ALL RIGHT. USUALLY WE HAVE THE
REPUBLICANS HERE EN MASSE. WE
HAVE 50% OF THE REPUBLICANS,
THOUGH. JUST SHOWED UP, AND
WE'RE STILL LACKING DEMOCRATS.
WE HAVE THREE DEMOCRATS. ALL
RIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO START
WITHOUT OBJECTION, AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SO THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY WILL COME
TO ORDER. GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'RE
HOLDING THIS COMMITTEE HEARING
IN ROOM 2100 OF THE Þ STREET
BUILDING, ALSO KNOWN AS THE
SWING SPACE. I ASK THAT ALL
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BE
PRESENT IN ROOM 2100, SO WE CAN
ESTABLISH A QUORUM AND BEGIN THE
HEARING AS A FULL COMMITTEE
BEFORE PRESENTATIONS ON TODAY'S
BILL. I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE THE
ITEMS THAT ARE ON CONSENT OR
ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED. TO
THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE WATCHING
ON TV OR YOU'RE HERE PHYSICALLY
PRESENT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
SHOULD BE NOTED. PHYLUM NUMBER
21 SB 1345 BY SENATOR SMALLWOOD
CUEVAS HAS BEEN PULLED BY THE
AUTHOR AND PHYLUM NUMBER 12. SB
1154 BY SENATOR TAURO HAS ALSO
BEEN PULLED BY THE AUTHOR, NOW
I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE THE ITEMS
THAT ARE ON CONSENT TODAY. THE
ITEMS THAT ARE ON CONSENT ARE
THE FOLLOWING. FILE NUMBER SEVEN
SB 896 BY SENATOR DODD, PHYLUM
NUMBER 14, SB 892 BY SENATOR
PADILLA. PHYLUM NUMBER 15 BY SB
893 ALSO BY SENATOR PETILLA.
PHYLUM NUMBER 16, SB 1100 BY
SENATOR PORTANTINO. PHYLUM
NUMBER 17, SB 1198 BY SENATOR
ROTH. PHYLUM NUMBER 18, SB 899
BY SENATOR SKINNER, AND FINALLY
PHYLUM NUMBER 25, SB 1117 BY OUR
VERY OWN SENATOR LAIRD. ALL
RIGHT. SO, SEEING THAT WE HAVE
SENATOR ARCHULETA HERE, WHY
DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND BEGIN WITH
SB 1465, FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE,
SENATOR ARCHULETA, WE WILL
PROCEED AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. GOOD
THANK YOU, SIT ON. THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT. AND MR. CHAIR AND
I KNOW HE LIKES THAT. I'M SORRY,
MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. TODAY, I'M PRESENTING
SENATE BILL 1465, WHICH ALLOWS
ANY STRUCTURE USED FOR HUMAN
HABITATION TO BE DECLARED A
SUBSTANDARD BUILDING, REGARDLESS
OF ZONING OR APPROVAL. USE
SENATE BILL 1465 ALSO MAKES
CHANGES TO CODE ENFORCEMENT
PROCEDURES TO EXTEND TENANT
PROTECTIONS TO BUILDINGS NOT
ZONED RESIDENTIAL, BUT USED FOR
HOUSING. CALIFORNIA STATE
HOUSING LAWS ARE SOME OF THE
STRONGEST IN THE NATION,
ESTABLISHING HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROTECTIONS THROUGH BUILDING
STANDARDS TO ENSURE DECENT, SAFE
AND SANITARY HOUSING FOR ALL OF
CALIFORNIANS. CALIF IS
EXPERIENCING A HOUSING SHORTAGE
OF SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT
PROPORTIONS, PARTICULARLY IN THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTOR.
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES UNABLE
TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING MAY
RESORT TO LIVING IN BUILDINGS
THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN ZONED
RESIDENTIAL, DESPITE MIGHT BEING
RENTED AS HOUSING. MANY
WAREHOUSES, FACTORIES AND
BUILDINGS ARE NOT IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES AND HAVE EVADED MUCH
NEEDED SAFETY INSPECTIONS AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT. CURRENT LAW
PROVIDES PROTECTIONS FOR
RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN A
DWELLING THAT IS NOT UP TO CODE,
BUT PUTS THE RESIDENT OR THE
PUBLIC IN HARM'S WAY. HOWEVER,
THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY AMBIGUITY
IN THE LAW ABOUT WHETHER THESE
PROTECTIONS APPLY TO BUILDINGS
NOT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, EVEN IF
THEY ARE BEING INHABITED BY THE
TENANTS. TENANTS IN THESE
BUILDINGS ARE AMONG THE MOST
DISADVANTAGED RENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA THEY DO NOT CONTROL.
MAY THEY NOT EVEN KNOW THE
ZONING OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE
RESIDING IN SUBSTANDARD
CONDITION, AND THEIR ASSOCIATED
DANGERS FOR TENANTS. DO NOT
CEASE TO EXIST JUST BECAUSE OF
THEIR BUILDING, ZONING. THIS
BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION WITH ME
TODAY. TO TESTIFY IS FAITH
BORGES ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE AND HE IS SHE IS HERE TO
ASK ANY AND ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IF YOU'D
LIKE TO TESTIFY, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS. YES. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ARCHULETA. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS FAITH BORGES WITH AKHTAM
PROUDLY REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HERE TODAY
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SENATE
BILL 1465, WHICH WILL ALLOW
EXISTING INSPECTIONS AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT TO BE APPLIED TO ANY
STRUCTURE USED FOR HUMAN
HABITATION, REGARDLESS OF THE
BUILDING'S ZONING OR APPROVED
USE. SB 1465 ADDITIONALLY
APPLIES HABITABILITY AND
LANDLORD TENANT PROTECTIONS TO
THESE PROPERTIES, ENSURING THAT
TENANTS HAVE ACCESS TO VITAL
RESOURCES SUCH AS RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE AND RETALIATION
PROTECTIONS FOR RAISING
HABITABILITY COMPLAINTS.
CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIANS HAVE
BEEN DRIVEN INTO LIVING IN
WAREHOUSES, SHEDS, AND OTHER
UNPERMITTED RESIDENCES BY
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING CRISIS, AND
ARE CURRENTLY CUT OFF FOR
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO TENANTS
AND BUILDINGS PROPERLY ZONED FOR
HOUSING. THANKS TO THE WORK OF
MANY LEGISLATORS ON THIS
COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDERS IN
THIS ROOM, CALIFORNIANS
INSPECTIONS AND TENANT
PROTECTION LAWS ARE AMONGST THE
STRONGEST IN THE NATION. YET
THESE PROTECTIONS STILL EXCLUDE
MANY OF THE STATE'S MOST
VULNERABLE TENANTS. TENANTS DO
NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE
BUILDING THEY LIVE IN IS ZONED
AND USED PROPERLY, AND
CALIFORNIANS SHOULD NOT BE
PUNISHED FOR RESORTING TO LIVING
IN MAKESHIFT, UNAPPROVED HOUSING
UNITS. DUE TO THE STATE'S
HOUSING CRISIS, A LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS THE CRISIS
OF A GENERATION, AND WHILE THERE
ARE MANY POINTS THAT WE COULD
MAKE ABOUT THAT ON A MACRO
SCALE, WE'D LIKE TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO SHARE THE IMPACT OF
THESE CONSEQUENCES OF TREATING
UNSAFE HOUSING AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
RECENTLY, I SPOKE WITH A
GRIEVING MOTHER WHO LOST HER
DAUGHTER IN THE GHOST SHIP FIRE
ON DECEMBER 2ND, 2016, AND, OUT
OF RESPECT FOR HER PRIVACY, WILL
KEEP HER IDENTITY ANONYMOUS.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE HER PERMISSION
TO RELAY THE FOLLOWING. MY
DAUGHTER WAS A VIBRANT SOUL WHO
LOVED HER COMMUNITY IN OAKLAND.
SHE WAS ONE OF THREE DOZEN
PEOPLE WHO PASSED AWAY IN THE
PREVENTABLE FIRE AT THE GHOST
SHIP WAREHOUSE FOLLOWING HER
DEATH. I TOURED THE DILAPIDATED
WAREHOUSE AND SAW THE ALARMING
CONDITIONS THAT PEOPLE WERE
LIVING IN. I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW
DIFFICULT IT IS TO KNOW THAT
THAT'S WHERE MY DAUGHTER DIED. I
DON'T WISH TO ATTACK ANY OF THE
RESIDENTS OF THE WAREHOUSE, OR
ANYONE WHO FINDS THEMSELVES
LIVING. I SHOULD HAVE ANNOUNCED
THE PRELIMINARY RULES BEFOREHAND
. WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW TWO
MINUTES TO EACH WITNESS ON FOR
THE PROPONENTS, AND TWO MINUTES
FOR EACH WITNESS FOR THE
OPPONENTS. I DIDN'T ANNOUNCE
THAT, BUT GO AHEAD AND TAKE
ANOTHER 30S I APOLOGIZE. I'LL BE
SUCCINCT, SB 1465 IS ABOUT
FAIRNESS TO CALIFORNIANS WHO,
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN,
HAVE HAD TO RESORT IN LIVING
BUILDINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN
ZONED RESIDENTIAL. THIS BILL
WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH
INVALUABLE PROTECTIONS, AND WE
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, BEFORE WE PROCEED,
SENATOR, I'D LIKE TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU
WOULD CALL THE ROLL FOR PURPOSES
OF ESTABLISHING A QUORUM. UMBERG
HERE. UMBERG HERE. WILK PRESENT.
WILK PRESENT. ALAN ASHBY.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. HERE.
DURAZO GRASSO. HERE. LAIRD.
LAIRD. HERE MEN. NILO. HERE.
NILO. HERE. STERN HERE. STERN.
HERE. WAHAB YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR ARCHULETA, DO YOU
HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS, NO. I
DON'T. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1465? PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. ANDREW
MENDOZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
SEEING NO ONE ELSE? APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. IF YOU'RE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1465, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. SEEING
NO ONE APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE, LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. SEEING
NONE, IS SENATOR LARRY MOVES THE
BILL. SENATOR ARCHULETA, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE. SB
1465. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED.
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG
I UMBERG I WILK I WILK I ALLEN
ASHBY CABALLERO I CABALLERO I
DURAZO RUSSELL I LAIRD I LAIRD I
MINH. NILO I NILO I STERN A
STERN I WAHAB. YOU HAVE, 7 TO 0
SEVEN ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD. AND, OH, YES,
SENATOR, I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF
IT'S OKAY WITH THE CHAIR, I
WOULD MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
YOU READ MY MIND. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD.
SENATOR LAIRD HAS MOVED THE
CONSENT CALENDAR ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. UMBERG UMBERG I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN ASHBY CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DURAZO DURAZO I
LAIRD I. LAIRD I MINH. NHIÀU
NILO I STERN. STERN I WAHAB. 7
TO 0. ON THE CONSENT. ALL RIGHT.
