDING
EEOC VERSUS MITSUBISHI AND
OTHERS. AND MANY TIMES THEY CITE
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, THANK
YOU. YOU WRAP IT UP, PLEASE. YES
JUST TWO YEARS AGO, THE
LEGISLATURE, THIS LEGISLATURE
PASSED A BILL AGAIN AFFIRMING
THE COURT'S ROLE IN THE ABILITY
TO BRING THESE TYPE OF CASES AND
INVESTIGATE GROUP COMPLAINTS, SO
YOU'RE URGING AN I VOTE I URGE
AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. JESSICA
STENDER, ON BEHALF OF EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES, A CO-SPONSOR
OF THE BILL, YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING AN
ADEQUATE TIME PERIOD FOR THE
DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE SYSTEMIC,
BROAD VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW. SO
I'LL FOCUS BRIEFLY ON TWO OTHER
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL, WHICH ARE BENEFICIAL TO
ALL PARTIES. FIRST, THE BILL
WOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO
PAUSE INVESTIGATIONS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS,
ALLEGING CLAIMS THAT ARE ALREADY
THE SUBJECT OF, AND COULD
POTENTIALLY BE RESOLVED BY,
PENDING INVESTIGATIONS, CLASS
INVESTIGATIONS OR LITIGATION.
THIS ENSURES THE DEPARTMENT CAN
MORE EFFICIENTLY USE ITS LIMITED
RESOURCES TO EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE
OUR CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. IN THE
CASE OF BROAD SYSTEMIC
VIOLATIONS, THIS IS ALSO
BENEFICIAL TO EMPLOYER
RESPONDENTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE TO THEN RESPOND TO,
COMPLAINTS THAT ARE FILED DURING
THIS TIME WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY
RESPONDING TO ONGOING CLASS OR
COLLECTIVE LITIGATION OR
INVESTIGATIONS. SECOND, THE BILL
WOULD CLARIFY THAT THE DEADLINES
FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE
ITS INVESTIGATION OF A COMPLAINT
AND POTENTIALLY FILE A CIVIL
ACTION ARE TOLD BY VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES. THIS
TYPE OF MUTUALLY AGREED UPON
TOLLING IS A WELL RECOGNIZED
TOOL OF TRYING TO HELP PARTIES
SETTLE, GIVES THEM TIME TO SHARE
INFORMATION AND HOPEFULLY ARRIVE
AT A SETTLEMENT. THE LEGISLATURE
HAS RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF
ALLOWING TOLLING AGREEMENTS BY
ENABLING THE DEPARTMENT TO TOLL
COMPLAINTS DURING THE PENDENCY
OF MEDIATION AT THE DEPARTMENT,
SO THIS WOULD FOLLOW IN THE
FOOTSTEPS OF PAST ACTS OF THIS
LEGISLATURE AND ALSO REDUCE THE
WORKLOAD OF THE COURTS. IF WE
CAN PREVENT LITIGATION FROM
BEING FILED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO FOR CALIFORNIANS, THE
DEPARTMENT IS OFTEN THE ONLY
MEANINGFUL AVENUE TO ADDRESS
DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING AND
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. THIS WILL
ENSURE THE DEPARTMENT CAN
ADEQUATELY AND MEANINGFULLY
ENFORCE OUR LAWS. AND FOR THAT
REASON, WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. MARIKO
YOSHIHARA REGISTERING SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION,
VOICES FOR PROGRESS, CHILD CARE
LAW CENTER, GRACE AND CHILD
POVERTY, CALIFORNIA WORKING
FAMILY COALITION, AND EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU, JACKIE,
SIR. AND ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, SEEING
NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE OPPOSITION. OH GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS ASHLEY
HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROVISION
EXTENDING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS TO SEVEN YEARS, IN A
CRD CLASS CLAIM, THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ATTACHES ONCE THEY
FILE THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINT. ONCE THEY DO SO, THEY
THEN HAVE TWO YEARS TO
INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT AND
THAT CAN BE TOLD, AND HAS BEEN
IN PREVIOUS CASES BY THE PARTIES
, FROM THEN THEY CAN DECIDE TO
FILE CIVIL LITIGATION. SO UNDER
THIS BILL, BY THE TIME THAT YOU
WOULD ACTUALLY BE EVEN STARTING
THE CIVIL LITIGATION CASE, THE
CONDUCT WOULD STRETCH BACK TO
ACTUALLY NINE YEARS BECAUSE OF
THAT TWO YEAR INVESTIGATORY
PERIOD. WE FEEL THAT THE SEVEN
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS
FAR OUT OF LINE WITH OTHER
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS THAT
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS CREATED THE
TYPICAL CLASS OR SORRY, STATUTE
LIMITATIONS AND CIVIL LITIGATION
RANGES GENERALLY FROM ABOUT 2 TO
4 YEARS. THE DEFAULT STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. IF A STATUTE DOES
NOT SPECIFY, IS ONLY THREE
YEARS. WE HAVE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR REASON. THERE
EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT IF YOU
PRACTICE LAW. I'M SURE YOU'VE
ENCOUNTERED THAT, THE PURPOSE IS
RIGHT TO ENCOURAGE CLAIMS TO BE
BROUGHT QUICKLY AND TO ENSURE
THAT EVIDENCE IS FRESH. AND I
DID WANT TO ADDRESS THE NOTE
ABOUT THE FEDERAL CASE, CRD HAS
ARGUED IN PRIOR CASES THAT THEY
SHOULD NOT FALL UNDER STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS BASED ON THE CASE
MENTIONED, THE MITSUBISHI CASE.
THAT CASE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN
REJECTED REPEATEDLY BY OTHER
COURTS ACROSS DIFFERENT
CIRCUITS, AND THE EEOC ITSELF
ACTUALLY ISSUED A COMMENT LETTER
SPECIFYING THAT THOSE PATTERN
AND PRACTICE CLAIMS DO FOLLOW
THE SAME PROCEDURES AS SECTION
706, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO, I
BELIEVE, A 300 DAY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. SO WE STRONGLY
DISAGREE AS WELL THAT THIS WOULD
BE MATCHING FEDERAL LAW IN THAT
RESPECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS CHRIS MICHELI
, ON BEHALF OF THE LA AREA
CHAMBER, A TWO POINTS. ONE IS WE
DEFINITELY SHARE THE CONCERNS
THAT MISS HOFFMAN SPECIFIED. I
WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT IT WAS JUST
A FEW YEARS AGO THAT WE
INCREASED THE GENERAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS UNDER THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT FROM
1 TO 3 YEARS. SECONDLY, I KNOW A
LOT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT THAT
THIS ONLY APPLIES TO GROUP OR
CLASS COMPLAINTS. I WOULD DRAW
YOUR ATTENTION IN SECTION TWO OF
THE BILL TO THE LANGUAGE THAT
YOU'RE AMENDING. THE 10 TO 7
YEARS. IT IS AT BEST AMBIGUOUS
ON THE POINT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF
THE RULES OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION IS THE RULE OF THE
LAST ANTECEDENT, WHICH SEEMS TO
APPLY TO THE COMPLAINT TREATED
BY THE DIRECTOR OR DIRECTOR'S
REPRESENTATIVE AS A GROUP OR
CLASS COMPLAINT. IF IT IS
DEFINITELY INTENDED THAT IT ONLY
APPLIES IN THAT INSTANCE, THEN
THE LANGUAGE IS PRETTY AMBIGUOUS
AND WOULD, YOU KNOW, GLADLY
OFFER SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE
AUTHOR AND STAFF TO CLARIFY
THAT. BUT I THINK THAT IT COULD
APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AS
WELL AS IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT LANGUAGE IN SECTION 12960,
SUBDIVISION E SIX THAT THIS BILL
ADDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
MICHELI. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION
COURTNEY JENSEN, ON BEHALF OF
SEE JACK IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
BRIAN LITTLE, CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU IN OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASONS STATED BY CAL CHAMBER.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NO ONE ELSE.
LET ME JUST DIRECT A QUESTION TO
SENATOR SKINNER IN TERMS OF THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, ARE YOU
AMENABLE TO MAKING SURE THAT
IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS ONLY
APPLIES TO, IN ESSENCE,
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION VERSUS THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION? YES.
THOUGH I THINK WHAT HE RAISED
WAS NOT SO MUCH WHETHER THIS
WOULD APPLY TO THE PRIVATE
RIGHT, BUT RATHER WHETHER A
DIRECTOR'S COMPLAINT COULD BE
BASED ON A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINT. IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
RIGHT. WELL, MAYBE I UNDERSTAND.
MAYBE WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY IT,
BECAUSE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THIS IS THESE ARE THIS
APPLIES ONLY TO CLAIMS THAT ARE
BEING PROSECUTED BY A
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, BY THE
CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT. RIGHT?
CORRECT. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THE
CASE. RIGHT. AND WHILE THEY MAY
PROSECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF ONE OR
MORE PLAINTIFFS, IT DOESN'T
PROVIDE ONLY THE CIVIL RIGHTS.
IT CONTROLS, THE LITIGATION OR
IN ESSENCE, RIGHT. RIGHT DOES
NOT DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME
PERIOD FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO
INITIATE A LAWSUIT. ANOTHER
CLARIFICATION QUESTION ORIGINAL.