SEVEN ZERO. PUT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ON CALL. ALL RIGHT, SO
HERE'S THE SENATOR BECKER IS
HERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
FROM SENATOR BECKER, WHO HAS TWO
BILLS, THEN SENATOR BLAKE SPEER.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR BECKER, IF
YOU'D LIKE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
YOU KNOW WHAT? BEFORE YOU GO,
SENATOR BECKER, I'M REMISS IN
THAT I DID NOT, BASICALLY GO
OVER THE RULES OF THE ROAD HERE.
SO HERE ARE THE RULES OF THE
ROAD FOR ALL THE BILLS THAT
WE'LL HEAR TODAY. WE WILL ALLOW
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
AND TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION FOR THE PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, EACH WILL
HAVE TWO MINUTES, UNLESS THERE'S
BEEN SOME EXEMPTION. AND SAME
THING FOR THE WITNESSES. THE
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
EACH WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES AFTER
SUPPORT. WE'LL HEAR FROM OTHERS
WHO MAY PROVIDE THEIR NAME,
THEIR AFFILIATION AND THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL. THEY'LL
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND THE
SAME THING WITH THE OPPOSITION
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION.
YOU APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. SO,
SENATOR BECKER, HAVING SAID
THAT, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TODAY TO PRESENT SB 942,
THE CALIFORNIA ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE TRANSPARENCY ACT.
THIS IS A BILL THAT TAKES A, A
BOLD STEP IN ADDRESSING THE
PROLIFERATION OF AI GENERATED
CONTENT AS AI TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCES, DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
HUMAN AND MACHINE GENERATED
CONTENT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY
CHALLENGING. THIS AMBIGUITY
POSES SIGNIFICANT SOCIETAL AND
DEMOCRATIC RISK, EXACERBATING
PROBLEMS SUCH AS DISINFORMATION,
HARASSMENT, AND FRAUD. WE'VE ALL
HEARD ABOUT RECENT DEEPFAKE
INCIDENTS. THESE INCIDENTS CAN
ALSO, AND THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN
HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR
ECONOMY. LAST YEAR, AN AI
GENERATED PHOTO OF AN EXPLOSION
NEAR THE PENTAGON WENT VIRAL,
CAUSING ECONOMIC MARKET
INSTABILITY FOR FRAUDSTERS. CAN
EXPLOIT GENERATIVE AI FOR SCAM
CALLS. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT
THE CHRONICLE HAD A STORY
RECENTLY ABOUT A FAMILY. THEY
GOT A CALL FROM THEIR SON. HE
JUST GOT INTO AN ACCIDENT. THEY
WERE VERY DISTRESSED ABOUT IT.
HE PUT HIS LAWYERS ON THE ON THE
PHONE. THEY WIRED MONEY TO THE
LAWYER. TURNED OUT IT WASN'T
THEIR SON AT ALL. IT WAS AN AI
GENERATED FROM THE VOICE. ONLY
FROM EVEN A FEW SECONDS OF
SOMEONE'S VOICE. NOW YOU CAN
GENERATE, SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS
LIKE THEM, WHICH IS CRAZY, BUT
TRUE, CLEARLY TRANSPARENCY IS
NEEDED HERE. THE EU HAS TAKEN
STEPS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES
THROUGH THE AI ACT, WHICH
MANDATES TRANSPARENCY STANDARDS,
INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT TO
INFORM USERS WHEN THEY'RE
INTERACTING WITH AN AI SYSTEM
AND TO CLEARLY MARK SYNTHETIC
AUDIO, VIDEO, TEXT AND IMAGES AS
ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED OR
MANIPULATED, BOTH FOR USERS AND
IN A MACHINE READABLE FORMAT. SB
942 HAS SOME SIMILARITIES TO
THAT. IT SERVES TO ADDRESS THIS
GROWING UNCERTAINTY REGARDING AI
GENERATED IMAGES BY REQUIRING
CHEN AI COMPANIES LARGE CHEN AI
COMPANIES TO DO A FEW THINGS.
THREE THINGS, PARTICULARLY
NUMBER ONE LABEL AI GENERATED
CONTENT WITH VISIBLE AND
IMPERCEPTIBLE EMBEDDED
DISCLOSURES TO SUPPLY AN AI
DETECTION TOOL FOR USERS TO
QUERY. WHETHER CONTENT WAS
CREATED BY AI. AND THIRD,
ENFORCE THIRD PARTY LICENSES TO
THE EXTENT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE
TO PREVENT UNDISCLOSED CONTENT
PUBLICATION. THIS ACT SERVES TO
ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES POSED BY
AI GENERATED CONTENT, PROMOTING
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND TRUST IN DIGITAL LANDSCAPE.
I WOULD SAY WE ARE ACTIVELY
COLLABORATING. THIS IS A
COMPLICATED AREA. OBVIOUSLY A
FAST MOVING AREA, A LOT OF
INTEREST, OF COURSE, IN THIS
AREA, AND AS IT IS VERY
COMPLICATED, WE ARE WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS AND TRY TO ENSURE THE
BILL STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE
IN REGULATING GENERATIVE AI FOR
THE BENEFIT OF ALL CALIFORNIANS.
AND WITH ME, I HAVE TOM KEMP.
HE'S A BEEN AN ENTREPRENEUR IN
CYBERSECURITY AND A DATA PRIVACY
ADVOCATE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BECKER. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
UMBERG AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
KEMP, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS TOM KEMP, AND
I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE MY
SUPPORT FOR SB 942. AS A WAY OF
BACKGROUND. AND I'M AN
ENTREPRENEUR THAT FOUNDED A
CYBERSECURITY THAT WAS ONE OF
THE FIRST COMPANIES THAT USED AI
TO DETECT CYBER ATTACKS. I
SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE WORKED WITH
CALIFORNIANS FOR CONSUMER
PRIVACY ON PROP 24, ALSO WITH
SENATOR BECKER ON THE CALIFORNIA
DELETE ACT. AND I WROTE A BOOK,
THAT DETAILS THE GUARDRAILS
NEEDED FOR AI IN 2021. ALPHABET
CEO SUNDAR PICHAI SAID THIS
QUOTE, I VIEW AI AS THE MOST
PROFOUND TECHNOLOGY THAT
HUMANITY WILL EVER DEVELOP AND
WORK ON. BUT IF AI IS AS
POWERFUL AS HE CLAIMS, THEN IT
SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME
STANDARDS OF HONESTY AND
TRANSPARENCY AS A PACK OF GUM
THAT HAS BARCODES AND LABELING
ON IT. NOW WE'VE HAD FOOD
LABELING LAWS SINCE 1906. THESE
LAWS NOT ONLY REQUIRE
STANDARDIZED DISCLOSURES, BUT
ALSO PROHIBIT MISBRANDING THAT
IS FALSE OR MISLEADING. SO HERE
WE ARE IN 2024, AND IT'S
BECOMING INCREASINGLY CLEAR THAT
IT IS DIFFICULT TO DIFFERENTIATE
BETWEEN HUMAN GENERATED CONTENT
AND MACHINE GENERATED CONTENT
VIA CHEN AI OR SYNTHETIC CONTENT
. SB 942 ADDRESSES THIS PROBLEM.
IT SIMPLY SAYS A PROVIDER MUST
LABEL ITS CONTENT AND PROVIDE A
WAY FOR A CONSUMER TO ASK, HEY,
DID YOU CREATE THIS? SO A FEW
KEY, KEY POINTS HERE. FIRST, THE
BILL DOESN'T MENTION
WATERMARKING. IT'S NOT
PRESCRIPTIVE. IT SIMPLY SAYS YOU
HAVE TO PUT SOME SORT OF LABEL.
IT GIVES US TIME FOR STANDARDS
TO BE SET FORTH DOWN THE ROAD.
SECOND, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
CONTENT PROVIDERS TO DETECT
OTHER PEOPLE'S. IT SIMPLY NEEDS
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, HEY, DID
YOU DID YOU CREATE THIS YES OR
NO? AND THEN THIRD, IF YOU EVEN
ASK CHATGPT IT SAYS, HEY, WE
DON'T HAVE A WE DON'T KNOW HOW
TO DETECT AI. WE CAN'T DO THAT.
SO IT'S NOT REDUNDANT IN THIS
BILL TO ASK THE LARGE PROVIDERS
TO ACTUALLY SPECIFY WHETHER OR
NOT THEY GENERATE THIS CONTENT.
IN SUMMARY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OH, PERFECT. THANK YOU ALL
RIGHT. OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF SB 942 SEEING NO ONE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, ANYONE
WISH TO TESTIFY IN ME TO
SUPPORT. PLEASE APPROACH
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE
APPROACHING, LET'S TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 942, I SEE, AT LEAST ONE
PERSON APPROACHING. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, DYLAN
HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
WE'RE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB
942. AT THIS TIME. WE FULLY
AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THE
BILL TO CREATE GREATER TRUST AND
USER GENERATED CONTENT ONLINE BY
FOSTERING THE ADOPTION OF
CONTENT PROVENANCE VERIFICATIONS
AND WATERMARKS. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO PROVIDING MUCH MORE
SUBSTANTIVE FEEDBACK AND WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS. WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE
BACKLOGGED, REVIEWING A LOT OF
BILLS NOT ONLY IN THIS STATE BUT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, JUST WANT TO
POINT OUT A COUPLE OF ISSUES
WITH THE BILL AS IT CURRENTLY
EXISTS IN PRINT, AND THAT WE
BELIEVE PRESENTS SOME ISSUES AS
FAR AS TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND
IMPOSSIBILITY WITH WITH
COMPLIANCE, AND FIRST, WHILE WE
UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO
REGULATE AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
AND ONE WITH SUBSTANTIAL
CAPABILITIES, THIS IS AN AREA
WHERE WE BELIEVE WOULD BENEFIT
FROM FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AND
ACTION, WON'T BE HOLDING OUR
BREATH ON THAT, BUT MANY OF OUR
COMPANIES AND PLATFORMS ARE AT
THE FOREFRONT OF DEVELOPING THIS
TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY. BUT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT IT'S
STILL VERY MUCH IN ITS EARLY
STAGES, HOWEVER, DESPITE THAT,
SB 942 AND ACT'S REQUIREMENTS
FOR TECHNOLOGY THAT IS CURRENTLY
RAPIDLY EVOLVING, SUCH AS
REQUIRING A WATERMARK OR CONTENT
PROVENANCE FOR TEXT GENERATED
CONTENT, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING
THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY POSSIBLE.