I BELIEVE YOU ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENT. ALSO, THERE WAS A ONE
VERSION OF THE BILL THAT SAID A
COURT MAY EXTEND STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. I DID NOT STATE
THAT I SHOULD HAVE THAT. YES,
I'M ALSO, THE COURT IS NOT CAN
NOT EXTEND. SO IN OTHER WORDS,
IF THE IF YOU INITIATE THE
LAWSUIT COURT GETS TAKES AS WE
KNOW DELAYS THEY CAN'T EXTEND
IT. IT STILL HAS TO BE RESOLVED
WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD. ALL
RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. NO QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. COMMENTS. ALL
RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION. OH YOU
HAVE A QUESTION. NO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, BUT I
WANT I WANT TO READ IT
CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THERE HAVE
BEEN SOME CHANGES MADE AND MY I
HAD A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT
THE OPPOSITION RAISED, WHICH IS
THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
IS WAY LONGER THAN, THOSE THAT
WE HAVE SUPPORTED OR THAT I HAVE
SUPPORTED, PUT IT THAT WAY, IN
THE PAST AND, AND, BUT I BUT
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND OF WHAT
YOU'VE SAID IS THAT THIS HAS
BEEN NARROWED TO, SITUATIONS
WHERE, THE, THE, THE ACRONYM IS
CRD IS LOOKING AT THE SITUATION.
AND SO I, I MAY FEEL A LITTLE
BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
SO I'LL SUPPORT IT TODAY. BUT
I'M, RESERVING THE RIGHT REVIEW
IT MUCH MORE CAREFULLY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE
THAT. THANK YOU. SENATOR ASHBY.
YEAH, I'LL BE BRIEF. I JUST
WANTED TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS. IT MADE
IT A LOT EASIER FOR ME TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TO WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU MADE AND THE
CLARIFICATION THAT IT DOESN'T
APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS. AND ALSO
THE CLARIFICATION ON THE COURT
WANTED TO THANK YOU. AND WILL
MAKE THE MOTION. THANK YOU, I
BELIEVE THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE
BY SENATOR ASHBY, SEEING NO
OTHER QUESTIONS, ALL RIGHT,
MADAM SECRETARY. EXCUSE ME,
SENATOR SKINNER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU. AND, WHILE
I, IN PUTTING THIS FORWARD, I
WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW TO HELP
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT BE
MORE EFFECTIVE. BUT NOW,
THINKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
DEFICIT WE'RE IN, BY BY
RESTRICTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT TO A VERY SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME, THEN IF THEY
HAVE. I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, IF
WE AND WE WANT THEM TO
ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH COMPLAINTS,
THERE MIGHT BE AN ARGUMENT TO
INCREASE STAFF WHAT THIS
POTENTIALLY ALLOWS BY GIVING
THEM A LITTLE MORE TIME IS THAT
WE MAY NOT HAVE THE PRESSURES TO
INCREASE STAFF LOADS IN ORDER
FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THEIR
WORK. SO SO, AND WHILE I WAS NOT
, YOU KNOW, WHEN I INITIATED IT,
I WASN'T THINKING OF IT IN TERMS
OF THE BUDGET CONTEXT, BUT
CERTAINLY THERE IS A BUDGET
CONTEXT IN THAT RESPECT, BUT
WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION AND A REQUEST. YOUR I
VOTE. ALRIGHTY. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1022.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG
I UMBERG I WILK NØ. WILK. NØ
ALAN ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. LAIRD
LAIRD. AYE. MIN. MIN. AYE NELLO.
STERN. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE 7 TO 1.
SEVEN ONE. WE'RE GOING TO PUT
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU. GREAT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SKINNER, NEXT, SENATOR ASHBY,
THEN SENATOR CABALLERO, AND THEN
. THEN, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE
ROLL. SO FOR MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT
PRESENT, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
FROM SENATOR ASHBY. THEN WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM SENATOR
CABALLERO, AND THEN WE'RE GOING
TO CLOSE DOWN THE COMMITTEE.
AFTER LIFTING. SENATOR ASHBY,
THANK YOU. FLOOR IS YOURS, FILE
NUMBER TEN, SB 970. THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN. TODAY I AM HERE TO
PRESENT SB 970, WHICH
ESTABLISHES A LEGAL FRAMEWORK
FOR REGULATING ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE. VOICE IMAGE, AND
VIDEO CLONING TECHNOLOGY. LET ME
START BY SAYING THAT I AM
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AND I THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR HELP IN
THAT REGARD. THE RISE OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRESENTS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTINUED
INNOVATION IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES
AND THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE A
POWERFUL TOOL FOR MAJOR
ADVANCEMENTS. HOWEVER, THE LACK
OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
FOR ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES
POSED BY AI IS TROUBLING. THIS
LEAVES INDIVIDUALS VULNERABLE TO
VARIOUS FORMS OF EXPLOITATION,
INCLUDING IDENTITY THEFT, SCAMS,
AND MISINFORMATION, ESPECIALLY
WITH DEEP FAKES ON THE RISE,
ALTERED VIDEOS AND IMAGES CREATE
DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY AROUND
CURRENT EVENTS AND UNDERMINE THE
PUBLIC TRUST IN DIGITAL MEDIA.
EFFORTS TO REGULATE AI
TECHNOLOGY SHOULD FOCUS ON
ENHANCING PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT
DEEP FAKES, EMPOWERING
INDIVIDUALS TO IDENTIFY AND
MITIGATE POTENTIAL THREATS OR
MISINFORMATION. SB 970 AIMS TO
DO JUST THAT BY USING THE
FOLLOWING. ESTABLISHING THE
PENAL CODE VIOLATION FOR THE
MISUSE OF AI VOICE OR VIDEO
CLONING TECHNOLOGY. GRANTING
LEGAL RECOURSE FOR VICTIMS
HARMED BY MISUSE OF AI.
PREVENTING AI GENERATED EVIDENCE
TAMPERING IN THE COURTS, AND
CREATING MANDATORY CONSUMER
WARNINGS ON AI CLONING SOFTWARE.
THIS BILL PROVIDES A BALANCED
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK THAT
WEIGHS BOTH INNOVATION AND
INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY TO PREVENT
ABUSE AND DISINFORMATION.
CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A WITNESS WITH
ME WHO CAME UP FROM SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA TODAY. HIS NAME IS
JOSH BOCANEGRA. HE IS AN AI
DEVELOPER AND THE CO-FOUNDER OF
PERSONA, AN AI COMPANY. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JOSH BOCANEGRA. I'M AN AI
DEVELOPER AND, I RUN AN AI
COMPANY NAMED PERSONA WITH MY
CO-FOUNDER CHRISTINA MILIAN,
QUICK BACKGROUND ON ME. I TAUGHT
MYSELF HOW TO CODE WHEN I WAS
16, AND I'VE BEEN PROFESSIONALLY
BUILDING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
FOR OVER A DECADE. MY WORK
INCLUDES DEVELOPING AWARD
WINNING AI FOR MAJOR ARTISTS
LIKE KATY PERRY AND RIHANNA AND
MANY OTHERS. I'VE BUILT VOICE
ASSISTANTS THAT HELP STUDENTS
LEARN HOW TO READ, A CHATBOT
THAT HELPS CONSUMERS IDENTIFY
TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THEIR BEAUTY
PRODUCTS, AND AN AI THAT USES
THE PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE
BEHAVIORAL THERAPY TO HELP USERS
IMPROVE THEIR MENTAL HEALTH. SO
MY EXTENSIVE WORK IN AI HAS
SHOWN ME ITS POTENTIAL TO MAKE A
POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR SOCIETY,
BUT IT'S ALSO SHOWING ME ITS
POTENTIAL CAUSE FOR HARM, I CAN
NOW CLONE YOUR VOICE WITH LESS
THAN 30S OF AUDIO. IT CAN
GENERATE PHOTOS OF YOU DOING
ANYTHING, ANYWHERE WITH ANYONE,
AND SOON IT WILL GENERATE VIDEOS
OF YOU THAT ARE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM REALITY.
RECENTLY A MOTHER RECEIVED A
CALL FROM HER TEENAGE DAUGHTER
SAYING SHE WAS BEING HELD
HOSTAGE. IT SOUNDED LIKE SHE WAS
CRYING, AND SHE SAID THAT SHE
WOULD ONLY BE RELEASED IF THE
MOTHER PAID A RANSOM. SCARY.
TURNS OUT THAT THE CALLER WAS
ACTUALLY A SCAMMER USING A CLONE
OF HER DAUGHTER'S VOICE. THIS IS
ONE OF MANY STORIES THAT SHOW
HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY WON'T JUST
AFFECT PUBLIC FIGURES AND THOSE
IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY OR THE
FILM INDUSTRY, BUT ALSO HOW IT
WILL AFFECT EVERYDAY PEOPLE.
THIS IS WHY I STAND FIRMLY
BEHIND SB 970. IT NOT ONLY
CONFRONTS THESE CRITICAL ISSUES
HEAD ON, BUT IT ALSO POSITIONS
CALIFORNIA AT THE FOREFRONT OF
AI REGULATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
BRINA SHEEHY, REPRESENTING PERC
ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. SEEING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S NOW TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 970, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
NOW TURN TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION?
SENATOR WAHAB MOVES THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ASHBY, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH, I'D
JUST NORMALLY WOULD JUST URGE A
VOTE, BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE ONE
SECOND TO SAY THAT MR. BOCANEGRA
UNDERSTATES HOW INCREDIBLE HE IS
IN THIS SPACE. HE HELPED ME PUT
TOGETHER THIS LANGUAGE. AND BY
THE WAY, THE FIRST TIME HE CAME
TO VISIT ME, IN A MATTER OF
ABOUT TEN MINUTES, TOOK ONE OF
MY FLOOR SPEECHES AND TURNED IT
INTO I THAT I COULD NOT TELL WAS
NOT ME, A SPEECH I HAD NEVER
GIVEN WHICH CONVINCED ME THAT WE
NEEDED THIS BILL. AND I WANT TO
THANK HIM VERY DEEPLY FOR HIS
ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE BILL. AND I
URGE AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ASSUME
YOU'LL HAVE YOUR BUSINESS CARDS
HERE. SO, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN, SB 970.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY
UMBERG. I UMBERG I WILK I WILK I
ALLEN ASHBY I ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE LAIRD.