AND SO WE THINK THERE ARE SOME
REASONABLE AMENDMENTS TO SORT OF
TAILOR THIS BILL TO WHAT IS AND
IS NOT, CAPABLE AT THIS TIME,
ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
CURRENTLY CONTENT PROVENANCE AND
WATERMARKING IS STILL INCREDIBLY
UNRELIABLE, AND IN MANY CASES
VERY EASY TO BREAK, RESEARCHERS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,
FOR EXAMPLE, WERE ABLE TO BREAK
ALL OF THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
WATERMARKING METHODS, SOME OF
THESE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED SIMPLY
BY CROPPING, RESIZING, OR
SCREENSHOTTING AN IMAGE. MORE
CONCERNING, THOUGH, THESE
RESEARCHERS WERE ALSO ABLE TO
INSERT FAKE WATERMARKS AND
CREDENTIALS INTO IMAGES,
CREATING FALSE POSITIVES, SO WE
THINK THAT ANY LEGISLATION ON
THIS TOPIC SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR
THAT UNRELIABILITY AND THAT,
THAT POTENTIAL. AND LASTLY, WE
BELIEVE THAT IF THESE LAWS DO
EXCEED OUR TECHNOLOGICAL
CAPABILITIES, THERE IS A RISK
FOR CONSUMERS TO PLACE TOO MUCH
TRUST IN THOSE WATERMARKS.
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ABOUT TO WRAP
UP. I AM ABOUT TO WRAP UP, AND
SO FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED AGAIN AT
THIS TIME. BUT LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING OUR CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS OF
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 942. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. AUTHOR ROBERT
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASONS STATED. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE SEEING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE?
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS. SEEING NONE.
OH, I'M SORRY, SENATOR YELLOW.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, SO THE
OPPOSITION IS FUNDAMENTALLY,
BASED UPON, TECHNOLOGY, THIS NOT
BEING TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE
RIGHT NOW. NOW, CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD HAS REGULATIONS
THAT ARE NOT TECHNICALLY
TECHNOLOGY ETHICALLY POSSIBLE
EITHER. SO WHY NOT YOU? BUT I
DIGRESS. SERIOUSLY, HOW DO YOU
RESPOND TO THAT, SURE. I WON'T
COMMENT ON YOUR FIRST PART. IT'S
A LONGER DISCUSSION, BUT, YEAH,
I'D SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
TECHNOLOGY IS EVOLVING AND
THAT'S WHY WE ARE WORKING WITH
THEM, I'D SAY WE AGREE WITH
THEM, SINCE THAT'S WHY THIS IS
REALLY FOCUSED ON DISCLOSURE. WE
DON'T REFERENCE WATERMARKING OR
PRESCRIBE A PARTICULAR
TECHNOLOGY, AND WE ONLY REQUIRE
A VENDOR THAT THEY DETECT AI
GENERATED CONTENT FROM THEIR
PLATFORM, SO I'D SAY I THINK THE
WAY WE'RE TRYING TO POSITION
THIS, YOU KNOW, ALIGNS WITH THE
FACT THAT THIS IS RAPIDLY
EVOLVING AND, AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO BE TO BE
SENSITIVE TO THAT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SENATOR NIELLO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE. IS THERE A MOTION?
SENATOR LAIRD MOVES THE BILL,
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD. ALL
RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
SENATOR BECKER, I APPRECIATE
THAT AGAIN. I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS, FROM THE OPPOSITION.
THIS IS RAPIDLY EVOLVING.
OBVIOUSLY A GREAT DEAL OF
INTEREST, AND I THINK WE'RE ON
THE RIGHT TRACK AND LOOK FORWARD
TO KEEP MOVING THIS FORWARD AND
KEEP DISCUSSIONS GOING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR BECKER,
FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THEM. SOUNDS LIKE
THAT, THAT THIS IS STILL A WORK
IN PROGRESS. SO ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU'D CALL THE
ROLL, THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO, SB 942. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE SENATE GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATION UMBERG UMBERG I
WILK NÓ WILK NØ ALLEN ASHBY
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I DURAZO
DURAZO I LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH.
NILO I NILO I. STERN. STERN I
WAHAB. WAHAB I 7 TO 1 SEVEN ONE.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PUT THAT BACK
ON CALL. NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER
THREE, SB 1223. AND THEN AFTER
THAT WILL BE ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB
1066. I SEE SENATOR BLACKSHEAR
IS HERE. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR
BECKER. GREAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR
MEMBERS AGAIN, NOW WE'RE MOVING
FROM A TOPIC THAT HAS A LOT OF,
AWARENESS, I THINK, AND A LOT OF
FOCUS TO ONE THAT MAYBE PEOPLE
AREN'T FOCUSED ON YET, BUT IT'S
A, I THINK, AS YOU'LL HEAR,
ESPECIALLY FROM OUR WITNESSES,
WHO ARE SOME OF THE TOP
NEUROSCIENTISTS IN THE COUNTRY,
THIS IS A REAL AND GROWING ISSUE
AND AN IMPORTANT ONE TO GET IN
FRONT OF. THIS IS SB 1223, THE
CALIFORNIA NEURO RIGHTS ACT, A
BILL THAT AMENDS THE CALIFORNIA
CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT TO ENHANCE
PROTECTION FOR CALIFORNIA'S
NEURAL DATA. NOW YOU MAY HAVE
HEARD THAT NEURALINK IS A
COMPANY THAT ELON MUSK
CO-FOUNDED RECENTLY MADE
HEADLINES FOR IMPLANTING A CHIP
CALLED TELEPATHY IN A PERSON'S
BRAIN, FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T HEAR
THIS CHIP READ SIGNALS FROM A
PARALYZED PATIENT'S BRAIN AND
TRANSMITS THEM TO A COMPUTER,
ENABLING CONTROL OF THE COMPUTER
FROM A USER'S THOUGHTS. INVASIVE
DEVICES LIKE THIS, LIKE
TELEPATHY, ARE CLASSIFIED AS
MEDICAL PRODUCTS, AND THEY ARE
SUBJECT TO ROBUST DATA PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS UNDER HIPAA AND THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL INFORMATION
ACT. HOWEVER, THERE'S ALSO A
GROWING CLASS AS WE'LL HEAR OF
NONINVASIVE NEURO TECH PRODUCTS.
LIKE THEIR MEDICAL COUNTERPARTS.
THESE NONINVASIVE DEVICES RECORD
BRAIN DATA USING EEG SENSORS.
BUT AS THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED
MEDICAL DEVICES, THEY'RE NOT
FEDERALLY REGULATED AND ALLOWING
COMPANIES TO COLLECT AND SELL
USER DATA. THIS UNREGULATED,
UNREGULATED COLLECTION OF NEURAL
DATA, I BELIEVE, I HOPE YOU
AGREE WITH ME, RAISES PRIVACY
CONCERNS. COMPANIES COULD
COMPILE MASSIVE DATABASES OF
BRAIN SCANS, POTENTIALLY
REVEALING PRIVATE MEDICAL
INFORMATION WITHOUT CONSENT, OR
EVEN IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS
WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. THE
CCPA PROTECTS SENSITIVE PERSONAL
INFORMATION LIKE SOCIAL
SECURITY, FINANCIAL DATA,
BIOMETRICS, BUT IT DOESN'T COVER
THIS. A NEW EMERGING AREA OF
NEURAL DATA. THIS GAP LEAVES
INDIVIDUALS VULNERABLE. AGAIN,
THIS THIS DATA CAN REVEAL
INTIMATE DATA ABOUT DETAILS
ABOUT THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS,
INTENTIONS, THIS BILL ADDRESSES
THESE CONCERNS BY DEFINING
NEURAL DATA AND NEURAL
TECHNOLOGY, CLASSIFYING NEURAL
DATA AS SENSITIVE PERSONAL
INFORMATION, AND EXTENDING THE
CCPA PROTECTIONS TO NEURAL DATA.
REGULATING THIS EMERGING FIELD.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO
GET IN FRONT OF THIS IS CRUCIAL
TO ENSURE ETHICAL USE, PROTECT
PRIVACY ESTABLISHED STANDARDS,
AND ADDRESS FUTURE CONCERNS.
WITH ME AGAIN, I HAVE, PROFESSOR
RAPHAEL GIUSTI, WHO'S A FOUNDER
OF THE NEURO RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING
EXPERTS IN AND LEADING
NEUROSCIENTISTS, AND JARED
GENSER, WHO'S THE INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY, ON THE
BOARD OF THE NEURO RIGHTS
FOUNDATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. SENATOR, FIRST WITNESS,
PLEASE. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR.
WILKS, SENATOR BECKER. SENATORS
AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. MY NAME IS
RAPHAEL èC. I'M AN MD, PHD. I'M
A MEDIC. WENT INTO BASIC
RESEARCH BECAUSE WE CANNOT, CURE
BRAIN DISEASES UNTIL WE
UNDERSTAND HOW THE BRAIN WORKS,
AND THE WAY WE DO THIS IS
THROUGH NEUROTECHNOLOGY, WHICH
ARE. SOUNDS VERY COMPLICATED.
IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THERE
ARE DEVICES THAT COULD BE
ELECTRICAL, OPTICAL, MAGNETIC,
ACOUSTIC, ALL TO DO TWO THINGS
TO EITHER RECORD THE ACTIVITY OF
THE BRAIN OR TO CHANGE THE
ACTIVITY OF THE BRAIN. THAT'S
THE CUTTING EDGE OF
NEUROSCIENCE. AND JUST ABOUT TEN
YEARS AGO, I HAD AN OPEN HYMER
MOMENT. WE WORK WITH MICE IN THE
LAB DEVELOPING NEUROTECHNOLOGY,
AND WE WERE ABLE TO DECODE WHAT
A MOUSE WAS LOOKING AT AND
MANIPULATE IT. SO WE MADE THE
MOUSE THINK HE WAS LOOKING AT
THINGS THAT WERE IN THERE. WE
TOOK OVER CONTROL OF HIS
PERCEPTION AND THAT FOR ME WAS
AN OPPENHEIMER MOMENT. BECAUSE
WHAT WE CAN DO IN A MOUSE TODAY,
WE CAN DO IN A HUMAN TOMORROW.
AND AT THAT POINT, I TEAM UP
WITH, WITH HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER,
JARED GENSER. AND WE CREATED
THIS FOUNDATION, AND I'VE
DEVOTED A LOT OF MY TIME IN PRO
BONO FASHION WITHOUT GETTING
PAID TO, TO ALERT PEOPLE TO
ADVOCATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
BRAIN DATA. AND BECAUSE THE
BRAIN IS NOT JUST ANOTHER ORGAN
OF THE BODY, IT'S THE ORGAN THAT
GENERATES ALL OF YOUR MENTAL AND
COGNITIVE ACTIVITIES, YOUR
THOUGHTS, YOUR EMOTIONS, YOUR
MEMORIES, YOUR IMAGINATION.