LAIRD. AYE. MIN. MIN AYE. NELLO.
STERN. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE 8 TO 0
EIGHT ZERO. WE'LL PUT THAT BILL
ON CALL. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
CABALLERO. SENATOR CABALLERO,
THIS IS THE LAST BILL OF THE
DAY. SB 1386, FILE NUMBER 11.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. SB 1386 SEEKS TO
CLARIFY THE CIVIL RAPE LAW, A
LAW THAT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF
SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT,
RAPE AND SEXUAL BATTERY BY
PROHIBITING AT TRIAL INQUIRIES
REGARDING THEIR SEXUAL
HISTORIES. THIS BILL IS BASED ON
THE EXPERIENCE OF A JANE DOE, A
FOURTH GRADER, EIGHT YEAR OLD, A
FOURTH GRADE EIGHT YEAR OLD GIRL
WHO WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED OVER A
ONE YEAR PERIOD FROM 2009 TO
2010 BY ONE OF HER TEACHERS.
SUBSEQUENTLY, IN 2013, THE SAME
VICTIM WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A
FAMILY FRIEND IN THE HOME.
THEREAFTER SHE RECEIVED
COUNSELING FOR HER TRAUMA AND
SHE REPORTED HER PRIOR SEXUAL
ABUSE AS WELL. AT TRIAL, THE
TRIAL COURT RULED THAT EVIDENCE
OF THE SUBSEQUENT SEXUAL
ASSAULTS SUFFERED BY JANE DOE
COULD BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE TO
UNDERMINE HER CREDIBILITY. IN
REVIEWING THE TRIAL COURT'S
DECISION, THE CALIFORNIA COURT
OF APPEALS AND THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY
SEEK TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF A
SURVIVOR'S OTHER SEXUAL CONDUCT
TO IMPEACH THE SURVIVOR'S
CREDIBILITY. SB 1386 WOULD
PROTECT SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT, RAPE, AND SEXUAL
BATTERY FROM FURTHER
VICTIMIZATION BY EXPLICITLY
STATING THAT THE CIVIL RAPE
SHIELD LAW, A LAW THAT PROTECTS
THE PRIVACY OF THE SURVIVORS,
PROHIBITS INQUIRIES INTO THEIR
SEXUAL HISTORIES TO IMPEACH
THEIR TESTIMONY AS TO CONSENT OR
DAMAGES. RAPE SHIELD LAWS ARE
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT
SURVIVORS FROM UNNECESSARY AND
INTRUSIVE INQUIRIES INTO THEIR
PERSONAL LIVES AND SEXUAL
HISTORIES, FORCING SURVIVORS TO
DISCLOSE DETAILS ABOUT THEIR
INTIMATE LIFE OR TO RELIVE
TRAUMATIC INCIDENTS UNRELATED TO
THE CASE IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE
THEIR CREDIBILITY, CAN BE AS
TRAUMATIZING AS THE ASSAULT
ITSELF. SB 1386 WOULD CLARIFY
THAT EVIDENCE OF A VICTIM SEXUAL
CONDUCT UNRELATED TO THE CASE IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE TO IMPEACH THEIR
TESTIMONY AS TO CONSENT OR
DAMAGES. THIS BILL WILL PRESERVE
THE INTEGRITY OF THE CIVIL RAPE
SHIELD LAW AND FOSTER A
SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR
SURVIVORS TO COME FORWARD AND
SEEK JUSTICE THAT THEY
DESPERATELY DESERVE. WITH ME TO
TESTIFY TODAY IS CIVIL RIGHTS
ATTORNEY MICHAEL CARILLO AND
JESSICA STENDER WITH EQUAL
RIGHTS ADVOCATES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. HELLO
AGAIN, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JESSICA CENTER, ON BEHALF OF
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES. SINCE
1974, WE'VE ADVOCATED FOR THE
RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AND
PEOPLE ACROSS GENDERS WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED HARASSMENT AND
ASSAULT AT WORK. AT AT SCHOOL,
WE ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF HOW
SURVIVORS CAN BE RETRAUMATIZED
BY EVEN JUST STEPPING FORWARD TO
BRING A CLAIM, ESPECIALLY WHEN
DETAILS ABOUT THEIR INTIMATE
PAST LIFE, SEXUAL HISTORY EITHER
CONSENSUAL OR NON-CONSENSUAL,
ARE THRUST INTO THE SPOTLIGHT.
THIS DETERS REPORTING, AND IT
OPENS THE DOOR TO HARASSING
CONDUCT MAKING. WHEN SURVIVORS
DO COME FORWARD. FOR THIS
REASON, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED
THE RAPE SHIELD LAWS, PUTTING A
CATEGORICAL BAN ON THE USE OF
EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL HISTORY TO
PROVE CONSENT OR LACK OF HARM
BECAUSE THEY FOUND IT IS MORE
OFTEN HARASSING AND INTIMIDATING
THAN GENUINELY PROBATIVE. AS THE
LEGISLATURE NOTED AT THAT TIME.