EVERYTHING COMES FROM THERE. SO
YOU CAN READ AND WRITE
INFORMATION OF THE BRAIN INTO
THE BRAIN. YOU CAN DECODE AND
MANIPULATE MENTAL ACTIVITY, THIS
IS NOT SCIENCE FICTION, ONE OF
THE LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL OF SENATOR BECKER IS FROM
ONE OF YOUR OWN EXPERTS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, PROFESSOR EDDIE
CHANG. HE'S PROBABLY THE WORLD'S
EXPERT AT DECODING BRAIN
ACTIVITY FROM PATIENTS. SO YOU
MAY HAVE READ ABOUT HIM IN THE
NEWSPAPER, AND HE CALLED ME UP A
YEAR AGO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
NIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO
DECODE THE LANGUAGE AND THE
EMOTIONS AND THE FACIAL GESTURES
OF A PARALYZED WOMAN. AND HE
COULDN'T SLEEP BECAUSE OF THE
IMPLICATION THAT THAT HAS THEY
ESSENTIALLY CLONED THE WOMAN IN
A DIGITAL AVATAR. AND THIS IS
FANTASTIC FOR SCIENCE AND
MEDICINE. BUT OF COURSE, THIS
HAS TO BE THANK YOU, DOCTOR
PROTECTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SORRY GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN WILK AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR HAVING ME. MY NAME IS
JARED GENSLER. I'M AN
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
LAWYER. I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE,
AS SENATOR BECKER SAID, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF SB
1223, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT
IMPLANTABLE BRAIN COMPUTER
INTERFACES, WHAT HAPPENS IN A
MEDICAL CONTEXT BECAUSE THEY'RE
ALREADY HEAVILY, HEAVILY
REGULATED AS MEDICAL DEVICES.
WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT CONSUMER
NEUROTECHNOLOGIES, AND TODAY,
CONSUMER NEUROTECHNOLOGIES ARE
USING MEDICAL GRADE EEG
SCANNERS, PRIMARILY. RIGHT? IF
IT WAS IN A MEDICAL CONTEXT, YOU
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HAD A LICENSE
FROM THE FDA. BUT THE VERY SAME
KIND OF SCANNER CAN BE USED IN A
CONSUMER CONTEXT WITH NO LICENSE
AT ALL. AND UNLIKE IN A MEDICAL
CONTEXT WHERE ALL OF THE HEALTH
DATA IS HEAVILY PROTECTED UNDER
HIPAA AND STATE PRIVACY LAWS,
THERE ARE LITERALLY NO
PROTECTIONS AT ALL FOR NEURAL
DATA THAT IS GATHERED IN,
CONSUMER DEVICES. THESE CONSUMER
DEVICES, 30 OF THEM THAT WE
FOUND ONLINE THAT COULD BE
PURCHASED TODAY, DO ALL
DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS,
HELPING YOU WITH MEDITATION,
HELPING YOU WITH YOUR SLEEP. YOU
CAN FLY A HELICOPTER DRONE USING
YOUR THOUGHTS AS A GAME, ALL
DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS. BUT
THESE ARE DEVICES BECAUSE THEY
ARE MEDICAL GRADE THAT ARE
DOWNLOADING FROM GIGABYTES TO
TERABYTES OF YOUR BRAIN DATA.
THEY NEED TYPICALLY 1% OR LESS
OF THAT DATA TO DECODE FOR THEIR
NARROW PURPOSE. BUT ALL OF THIS
OTHER DATA IS BEING GATHERED.
NOW, YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL,
SHOULDN'T THE CCPA PROTECT THIS
KIND OF DATA? I MEAN, GOSH, IT'S
MEDICAL GRADE NEURAL DATA, BUT
ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T. AND THE
REASON IT DOESN'T IS BECAUSE IF
YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF
PERSONAL INFORMATION AND WHAT'S
PROTECTED UNDER THE CCPA, THE
CCPA PROTECTS BIOMETRIC DATA.
BUT NEURAL DATA IS NOT
BIOMETRIC. IT'S NOT CAPTURED
FROM OUTSIDE YOUR BODY TO
IDENTIFY YOU. IT'S NOT
BIOLOGICAL DATA EITHER, BECAUSE
IN FACT, IT'S ELECTRICAL. MY
COLLEAGUE COULD SPEAK MORE ABOUT
THAT IF YOU WANTED TO KNOW. BUT
IN 2018, WHEN YOU ADOPTED THE
CCPA, THERE WERE VERY FEW OF
THESE DEVICES AVAILABLE. SO
NOBODY WAS THINKING ABOUT IT AND
NOBODY WOULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT
THERE WOULD BE THIS MASSIVE
UNINTENTIONAL LOOPHOLE IN THE
CCPA THAT BECAUSE NEURAL DATA IS
NOT BIOMETRIC OR BIOLOGICAL, IT
JUST SIMPLY ISN'T COVERED UNDER
ANY OF THE CATEGORIES OF
PROTECTION. WHICH MEANS THAT
TODAY, ANY OF THESE 30 COMPANIES
THAT ARE OUT THERE AND WE'RE
ABOUT TO PUBLISH A REPORT
ACTUALLY TOMORROW, THAT'S VERY,
VERY DETAILED, LOOKING AT THE
PRIVACY AGREEMENTS OF THESE
COMPANIES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU'VE APPROPRIATELY SCARED ALL
OF US. SO, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S TURN NOW. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1223, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT. IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1223, PLEASE APPROACH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, DYLAN HOFFMAN ON BEHALF
OF TECHNET, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED TO SB 1223, OUR
MEMBERS PLACE A VERY HIGH
PRIORITY ON CONSUMER PRIVACY AND
ARE FULLY COMMITTED TO SECURING
PRIVACY AND SECURITY FOR THE
CONSUMERS, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT
THESE LAWS NEED TO ADAPT TO
CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES, AS WE'VE
JUST HEARD, AND HAVE NO ISSUE
WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE
GREATER PROTECTIONS FOR DEVICES
THAT HAVE DIRECT CONNECTIONS OR
THAT MEASURE BRAINWAVES, WE HAVE
A CONCERN ABOUT THE BREADTH OF
TECHNOLOGIES THAT COULD BE
INCLUDED UNDER THESE CURRENT
DEFINITIONS. WE'VE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS THAT WE THINK ARE
APPROPRIATELY TAILOR THEM TO THE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT DIRECTLY
MEASURE BRAIN ACTIVITY, THIS
STEMS SORT OF FROM THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE THAT THEY
INCLUDE REFERENCES TO THE
PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. WE
THINK THIS COULD INCLUDE,
TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS MONITORING
MOVEMENTS OF A COMPUTER MOUSE OR
OF DROWSY DRIVING MONITORS AND
CARS, SO LIKE I MENTIONED, WE'VE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS THAT I
THINK MAINTAIN THE BILL'S FOCUS
ON THE RISKIEST KINDS OF
INFORMATION, WHILE STILL WITHOUT
UNINTENTIONALLY IMPACTING SOME
OF THESE LOW RISK USES, AND FOR
THIS REASON, WE THINK THAT, YOU
KNOW, BEING OVERINCLUSIVE
ACTUALLY DOESN'T BENEFIT
CONSUMERS IN THIS WAY BECAUSE IT
WILL LIKELY RESULT IN MORE
INFORMATION BEING CLASSIFIED AS
NEURAL DATA, STUFF THAT ISN'T
ACTUALLY MEASURING YOUR
BRAINWAVES, CAUSING CONSUMERS
WHO RECEIVE SUCH A NOTICE, FOR
EXAMPLE, THEIR WEARABLE OR THEIR
WATCH, TO BELIEVE THAT MUCH MORE
SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS BEING
GATHERED THAN IT IS. WE'RE VERY
MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS
TO TRY TO, NARROW THOSE
DEFINITIONS AND TAILOR THAT
APPROPRIATELY. AND, BUT AT THIS
TIME RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. HOFFMAN. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON
AGAIN, MR. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR
MEMBERS, ROB MURRAY, CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, OPPOSED FOR
THE SAME TECHNICAL REASONS AS
STATED BY TECNA. THANK YOU.
PARTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO A FRIGHTENED COMMITTEE. FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR WAHAB HAS MOVED
THE BILL. QUESTIONS YES. SENATOR
CABALLERO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. AND I APPRECIATE THE
TESTIMONY HERE TODAY. I HAD A
TOTALLY DIFFERENT THOUGHT IN MY
MIND ABOUT WHAT WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE INFORMATION, THIS BILL HAS
BEEN IN PRINT SINCE
MID-FEBRUARY. HAVE YOU HAD
OUTREACH FROM ANY OF THE
OPPOSITION IN REGARDS TO
AMENDMENTS THAT MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE? YEAH I THINK LAST
WEEK WE GOT SOME AMENDMENTS AND,
WE'LL GOING THROUGH THEM. AND
AGAIN, I THINK I'D SAY AS WITH
THE PREVIOUS BILL, YOU KNOW, OUR
INTENTION IS NOT TO STIFLE THIS
TECHNOLOGY. CERTAINLY. OBVIOUSLY
THERE ARE VERY POSITIVE, MEDICAL
BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, TO IT, SO WE
WILL VERY MUCH WORK WITH THEM.
AND AGAIN, I THINK, YOU KNOW,
TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF
THE BILL WHILE STILL BEING
NARROW AND NOT STIFLING
TECHNOLOGY. BUT WE'RE STILL I'D
SAY WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH
THEM. OKAY. BECAUSE I, I, I DID
NOT SEE ANY AMENDMENTS. AND I'M
CONCERNED THAT AS IT GOES
THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT YOU'RE
CONTACTED EARLY ENOUGH TO BE
ABLE TO TAKE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
MAKE SENSE SO THAT WE CAN
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THIS IS A NEW AREA FOR US. YEAH.