WITHOUT THIS PROTECTION,
SURVIVORS WILL FACE A CATCH 22
OF COMING FORWARD. BUT ONLY AT
THE RISK OF ENDURING INVASIVE
INTRUSIONS INTO INTO DETAILS OF
THEIR PERSONAL LIVES IN
DISCOVERY OR IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS. AND THEY FURTHER
FOUND THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR
PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS WHATEVER
PROBATIVE VALUE THAT EVIDENCE
MAY HAVE. SO TO ALLOW EVIDENCE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CATEGORICALLY BARRED IN
SUBSECTION A UNDER THE GUISE OF
IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, WOULD
UNDERMINE THE INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE IN PASSING THE CIVIL
RAPE SHIELD LAWS AND UNDERMINE
THE VERY PROTECTIONS THAT WERE
INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED WITH
THESE LAWS. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. CO-CHAIR, CAN WE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
MICHAEL CARRILLO. I'M AN
ATTORNEY. I'M A PARTNER AT THE
KOREA LAW FIRM IN SOUTH
PASADENA. AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CO-SPONSORS, THE CONSUMER
ADVOCATES, CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. I'VE SPENT MY ENTIRE
PROFESSIONAL CAREER IN CIVIL
RIGHTS, REPRESENTING VICTIMS OF
SEXUAL VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT,
AND SEXUAL BATTERY. AND THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZE
THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF LIMITING
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SURVIVORS
SEXUAL HISTORY OR PAST CONDUCT
IN CIVIL COURT PROCEEDINGS
RELATED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND SEXUAL
BATTERY CASES. AND THAT'S WHY
THEY PASSED THE RAPE SHIELD LAWS
IN 1985. HOWEVER, CLARITY OF THE
STATUTE IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO
PROTECT SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
VIOLENCE FROM BEING FURTHER
VICTIMIZED WHEN SEEKING JUSTICE.
HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LITTLE
SUSIE, WHO WAS A FOURTH GRADER
WHEN SHE SUFFERED HORRIFIC
SEXUAL ABUSE BY HER TEACHER
DURING THAT FALL SEMESTER. AMONG
THE ABUSE, HER TEACHER FORCED
HER TO PERFORM ORAL SEX MULTIPLE
TIMES WHEN SHE WAS JUST EIGHT
YEARS OLD. SADLY, SUSIE WAS NOT
HIS ONLY VICTIM, AS HE HAD MANY,
AND SHE BROUGHT AN ACTION
AGAINST HER ABUSER AND THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE
NEGLIGENT HIRING OF THE TEACHER,
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF HIM,
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN,
TRAIN, EDUCATE AGAINST HIS ABUSE
AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE, AND THE
OTHERS FOR NOT REPORTING HIS
ABUSE. IN HER CASE, THE DISTRICT
ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
RELATED TO SUBSEQUENT SEXUAL
ASSAULT SHE SUFFERED YEARS
AFTERWARDS IN AN UNRELATED
INCIDENT IN ORDER TO, QUOTE,
IMPEACH HER CREDIBILITY AS TO
THE SOURCE OF RECLAIMED HARM,
THE TRIAL COURT PERMITTED THIS
EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT THIS MIGHT
DO TO SOMEONE TRYING TO SEEK OUT
SPEAK OUT, AND FIND THEIR VOICE.
ULTIMATELY, THE SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT SECTION 1106 Â MAY
PERMIT ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE FOR
IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE EXCLUDED UNDER
SECTION 11 06A, AND REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE SUPREME
COURT'S HOLDING IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL LEGISLATIVE
INTENT AND THE IMPACT OF
ALLOWING SUCH EVIDENCE WILL
CAUSE A CHILLING EFFECT ON
SURVIVORS SUCH AS LITTLE SUSIE,
WHO WISHED TO COME FORWARD TO
SEEK ACCOUNTABILITY BUT WHO WILL
NOW FEAR HAVING OTHER SEXUAL
HISTORY EXPOSED IF THEY DO. THIS
IS WHY SB 1386 IS BEFORE YOU
TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF
YOU'D WRAP UP, WE URGE YOU AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD AFTERNOON.