AND SO ANY TIME THAT WE DEAL
WITH A NEW AREA, THAT IS
TECHNICAL AND COMPLICATED, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT
RIGHT. I KNOW YOU WORK VERY HARD
AT TRYING TO FIND THE MIDDLE
GROUND, AND SO I APPRECIATE
THAT. BUT I ALSO WANT TO
ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNICATION SO
THAT WE CAN SO THAT WE CAN LOOK
AT IT. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT
TILL IT GETS OVER TO THE
ASSEMBLY. AND WE, THE SENATE
HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CONSIDER
IT AS WELL. SO YEAH, APPRECIATE
YOUR, YOUR WORKING YOUR YOUR
COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE WORKING
ON THIS OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MADAM
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR, SENATOR STERN, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. A BRAVE NEW
WORLD. APPRECIATE YOU FORCING US
TO RECOGNIZE WE LIVE IN IT
ALREADY. I WOULD JUST MY
COMMENT. HAS THE BILL BEEN MOVED
, SENATOR? OKAY, SO BILLS MOVE.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING JUST TO KEEP
US INFORMED, I FEAR OVER OVER
NARROWING OF THE DEFINITION AS
YOU MOVE FORWARD. IN THE
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS, THEY SAY
THIS BILL SHOULD ONLY BE ABOUT,
TECHNOLOGY THAT REVEALS
SOMEONE'S INNER THOUGHTS AND
MENTAL PROCESSES THAT THAT'S THE
SOLE SORT OF NARROW SCOPE OF THE
BILL. I WORRY THAT JUST YOUR
INNERMOST THOUGHTS IS ACTUALLY
THAT'S TOO NARROW, RIGHT? THAT
THAT THERE'S THAT IT'S ALL THAT
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE THE
DATA. YOU DEFINE IT, THAT
ELECTRICAL DATA THAT'S COMING
THAT THAT THAT CAN COME FROM THE
BRAIN, THAT CAN ALSO BE DETECTED
IN THE REST OF THE NERVOUS
SYSTEM. I MEAN, THAT THAT SORT
OF I DON'T THINK A CONSUMER IS
GOING TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THIS, MY INNERMOST
THOUGHT, OR IS THIS JUST GENERIC
BRAINWAVE DATA? AND WHAT WE'VE
HEARD IS I THINK THE ALGORITHM,
THE AI DOESN'T NEED IT JUST
NEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF ANY OF
THAT DATA TO THEN DO THE SORT OF
REVERSE ENGINEERING THAT THAT
GETS SCARY. SO THAT WOULD JUST
BE A REQUEST OR A COMMENT GOING
FORWARD TO BE HYPER VIGILANT NOW
AND THEN WE CAN SORT OF WORK
THROUGH THE ISSUES AS THEY
RESOLVE. SO THANKS. I APPRECIATE
THAT, MR. CHAIR. WOULD IT BE
APPROPRIATE, COULD I HAVE MY
WITNESSES SINCE IT IS A NEW AREA
FOR ALL OF US? COULD I ASK HIM
TO ADDRESS THAT FROM THE SENSE
OF THE, THE NARROWING VERSUS
BROADER DEFINITION? SURE. WHY
DON'T WE TAKE THE COMMENTS AND
THEN WE'LL SEE. WE'LL HAVE A
WRAP UP FROM ONE OF THE
WITNESSES. OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS SEEING NO OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. OKAY,
FINE. SENATOR BECKER, YES, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AND I HOPE
I'M SURE SENATOR BECKER CAN GET
TO ALL OF YOU. WE PROVIDED AN
EIGHT PAGE RESPONSE TO THEIR
LETTER AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
IN DETAIL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
THEY JUST SIMPLY DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY. I'M
NOT AWARE OF ANY MEDICAL
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO
WROTE THEIR LETTER, BUT WE HAVE
ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING
EXPERTS HERE IN SHORT, NONE OF
THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT WOULD BE
POSSIBLE UNDER THE DEFINITION
THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR
NEUROTECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS THAT
IT HAS TO BE A TECHNOLOGY THAT
CONNECTS DIRECTLY TO THE CENTRAL
OR PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM,
AND IT CAN ONLY BE PROCESSED BY
THE USE OF A NEUROTECHNOLOGY
DEVICE. THAT DATA CAN ONLY BE
PROCESSED IN THAT WAY. SO IF
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PERSON
WHO'S FALLING ASLEEP WITH A
VIDEO MONITOR POINTED AT THEM
DRIVING A CAR, IT'S NOT
CONNECTED TO THE NERVOUS SYSTEM
IN ANY WAY, AND IT CAN'T BE
PROCESSED BY A NEURO
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICE. SO WE'VE
INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED IN THE
LANGUAGE ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT
THEY'VE RAISED. A SPECIFIC
CONCERN. AND DOCTOR èC COULD
SPEAK FURTHER IF YOU WANTED,
ABOUT THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS
SYSTEM. BUT QUITE CLEARLY, I
THINK, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HOPE
THAT THEY'D TAKE A CLOSER LOOK
AT THE LETTER AND WE CAN PROVIDE
THE LETTER TO ALL OF YOU. RIGHT.
UNLESS SENATOR STERN WANTS MORE
INFORMATION, I THINK WE'RE OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO SENATOR STERN
ASKED FOR A LETTER. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR BECKER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? WELL, THANK YOU. I
COULD SEE THE EXPRESSIONS ON
SOME OF THE FACES AS AS THIS WAS
WHEN I FIRST STARTED LEARNING
ABOUT THIS. IT IS. IT'S EVEN
REPRESENTING SILICON VALLEY.
THIS IS CERTAINLY BRAVE, BRAVE
NEW WORLD STUFF. BUT AS WE'VE
HEARD, IT IS IT IS HERE. AND I
APPRECIATE YOU ALL, INDULGING
THE CONVERSATION, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR WAHAB
. MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU'D CALL
THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER THREE, SB 1223. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG I UMBERG I
WILK. HE WANTS YOU JUST TO. HE'S
THINKING IT RIGHT NOW. HI. I
GUESS I GUESS WE'RE NOT THERE
YET, RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. WILK I
ALLEN ALLEN I ASHBY ASHBY I
CABALLERO CABALLERO I DURAZZO
RUSSO I LAIRD LAIRD I MINH NILO
NILO I STERN A STERN I WAHAB
WAHAB I YOU HAVE 10 TO 0. TEN
ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT ON
CALL. ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS SENATOR
BLAKESLEE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BECKER. NEXT. SENATOR BLAKESLEE,
THEN SENATOR BRADFORD, THEN
SENATOR EGGMAN. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR BLAKE, SPIRIT ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1066. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. THIS IS A MUCH LOWER TECH
ISSUE THAT WE'RE JUST
DESCRIBING. NEXT DO I HAVE
PERMISSION TO SHOW A PICTURE OF
A PYROTECHNIC MARINE FLARE BOX
OF THEM? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SO THIS IS WHAT I'LL BE TALKING
ABOUT, FIRST I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE AND THE
SPONSORS ON AMENDMENTS. WE
GLADLY ACCEPT THEM. SB 1066 IS A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE TO ENSURE
THE SAFE DISPOSAL OF THESE
PYROTECHNIC MARINE FLARES. THE
US COAST GUARD REQUIRES THAT
VESSELS THAT ARE LONGER THAN
16FT AND ARE OPERATING ON OCEANS
CARRY APPROVED VISUAL DISTRESS
SIGNALS FOR USE IN EMERGENCIES.
MOST OFTEN, BOATERS CARRY THREE
PYROTECHNIC FLARES THAT ARE
APPROVED FOR BOTH DAY AND
NIGHTTIME USE. THERE ARE SEVERAL
BRANDS OF BATTERY POWERED
ALTERNATIVES, BUT SOME VOTERS
PREFER THE FLARES DUE TO THEIR
INCREASED VISIBILITY DURING THE
DAY. THESE FLARES EXPIRE 42
MONTHS AFTER MANUFACTURE,
MEANING THEY NO LONGER SATISFY
COAST GUARD REQUIREMENTS. UNUSED
EXPIRED MARINE FLARES CANNOT BE
DISPOSED OF IN THE REGULAR TRASH
OR THE RECYCLING. THEY ARE
EXPLOSIVES AND THEY MUST BE
TAKEN TO A FACILITY PERMITTED TO
ACCEPT EXPLOSIVES. FLARES ALSO
CONTAIN CHEMICALS THAT CAUSE
POLLUTION AND HARM TO HUMAN
HEALTH. THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION
OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS
ESTIMATES 174,000 FLARES EXPIRE
IN THE STATE EACH YEAR, AND THE
PROBLEM IS THAT NEARLY ALL
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITIES REFUSE TO ACCEPT
THEM. IN FACT, ALAMEDA COUNTY IS
THE ONLY COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA
THAT WE FOUND THAT COULD
ACTUALLY ACTIVELY ACCEPT FLARE
FLARES AND EVEN THEY LACK THE
PERMITS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY
DISPOSE OF THEM AS FAR AS WE
KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE FACILITY
IN THE COUNTRY THAT CURRENTLY
ACCEPTS FLARES FOR DISPOSAL, AND
IT IS OVER 1500 MILES AWAY IN
MISSOURI. WITHOUT VIABLE
OPTIONS, BOATERS HAVE REPORTED
STORING THEM ON THEIR BOAT,
SHOOTING THEM INTO THE AIR OR
DUMPING THEM INTO THE OCEAN.
STOCKPILED FLARES ARE A FIRE
HAZARD. SHOOTING A DISTRESS
SIGNAL OUTSIDE OF AN EMERGENCY
IS A FEDERAL FELONY DUMPING
UNUSED FLARES CAN LEACH TOXIC
METALS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS INTO
THE WATER. EXPIRED FLARES CAN
END UP IN THE TRASH OR LEFT IN
FRONT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BUILDINGS. JUST AS THIS BOX WAS
DONE, LIKE FIRE AND POLICE
STATION ÓRDENES. THIS RESULTS IN
HIGH COSTS BORNE BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AS THEY THEN BECOME
RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING PROPER
DISPOSAL. THESE COSTS ARE
SOCIALIZED ONTO LOCAL TAXPAYERS
INSTEAD OF THE BOATERS WHO USE
THEM. WE ARE ACTIVELY
COLLABORATING WITH ORION
SIGNALS, THE PRIMARY PRODUCER OF
MARINE FLARES AND THE
RECREATIONAL BOATERS
ASSOCIATION, TO ENSURE THE COSTS
ARE NOT SO HIGH THAT BOATERS
STOP CARRYING THESE EMERGENCY
SAFETY DEVICES. SB 1066 WILL PUT
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNDING
AND OPERATING A CONVENIENT TAKE
BACK SYSTEM ONTO THE PRODUCERS,
WITH OVERSIGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL. SB
1066 IS SPONSORED, IS SUPPORTED
BY A BROAD COALITION OF
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, PARK DISTRICTS,
TEAMSTERS, CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS,
INDIVIDUAL FIRE DISTRICT CGRTS,
WASTE HAULERS, HARBOR DISTRICTS,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS. WITH ME
TODAY, I'M VERY HAPPY TO HAVE
JORDAN WELLS ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP ACTION
COUNCIL, AS A CO-SPONSOR OF THIS
BILL, AND JOHN KENNEDY, ON
BEHALF OF THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
IF I MAY INVITE THEM TO COME TO
THE MICROPHONE. CERTAINLY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BLAKE. SPEAR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, WE GREATLY APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK ON THIS
BILL AND THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. I AM JORDAN WELLS
WITH THE NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP
ACTION COUNCIL, A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES FOR
AN EQUITABLE CIRCULAR ECONOMY.
WE ARE PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR SB
1066 WITH ZERO WASTE SONOMA,
WHICH WILL SOLVE THE MARINE
FLARE WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPACTING OUR
CITIES AND COUNTIES, ESPECIALLY
THOSE LOCATED ON CALIFORNIA'S
COAST. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS
THE STATE ARE HAVING TO TURN
AWAY RESIDENTS WITH UNWANTED
MARINE FLARES, LEAVING THEM WITH
NO SOLUTION. TÍNH DESPERATE FOR
SOLUTIONS THEY ACQUIRED OVER A
QUARTER OF $1 MILLION IN
CALIFORNIA STATE GRANT FUNDING
FOR MARINE FLARE DISPOSAL PILOT
PROJECTS, WHICH HAVE INCLUDED
TEMPORARY COLLECTION EVENTS. WE
OBTAINED THE DATA FROM THESE
GRANT PROJECTS, AS WELL AS OTHER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND HAVE
FOUND THE COST TO MANAGE THESE
EXPLOSIVES VARIES WIDELY, BUT AS
LOW AS $10.55 FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY
, A STATEWIDE PROGRAM WILL
RESULT IN GREATER EFFICIENCIES
OF SCALE AND SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCE TRANSPORTATION AND
THEREBY OVERALL COSTS THAT CAN'T
BE REALIZED WITH SILOED PROGRAMS
AND EVENTS. WE HAVE HAD TWO
MEETINGS WITH ORION AND THE
RECREATIONAL BOATERS OF
CALIFORNIA, AND HAVE BEEN
PROVIDING THE DATA WE'VE
COLLECTED AND ARE EAGER TO WORK
WITH THEM TO CREATE THE MOST
COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION AND
SYSTEM POSSIBLE. SB 1066 WILL
NOT RESTRICT BOATERS CHOICES, AS
WE ARE NOT BANNING THE FLARES.
BOATERS WILL STILL BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE FLARES. HOWEVER THE
COST OF DISPOSAL WILL NO LONGER
BE PAID FOR BY ALL RATEPAYERS,
WHETHER THEY OWN A BOAT OR A
BOAT OR NOT. SB 1066 FOLLOWS
CALIFORNIA'S 16 YEAR HISTORY OF
SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
END OF LIFE MANAGEMENT OF
PRODUCT WASTE TO PRODUCERS TO
ENSURE THESE COSTS ARE NO LONGER
INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, JOHN KENNEDY WITH
CRC. THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
WE REPRESENT 40 COUNTIES OF THE
STATE'S 58 COUNTIES. SONOMA
BEING OUR LARGEST MEMBER, FIRST
OFF, WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE
AND THE LIFE SAVING VALUE OF
MARINE FLARES. BUT WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT SB 1066, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT,
INCLUDING MANAGEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. WE RUN A
COLLECTION FACILITIES, BOTH
PERMANENT FACILITIES AND
TEMPORARY EVENTS. AS YOU'VE
HEARD, MARINE FLARES ARE VERY
DIFFICULT FOR US TO MANAGE AND
COSTLY IN OUR EXPERIENCE WITH
SOME OF OUR MEMBERS, IT'S BEEN
ABOUT $43 A FLARE. AGAIN, MANY
TIMES THE COST IT COSTS A
CONSUMER TO BUY THESE AT THE
POINT OF SALE, WE SEE THESE COME
INTO OUR FACILITIES. SOMETIMES
PEOPLE TRY TO BRING THEM BY,
SOMETIMES THEY WILL COME THROUGH
AND LOAD CHECK PROGRAMS WHERE
THEY JUST GET THROWN IN THE
TRASH, WE HAVE A REALLY
DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE AS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IF WE TURN
THEM AWAY FROM OUR FACILITIES,
THERE'S A PRETTY STRONG CHANCE
THAT SOMEONE'S GOING TO DUMP
THEM ILLEGALLY ON THE SIDE OF A
ROAD OR SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE WE
WILL HAVE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF
THOSE AND THEN MANAGE THEM
REGARDLESS. AND AS I SAID,
THEY'RE DIFFICULT. THEY'RE
COSTLY TO MANAGE. SO, WE SUPPORT
1066 BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EPR PROGRAM,
THE PRODUCERS BRING THESE MARINE
FLARES INTO THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE FOR VERY VALID
PURPOSES, BUT THEY'RE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE END OF LIFE
MANAGEMENT COSTS OR CHALLENGES
OF DISPOSAL. A PRO WILL BE ABLE
TO COORDINATE AND FACILITATE THE
COLLECTION OF EVENTS ACROSS THE
STATE, OFFER SAFE AND CONVENIENT
DISPOSAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
BOATERS AND FOR OTHERS, AND IT
WILL REDUCE COSTS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND OUR HWT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE'RE VERY
PLEASED TO SUPPORT. 1066 THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS WHO WISH TO TESTIFY
PROVIDE THEIR NAME, THEIR
AFFILIATION AND THEIR POSITION.
MICHELLE RUBALCAVA WITH NIELSEN
MERKSAMER ON BEHALF OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MATT BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF
THE TEAMSTERS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MELISSA SPARKS
KRANZ WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, KIRA
ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF
TRUCKEE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. LINDSAY GOLDEN
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA. AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU, DAVID
KRIEGER, FOR WASTE, CONNECTIONS
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, KAYLA ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF
RETHINK WASTE AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU PRISCILLA. KUDOS
HERE ON BEHALF OF A FEW CLIENTS.
STOP WASTE WESTERN PLACER WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, SOLID
WASTE ASSOCIATION OF NORTH
AMERICA LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE,
ALL IN SUPPORT AND THEN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WERE IN
SUPPORT AND CONCEPT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. JOSH GEIGER ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RYAN.
ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHRIS
GROGAN, ON BEHALF OF REPUBLIC
SERVICES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
DOUG, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ALL RIGHT. SORRY,
I HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS. SO THE
NORTH AMERICAN HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
, ZERO WASTE SONOMA, OUR
CO-SPONSOR SIRIUS SIGNAL SAVE
OUR SHORES, CLEAN WATER ACTION,
MARIN SANITARY SERVICE BANNED
SINGLE USE PLASTICS. NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION
SEA HUGGER, ZERO WASTE USA, THE
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS AND NAPA
RECYCLING AND WASTE SERVICES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR
LUIS SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WASTE HAULERS COUNCIL
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1066,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND MEMBERS. JIM LITES, ON
BEHALF OF ORION SAFETY PRODUCTS,
WE APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT
WE'VE HAD WITH THE AUTHOR AND
THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL TO THIS
POINT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS. I THINK
OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE SCOPE
OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM. AS YOUR
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT, TOTAL SALES
FOR 2023 OF THE LARGEST PRODUCER
OF MARINE FLARES WERE ONLY
$465,000. PRESUMABLY, THE PRICE
OF THE PRODUCT WILL HAVE TO GO
UP TO FUND THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM,
AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW
MUCH THAT INCREASE MAY BE TO
FUND THIS PROGRAM, NOT ALL
FLARES ARE CREATED EQUAL,
HANDHELD FLARES ARE EASIER TO
BURN OFF AFTER THEIR EXPIRATION
DATE THAN AERIAL FLARES. AND AND
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE PROPONENTS TO FIND A
PROGRAM THAT IS APPROPRIATE IN
SCALE AND EFFECTIVE. WE'VE ALSO
FOUND THAT ONGOING PROGRAMS,
WHEN THEY START, TEND TO HAVE A
FAIR DEGREE OF COLLECTIONS. AND
AS THEY CONTINUE, BECAUSE THE
FLARES LAST FOR AT LEAST FOUR
YEARS, THOSE COLLECTIONS TEND TO
GO DOWN, DOWN. AND SO WE THINK
PERIODIC PROGRAMS THAT MIGHT
HAVE LOWER COSTS TO THE PRODUCER
MIGHT INDEED BE MORE EFFECTIVE
IN THE LONG RUN. SO WITH THAT,
WE DO AGAIN, LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR TO FIND A SOLUTION HERE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
JERRY DESMOND WITH RECREATIONAL
BOATERS OF CALIFORNIA COMING
FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED BY THE SPONSORS AND
THE AUTHOR AND OTHERS, PUBLIC
SAFETY IS A PARAMOUNT HERE. YOU
HAVE TO HAVE THREE FLARES. IF
YOU'RE GOING OFF THE COAST IN
YOUR BOAT. AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT AS A PROGRAM IS
ESTABLISHED, IT IS NOT A
DETERRENT TO A BOATER TO
PURCHASE A NEW FLARE THAT WOULD
HAVE THE EMBEDDED COST OF AN EPR
PROGRAM. WE HAVE TO GET TO A
NUMBER THAT WORKS. AT THIS
POINT, WE'RE NOT THERE, BUT WE
ARE WORKING COLLABORATIVELY.
SOME OF THE INFORMATION WE'RE
FINDING IS VERY INTERESTING, THE
BOATERS HAVE PAID THROUGH STATE
MONIES FOR CALIFORNIA BOATING,
CLEAN AND GREEN TO PUT THESE
PROGRAMS OUT THERE, HAVE
ENCOURAGED OUR CONSTITUENTS TO
GO TO THESE PROGRAMS. AND SOME
OF THE DATA THAT'S COMING OUT IS
VERY INTERESTING. LIKE, WHAT
DOES A BOATER DO WITH HIS FLARE?
THE ALAMEDA, SURVEY THAT WAS
CONDUCTED FOUND THAT 53% OF ALL
THE 153 BOATERS ARE PARTICIPATED
HAD AN AVERAGE OF 48 FLARES
EACH. THE SAN FRANCISCO EVENT
THAT WAS HELD OF 53% OF 62
BOATERS SAID THEY KEEP THEIR
FLARES AT THEIR HOMES OR ON
THEIR BOAT AS SPARES AND
SUPPLIES. SO THERE'S A PENT UP,
INVENTORY OF FLARES THAT WILL
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL.
AND THEN WE COMPOUND IT WITH THE
FACT THAT THE COMPANY THAT
PRODUCES THE FLARES HAS ALMOST
A, YOU KNOW, IS A DOMINANT IN
CALIFORNIA. SO IF IT'S GOING TO
BE ABLE TO RAISE THE COST AND IT
WILL WHERE IS THAT IMPACT ON
BOATERS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO
THREAD THAT NEEDLE. WE'RE
INVOLVED COLLABORATIVELY WITH
THE SPONSORS AND THE SENATOR.
AND WE'RE HOPING WE CAN GET
THERE. BUT AT THIS MOMENT WE'RE
NOT THERE YET. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS, SARAH NOCITO,
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL MARINE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
THE MICROPHONE. LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE, MR. CHAIR.
YES SENATOR LEAHY, LET ME SAY
FIRST THAT I THINK THAT IT WOULD
BE GREAT IF SENATOR ALLEN'S
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
WERE ADOPTED, AND THEN I
WOULDN'T BE DOING PROCHAIN
PROPANE CANISTERS. YOU WOULDN'T
BE DOING THIS. BUT THAT HASN'T
HAPPENED YET. ON POINT, WELL,
OAN, I WAS ELECTED TO THE
ASSEMBLY. THERE WAS A HIGHWAY
SAFETY FLARE PLANT IN MORGAN
HILL THAT DID TURN OUT. HAD
RELEASED THINGS OUT THE BACK
DOOR FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS. THERE
WAS A SEVEN MILE PLUME OF
CONTAMINATED WATER WITH
PERCHLORATE. AND WHEN PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT COST, IT WAS MILLIONS
AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS. AND THERE'S ONE THAT
EXISTED IN SENATOR STEARNS
DISTRICT. AND THERE'S ONE THAT
EXISTED IN THE INLAND EMPIRE.