WHOOPS GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, TRACY ROSENBERG, ON
BEHALF OF OAKLAND PRIVACY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, JACKIE STERN, ON
BEHALF OF VOICES FOR PROGRESS,
THE CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW
CENTER, THE CHILD CARE LAW
CENTER, AND THE EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
THE MICROPHONE. OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1386,
PLEASE APPROACH. SEEING NO ONE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
YES, SENATOR WAHAB, I APPRECIATE
YOU BRINGING THIS BILL.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN INTEREST
AREA OF MY OWN, I'LL MOVE THE
BILL WHEN APPROPRIATE. THANK
YOU. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. THANK YOU,
SENATOR CABALLERO. I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CREATE THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HERE. IN
TERMS OF YOUR INTENT, I
UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT IN TERMS
OF ADMISSIBILITY, BUT THIS
EVIDENCE IS ALSO IT IS THE,
EVIDENCE OR THE QUESTIONS IS
THAT THAT ONE MIGHT ASK IN
DEPOSITION OR AN INDEPENDENT
MEDICAL EVALUATION THAT THIS
HISTORY OR THE, THE
INTERROGATION QUESTIONS IN THIS
AREA ARE NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO
DISCOVERABLE EVIDENCE. AND THE
REASON I SAY THAT I'M GOING TO
ASK IF YOU AGREE IS BECAUSE,
BASED ON MY OWN, LIMITED
EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA,
REPRESENTING SOMEONE WHO WAS
TRAUMATIZED THAT THE WHOLE
DEFENSE EFFORT WAS TO
RETRAUMATIZE THE WOMAN INTO
SETTLEMENT, IN OTHER WORDS, BY
ASKING INCREDIBLY INVASIVE,
INCREDIBLY TRAUMATIC QUESTIONS
DURING THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EVALUATION AS WELL AS IN
DEPOSITION. THE PURPOSE WAS TO
INTIMIDATE HER INTO SETTLING. SO
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S
CLEAR THAT SINCE THIS IS NOT
RELEVANT, QUESTIONS IN THIS AREA
ARE NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO OR
NOT REASONABLY BE, RELATED TO
ANY POTENTIAL ADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE. IS THAT IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? WELL, I
WOULD SAY THAT, I AGREE WITH
YOUR YOUR ANALYSIS THAT THE
INTENT IS TO, FOR SOME KIND OF,
OF A SETTLEMENT, BY MAKING THE
THREAT THAT THAT THIS IS GOING
TO BE AN INQUIRY IN FRONT OF THE
JURY, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS
THAT THEY WANTED TO USE IT IN
COURT AS A WAY TO UNDERMINE HER
CREDIBILITY AS TO WHAT THE
DAMAGES WERE AND AS TO WHETHER
THERE WAS CONSENT OR OR NOT.
SHE'S UNDERAGE. IT DOESN'T
MATTER WHETHER SHE CONSENTED OR
NOT. A CHILD CANNOT CONSENT. AND
SO THE CHALLENGE HERE WAS THAT,
WAS THAT WE HAD, AT LEAST
ARGUABLY DIFFERENT STATUTES. IS
THAT ONE THAT SAID, YOU'RE
SHIELDED AND ANOTHER THAT SAID,
BUT YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE
JUDGE CAN INQUIRE AND THEN MAKE
A MAKE A BALANCED DETERMINATION.
WE JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
TAKE AWAY THAT OPTION FROM A
JUDGE AND TO SAY, THIS IS JUST
NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN A
TRIAL. AND I'M NOT CLEAR. I
DON'T THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO
DO IS TAKE AWAY THE OPTION FOR
ATTORNEYS ASKING QUESTIONS IN
DEPOSITION ABOUT PAST SEXUAL
BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE SINCE THAT
BEHAVIOR, SINCE THOSE
ACTIVITIES, SINCE THAT WHATEVER
THAT EVENT WAS, IS NOT
ADMISSIBLE, THE QUESTIONS AND
DEPOSITION ARE NOT RELEVANT. AND
THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT POINT.
YES, YES, THAT IS IF THAT'S ALSO
YOUR INTENT. THAT IS MY INTENT.
YES ALL RIGHT. SAME THING WITH
INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EVALUATIONS.
YES. OKAY. GREAT THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? THERE'S A MOTION. I
BELIEVE SENATOR WAHAB MOVED THE
BILL. OH I'M SORRY. MY ONLY
COMMENT IS THE FIRST TIME EVER
THAT THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE HAS GONE LONGER THAN
JUDICIARY ON A TUESDAY
AFTERNOON. SO I JUST WANT TO
MARK THIS HISTORIC MOMENT. WELL,
THIS IS WE'LL TAKE A YES. WE'LL
ALL AGAIN POSE UNDER THE CLOCK
IN A SECOND. OKAY NO LONGER. ALL
RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, SO, THERE'S A
MOTION BY SENATOR WAHAB, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. AYE. VOTE. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER 11, SB 1386.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS UMBERG A
UMBERG. AYE. WILK ALLEN A ALLEN.
AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
AYE. CABALLERO. AYE. DURAZO
GRASSO. AYE. LAIRD. LAIRD. AYE
MIN. MIN. AYE. NILO. AYE. NILO
AYE. STERN. WAHAB. WAHAB AYE. 9
TO 0 990. ALL RIGHT, THAT BILL
IS ON CALL. WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH THE ROLL HERE ONE MORE
TIME, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO
SHUT DOWN. HE WAS STUCK IN
TRANSPORTATION. OKAY. IS
TRANSPORTATION DONE? NO OKAY.