AND WHAT IT IT IT REQUIRED WATER
TREATMENT AT THE SURFACE, IN A
WAY THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE WORRIED
ABOUT REALLY SMALL COSTS, IT WAS
THE GOVERNMENT THAT ACTUALLY
INHERITED THE REALLY LARGE
COSTS. PEOPLE IN ONE AREA WERE
FOR YEARS DELIVERED, BOTTLED
WATER AND COULD NOT USE THE
WATER THAT WAS IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO IT IS NOT
JUST THE THESE BEING PILED UP
SOMEWHERE. IT IS NOT JUST A
SMALLER COST. IF WE DO NOT
ADDRESS THIS, IT'S A MASSIVE
COST THAT FALLS ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS IN A CLEAR WAY. AND
SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
TO REACH THE AGREEMENT. I TAKE
SERIOUSLY THE OPPOSITION'S
COMMENTS, BUT THERE'S MUCH MORE
AT STAKE IN THIS. IF THESE ARE
NOT PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. AND SO
I SALUTE YOU FOR BRINGING THE
BILL AND I WOULD MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SENATOR
LAIRD HAS MOVED THE BILL SEEING
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO. OH
I'M SORRY YOU PUT YOUR HAND UP.
I SENT IT TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW
WHY YOU'RE NOT RECEIVING IT. I
DON'T THINK WE'VE QUITE REACHED
THAT LEVEL OF. WELL, I HAVE YOU
HAVE IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M
SORRY ABOUT THAT, MR. CHAIR. I
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT,
SO I THINK. YEAH. SO I THINK
THIS IS A GREAT BILL. I THINK
THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PAYING
THE COST OF IT. AND IF THE
FLOURISH COSTS MORE, THE
FLOURISH COSTS MORE BECAUSE
IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULDN'T
PUT THOSE COSTS ON, ON OTHER
PEOPLE. AND THEN I'M SORRY, BUT
IF YOU CAN AFFORD A BOAT, I
THINK YOU CAN AFFORD FLARES. I
DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A VERY
GOOD ARGUMENT. JUST FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE. AND BUT BUT, SENATOR
LAIRD HAD A GREAT POINT. TWO
I'VE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION
WHERE WE HAD A MUNITIONS COMPANY
ON THE PLATEAU OVERLOOKING SANTA
CLARITA, WAS THERE FOR 70 YEARS,
AND ALL THEY DID WAS JUST DUMP
STUFF OUT THE BACK. IT'S BEEN 22
YEARS AND WE FINALLY JUST
CLEANED UP MOST OF IT. BUT WE
STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO FILTER
THE WATER BECAUSE OF THE
PERCHLORATE PLUME IN THE SAUGUS
AQUIFER. SO THERE'S A LOT OF
COSTS DOWN THE ROAD. IF WE DON'T
DO. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE
HAVEN'T DONE THIS SOONER. SO I
SALUTE YOU FOR DOING THIS, BILL.
HAPPY TO SUPPORT TODAY. K¾T.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
FURTHER, THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR BLAKESPEAR, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD. AND
THANK YOU, SENATOR WILK, FOR
YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS. AND ALSO
TO ALL THE SUPPORTERS WHO CAME
AND ALSO THE OPPONENTS, WE'RE
CONTINUING TO WORK TOGETHER. I
THINK THE POINT ABOUT THE
EXTERNALITIES ARE THERE SOMEBODY
IS PAYING THEM. SO THE QUESTION
IS WHO? AND ALSO WHAT ARE THE
RISKS? WE'RE TAKING BY HAVING
THOSE EXTERNALITIES? A BOAT THAT
HAS 40 FLARES ON IT, MARINE
FLARES, IF THERE IS A FIRE, THE
EXPLOSIVES THAT COULD HAPPEN ON
THAT BOAT ARE ARE REALLY
SUBSTANTIAL AND SERIOUS. THERE'S
A REASON THAT THESE DON'T GO
INTO THE RECYCLING AND THAT
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SET
OFF AND THROWN INTO THE WATER.
SO THEY ARE TOXIC. THEY ARE
EXPLOSIVES. THEY NEED TO BE
TREATED AS SUCH. AND SO THIS IS
A PROGRAM THAT WILL HOPEFULLY
HANDLE THAT. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BLAKESBERG. ALL RIGHT.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOR SB 1066. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG I UMBERG
I WILK I WILK I ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DURAZO. LAIRD. LAIRD
I MINH. NILO I NILO I. STERN A
STERN I WAHAB. WAHAB I. 9 TO 0
NINE ZERO. PUT THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT I SEE SENATOR EGGMAN.
SENATOR EGGMAN HAS TWO BILLS.
THEN WE'LL TURN TO SENATOR
BRADFORD AND THEN SENATOR
GLAZER. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR
EGGMAN, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB
1238. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SB
1238. SO LAST YEAR, MANY OF YOU
MAY REMEMBER WE PASSED SB 43,
WHICH REDEFINED WHAT IT MEANS TO
BE GRAVELY DISABLED IN
CALIFORNIA. AND WE KNEW THAT
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME
CLEANUP AFTER THAT, BECAUSE
WE'VE EXPANDED THE POPULATION,
WE ALSO KNOW WE NEED TO EXPAND
THE FACILITIES. AND SO WHAT WE
HAVE FOUND IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK
FOLKS THOUGHT WE COULDN'T GET
THIS DONE. AND SO WE WERE KIND
OF LATE GETTING SOME, TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE. AND SO NOW WE'RE
FINDING AS WE'RE TRYING TO
IMPLEMENT IT, THERE ARE, YOU
KNOW, SOME LAWS THAT YOU CAN'T
ADMIT SOMEBODY WITH A SUBSTANCE
USE ONLY DIAGNOSIS, WHICH NOW
WE'VE SAID THAT CAN BE. SO WE
NEED TO CHANGE THAT LAW. SO WHAT
THIS BILL DOES IN EFFECT IS TO
TRY TO, IN ADDITION TO, TO STILL
NEEDING MORE BEDS. WE ALL KNOW
THAT. BUT TO MAKE USE OF THE
ONES WE HAVE. SO FIRST WHAT IT
DOES IS IT AUTHORIZES
PSYCHIATRIC HEALTH FACILITIES
AND MENTAL HEALTH REHABILITATION
CENTERS TO ADMIT PATIENTS WITH
STANDALONE SUBSTANCE USE
DIAGNOSIS. AS WE AS WE MADE THE
LAW SAY. SECOND, IT EXPANDS THE
DESIGNATION IN THE DEFINITION OF
A DESIGNATED FACILITY TO INCLUDE
A SNIFF, A SOCIAL REHABILITATION
FACILITY, AS LONG AS THAT
FACILITY HAS THE APPROPRIATE
SERVICES AND STAFF. AND WE'RE
SAYING THAT THE COUNTY GETS TO
DESIGNATE THOSE. SO NO FACILITY
HAS TO BE DESIGNATED UNLESS THEY
WORK WITH THEIR COUNTY TO BECOME
DESIGNATED, BECAUSE SOME PLACES
MAY BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT,
WHEREAS OTHERS MAY NOT. SO WHAT
WE'RE SAYING IS THE COUNTY HAS
THAT ABILITY TO DECIDE WHO AND
WHO DOESN'T. AND THEN THIRD, TO
ENSURE THERE IS ADEQUATE
REIMBURSEMENT WHERE IT'S
APPROPRIATE, THE FUNDING HAS TO
BE ABLE TO FOLLOW FACILITIES
NEED TO BE ABLE TO BILL COUNTIES
NEED NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET
REIMBURSED. SO AGAIN, NOTHING IN
THIS BILL DEMANDS THAT A PUFF OR
A SNIFF PROVIDE THESE SERVICES,
BUT THAT THEY MAY BECOME A
DESIGNATED FACILITY, IF THEY
WANT. AND WE KNOW THAT EVERY
COMMUNITY HAS DIFFERENT EXISTING
POOLS OF ALREADY EXISTING
HOUSING, WE KNOW MORE NEEDS TO
BE DONE. WE THINK THIS WILL ALSO
HELP US GET OUR ARMS AROUND WHAT
COUNTIES, WHAT SOME COUNTIES MAY
LACK. AND THAT'S WHAT SOMEBODY
ELSE ASKED IN A DIFFERENT
COMMITTEE. LIKE IF MY COUNTY
DOESN'T HAVE ADEQUATE AND
EVERYTHING GETS SENT OVER HERE,
HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BUT
AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO DESIGNED
THEN TO TRY TO GET A, AN
INVENTORY, IF YOU WILL, OF WHERE
THESE ARE. SO WE DON'T HAVE ALL
THE FACILITIES WE NEED RIGHT
NOW. WE'RE CONTINUING TO BUILD
OUT. WE PASSED PROP ONE. MORE
WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, BUT OUR
LAST ROUND OF B CHIP, BUT THIS
WILL HELP FREE UP, EMERGENCY
ROOMS, GET FOLKS MOVING IN THE
SYSTEM AND GET THEM SETTLED TO A
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CARE
SOONER. WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT IS RANDALL HAGAR WITH
THE PSYCHIATRIC PHYSICIANS
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU. FLOOR IS YOURS, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, RANDALL HAGER,
REPRESENTING THE PSYCHIATRIC
PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHEN WE WERE PROUD
CO-SPONSORS OF SB 43 AND WE'RE
PROUD CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL,
WHEN WE SURVEYED OUR MEMBERS
AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE LAST
BILL, WHAT WE FOUND THAT WE
HEARD BACK UNIFORMLY FROM OUR
PSYCHIATRY CGRTS WHO ARE AROUND
THE STATE AND IN PARTICULAR
THEIR PSYCHIATRISTS, WHO ARE
ALSO MEDICAL DIRECTORS OF
FACILITIES, WAS THAT EVERYBODY
WAS VEXED BY THE ISSUE OF WHERE
DO YOU PUT SOLELY SUBSTANCE
ABUSING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
BECOME GRAVELY DISABLED? SO
THAT'S REALLY THE CRUX OF THE
PROBLEM. AND I THINK THE EASIEST
WAY THROUGH THAT IS, AS WE
LOOKED INTO THIS, WE FOUND THAT
THINGS LIKE MENTAL HEALTH
REHABILITATION CENTERS AND
PSYCHIATRIC HEALTH FACILITIES
WERE PROHIBITED BY REGULATION
FROM ACCEPTING THE SOLELY
DIAGNOSED SUD GRAVELY DISABLED
INDIVIDUAL. AND SO THE EASY WAY
TO TRY TO GET THIS PROCESS KICK
STARTED BY BY NO MEANS A FINAL
SOLUTION IS TO ALLOW COUNTIES TO
LÀ AT THEIR OPTION TO DESIGNATE
THOSE FACILITIES SO THAT THEY
CAN ACCEPT THOSE INDIVIDUALS. I
WILL SAY IN RELATION TO THAT,
THAT OUR PSYCHIATRISTS WHO ARE
IN THOSE FACILITIES ALREADY
TREAT PEOPLE FOR THEIR SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDERS. BUT THESE ARE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
CO-OCCURRING DISORDERS. SO THEY
HAVE A SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS.