GOOD. NO BECAUSE I GOT TO GO
BACK. TRANS IS GOING STRONG.
OKAY. WELL WHY DON'T WE DO THIS?
WE'LL GO THROUGH IT ONCE AND
THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH IT ONE
MORE TIME. AFTER WE GO THROUGH
IT ONCE AND HOPES THAT SENATOR
STERN WILL BE HERE TO GO THROUGH
IT TWICE. I'M SORRY. ARE YOU
GOING TO GO THROUGH IT TWICE?
THAT'S VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALLEN, FOR
THAT ASSISTANCE. YES. WE'RE
GOING TO GO THROUGH IT TWICE.
YES. ALL RIGHT. HERE WE GO.
PARDON ME. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR CHAIR VOTING. AYE ALLEN
. Ã ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY. AYE
ASHBY. AYE. CABALLERO NOT VOTING
ON CONSENT. OH. THE CONSENT. NO.
SORRY COLBY. I'M GOING BALD. I'M
REBEL CABALLERO. AYE, MIN. MIN.
AYE. MELLOW AYE. NHIÀU. AYE.
STERN WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE 10 TO 0
ON CONSENT. TEN ZERO. WE'LL PUT
THAT BACK ON CALL. ALL RIGHT.
FILE ITEM ONE, SB 1038. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ALAN AYE. ALAN. AYE.
ASHBY ASHBY. AYE. CABALLERO MIN.
MIN. AYE. NILO NØ. NILO. NØ.
STERN. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE 7 TO 2.
ONE MEMBER MISSING. SEVEN. TWO.
PUT IT BACK ON. CALL FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO. SB 1403. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WILK ALLEN. ALAN.
AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE. MIN
NILO. NØ. NILO NÓ. STERN. WAHAB.
WAHAB AYE. 7 TO 1 WITH MEMBER
MISSING SEVEN ONE. PUT IT BACK
ON. CALL FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR
SB 1036. CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALAN.
ALAN. AYE. ASHBY ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE. MIN
MIN. AYE. NILO STERN. WAHAB.
WAHAB AYE. 8 TO 1. EIGHT ONE.
PUT IT BACK ON CALL FILE. ITEM
NUMBER SIX, SB 1124. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ALAN. ALAN. AYE.
NILO NØ. NILO NØ. STERN 234 9 TO
1 NINE ONE. PUT IT BACK ON. CALL
NO, NO. ALL RIGHT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT, SB 1022. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ALAN. ALAN. AYE.
NILO NILO. NÓ. STERN. 8 TO 2.
ONE. MEMBER MISSING. EIGHT. TWO.
PUT IT BACK ON. CALL FILE ITEM
NUMBER NINE, SB 1137. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WILK ALAN. ALAN.
AYE. ASHBY ASHBY. AYE. MIN. MIN
AYE. NILO STERN. 8 TO 0. ALL
RIGHT. EIGHT ZERO. PUT IT BACK
ON. CALL FILE. ITEM NUMBER TEN,
SB 970. CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALAN
ALAN. AYE. NILO. NILO AYE. STERN
10 TO 0 TEN ZERO. PUT IT BACK
ON. CALL FILE ITEM 11 SB 1386.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. WILK STERN A
STERN AYE. SORRY, THAT'S 10 TO 0
TEN ZERO BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 12, SB 1272, CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ALAN. ALAN. AYE. ASHBY
ASHBY. AYE. MIN. MIN AYE. NILO.
NILO. NÓ. STERN. AYE STERN. AYE
9 TO 2. NINE TWO. BILLS OUT.
OKAY. DO YOU WANT ME TO. ALL
RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH. THIS WILL BE THE LAST
TIME WE GO THROUGH. ALL RIGHT.
HOW CLOSE TO BEING DONE OKAY.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. STERN.
STERN. AYE 11 TO 0 11 ZERO.
CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED.
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE, CHAIR
VOTING AYE. CABALLERO STERN A
STERN AYE. OH, BY THE WAY, 8 TO
2, EIGHT TWO, BILL IS OUT. FILE
ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 1403, CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WILK MIN. STERN A
STERN AYE. 8 TO 1 EIGHT ONE.
BILL IS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, SB 1036. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
NILO STERN A STERN AYE. 9 TO 1.
SENATOR 9 TO 1. NINE ONE. BILLS
OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB
1124. CHAIR VOTING AYE. STERN A
STERN AYE 10 TO 110 ONE. BILLS
OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SB
1022 CHAIR VOTING AYE. STERN A
STERN AYE 9 TO 2 NINE TWO. BILLS
OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE SB
1137 CHAIR VOTING AYE WILK NHÀ
B¢O. STERN. STERN AYE 9 TO 0
NINE ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER TEN SB 970 CHAIR VOTING
AYE. STERN A STERN AYE 11 TO 0
11 ZERO. BILL IS OUT. AND WITH
THAT I BELIEVE WE ARE ADJOURNED.
AMEN.