THEY HAVE THE SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER ON BOARD, AND THEY'RE
RECEIVING TREATMENT FOR THAT
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER IN THE
PSYCHIATRIC HEALTH FACILITY AND
IN THE MENTAL HEALTH
REHABILITATION CENTER ALREADY.
SO WE KNOW THIS IS A CLINICALLY
SOUND WAY TO GET STARTED. WE
THINK THIS OFFER IS AN IMMEDIATE
SOLUTION, AGAIN, THE QUESTION
FROM ALL THE COUNTIES IS WHAT DO
WE DO WITH THESE FOLKS? THIS
THIS OFFERS A WAY FORWARD. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT SB 1238. THANK YOU,
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS TIM MADDEN,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, WERE
ALSO A CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL.
AND JUST TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LARGELY
WHEN FOLKS ARE PLACED ON A 5150
BY POLICE, THEY'RE BROUGHT INTO
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS, AND OUR
JOB IS TO STABILIZE THE PATIENT
AND THEN EVER EITHER RELEASE
THEM AFTER IT HAD BEEN EVALUATED
BY A DESIGNATED INDIVIDUAL, OR
TRANSFER THEM TO A FACILITY.
THEY CAN TREAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WITH. SB 43. AS SENATOR EGGMAN
OUTLINED, THERE ARE NOT
FACILITIES THAT JUST TAKE THOSE
WITH SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS.
THIS LEADS TO LONG DELAYS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE STUCK IN THE
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE
WE'LL HAVE NO PLACE TO SEND THEM
. SO WE BELIEVE SB 1238 IS A
GREAT STEP FORWARD TO ALLOW THE
COUNTIES TO DESIGNATE THOSE
FACILITIES TO TAKE THESE
PATIENTS AND HELP US MOVE THEM
TO THE CARE THAT THEY NEED. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
LEAH BARROWS, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
IN SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. BRANDON MARGIE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. RACHEL
BUTCHER WITH NIELSEN MERKSAMER
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. MOIRA,
TOP, ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO
MAYOR TODD GLORIA, AS WELL AS
THE FULL BIG CITY MAYORS
COALITION, WHICH IS THE
COALITION OF MAYORS OF THE 13
LARGEST CITIES IN THE STATE.
I'LL ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK
YOU. PRISCILLA, KUDOS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF SB 1238,
PLEASE APPROACH. SEEING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1238,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, LISA GARDNER
WITH THE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION. WE
REPRESENT THE LEADERS OF THE
PUBLIC BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SAFETY
NET AND 58 COUNTIES AND TWO
CITIES. AND WE RESPECTFULLY HAVE
AN OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION ON THIS LEGISLATION, WE
RECOGNIZE THAT SB 1238 WOULD
ULTIMATELY LEAVE IT TO COUNTIES
TO DESIGNATE THESE FACILITIES,
BUT AS MULTIPLE FOLKS ALREADY
MENTIONED, NEARLY ALL OF THESE
FACILITIES NAMED IN THIS BILL
ARE INAPPROPRIATE FROM A SAFETY
AND QUALITY OF CARE PERSPECTIVE,
AS CURRENTLY LICENSED OR
CERTIFIED, WHETHER UNALLOWABLE
BY LAW OR REGULATION, FOR
PURPOSES OF DETENTION UNDER THE
LPS ACT OR BECAUSE THEY ARE
UNLOCKED, LACK APPROPRIATE
MEDICAL STAFFING, OR ARE
INAPPROPRIATE TO SERVE CLIENTS
WHO MIGHT BE IN THE PROCESS OF
WITHDRAWAL FROM SUBSTANCE USE.
WE BELIEVE THIS BILL IS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS AN
INADEQUATE SOLUTION TO THE
FACILITIES DISCUSSIONS AND THE
CHANGES SO CRITICAL TO
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF SB
43. IN SHORT, WE SIMPLY WE
BELIEVE IT'S NOT SIMPLY
APPROPRIATE TO PLACE INDIVIDUALS
IN THESE FACILITIES WITHOUT
TAKING A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE
LEGAL, REGULATORY, STAFFING,
MEDICAL STAFFING AND SECURITY
ISSUES AROUND THESE FACILITIES,
INSTEAD, WE ARE REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT THAT DCS CONVENE A
WORKING GROUP. SO THAT WE CAN
HAVE A LARGER DISCUSSION, AND
THAT WORKING GROUP WE'RE HOPING
WOULD INCLUDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS, PROVIDERS AND
CONSUMERS TO REVIEW THESE
FACILITY TYPES AND THE KIND OF
SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY AND
FISCAL CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED,
WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE TIMELY
AND THOUGHTFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF
SB 43 AND TO CREATIVE,
THOUGHTFUL, AND WORKABLE
SOLUTIONS THAT GET THERE AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AUTHOR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
MR. MR. CHAIR, SENATOR EGGMAN,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS DEB ROTH WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS. CALIFORNIA,
WE ARE THE FEDERALLY DESIGNATED
PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM
FOR OUR STATE. AS SENATOR EGGMAN
STATED, THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO
AID, IMPLEMENT VERSION OF SB 43,
WHICH EXPANDED CIVIL COMMITMENT
CRITERIA TO INCLUDE INDIVIDUALS
WITH STANDALONE SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER. THE BILL AUTHORIZES
PLACEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WITH
SUD AND A RANGE OF FACILITIES,
INCLUDING NURSING HOMES AND
SOCIAL REHABILITATION
FACILITIES, WHICH AS, MY
COLLEAGUE AT CBGA NOTED,
FACILITIES THAT ARE NOT
APPROPRIATE OR SAFE. WE SEE
PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL BECAUSE
INVOLUNTARY SUD TREATMENT IS NOT
AS SIMPLE AS OPENING THE DOORS
OF EXISTING HOSPITALS AND OTHER
FACILITIES AND WELCOMING THE SUD
POPULATION. THÀNH. WE THINK IT'S
RISKY TO IMPLEMENT SB 43 THAT
WAY. DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT
INVOLUNTARY SUD TREATMENT, SO
IMPLEMENTATION REALLY OUGHT TO
BE DONE WITH EXTRA CARE. AND I
SAW FROM THE ANALYSIS THAT THE
SENATOR IS TAKING AN AMENDMENT
TO, ALLOW INFORMAL
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES UNTIL
THERE ARE REGULATIONS, WE'RE NOT
SURE WHAT ELSE MIGHT BE NEEDED,
FOR EXAMPLE, ALL FEDERAL
APPROVALS, WE THINK THAT WHAT
THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIRECTORS
ARE PROPOSING BY WAY OF A ROBUST
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS AN
IMPORTANT STEP UP, AND I JUST
WANTED TO SAY THAT WITH THE
POPULATION OF SUD, THE SUD
POPULATION THÀNH BEING SO MUCH
LARGER THAN THE MENTAL HEALTH
POPULATION, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT ONE STUDY FOUND THAT
INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED
INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT, YOU COULD
WRAP IT UP, PLEASE. THANK YOU
WERE MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY
TO DIE FROM AN OVERDOSE AFTER
RELEASE THAN INDIVIDUALS WHO
RECEIVED VOLUNTARY TREATMENT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY. ALL
RIGHT, OTHERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO
SB 1238, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GIVE US YOUR NAME,
YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION. HI. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
RACHEL BOGERT WITH ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE ALIGN OUR
POSITION WITH THE PREVIOUS TWO
WITNESSES. WE ARE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. OTHERS SEEING NO ONE
ELSE, APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
LET'S BRING IT BACK. COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS. SEE THE BILL. SENATOR
STERN HAS MOVED THE BILL. BY THE
WAY. SENATOR EGGMAN, YOU'VE
ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, IS THAT RIGHT? YES,
SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. YES, SENATOR CABALLERO,
VERY BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIR. I JUST
WANT TO, RECOGNIZE AND THANK
SENATOR EGGMAN FOR HER WORK ON
IN THIS AREA, THERE'S THERE HAS
BEEN A LOT OF CONTROVERSY OVER
EXACTLY HOW TO TREAT MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE I TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT
. I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD
BILL, AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
IT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATOR CABALLERO. LET ME ECHO
HER COMMENTS. SENATOR EGGMAN,
YOU HAVE BEEN A CHAMPION IN THIS
SPACE AND I THINK ALL CALIFORNIA
IS GRATEFUL FOR YOUR PASSION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, HAS BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR STERN. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH. THANK
YOU. JUST. AND I YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION. AND
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
EVERYBODY. IT IS NOT OUR
INTENTION TO PUT PEOPLE WHERE IT
IS INAPPROPRIATE. THAT IS THE
FARTHEST THING FROM WHAT I WANT
TO DO. AND AGAIN, WE'RE LEAVING
IT TO THE COUNTIES. THE COUNTIES
IN THE LAST HEARING SAID THEY
WOULD THEN FEEL PRESSURE FROM
THE PUBLIC TO, TO, TO DESIGNATE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S
TRUE. AND I THINK WE ALL FEEL
PRESSURE TO BE ABLE TO REALLY,
YOU KNOW, MOVE THE SYSTEM ALONG
IN THE MOST EXPEDIENT AND SAFE
MANNER. AND SO I ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT,
SB 1238. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
AS AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN. ALLEN I ASHBY.
ASHBY I CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
DURAZO LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH.
NHIÀU I MELO I STERN A STERN I
WAHAB. YOU HAVE 8 TO 0 EIGHT
ZERO. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT
BILL ON CALL NEXT, SENATOR
EGGMAN, SB 1491. AND THEN WE'LL
HEAR FROM SENATOR GLAZER. SB
1424. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 1491
IS DESIGNATED TO PROTECT OUR
LGBTQ PLUS AND FEMALE STUDENTS
IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION ARENA.
ALL TOO OFTEN, PEOPLE GO OFF TO
COLLEGE THINKING THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE A GREAT TIME AND THEN
RUN INTO SOME ISSUES WHILE
THEY'RE THERE, SO THIS BILL,
DOES THREE THINGS. ONE, WE ASKED
YEARS AGO, 15 YEARS AGO FOR
EVERYBODY TO HAVE AN AUTHORIZED
PERSON THAT IF SOMEONE FELT, THE
LGBT FOLKS FELT LIKE THEY WERE
BEING DISCRIMINATED, THEY COULD
GO TO SOMEBODY, THAT HAS NEVER
BEEN LIKE AN ACTUAL PERSON. NOW,
WE'VE GIVEN THEM ALL THIS TIME.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.
WE'RE ASKING THEM TO NOW
DESIGNATE ONE PERSON, MAKE SURE
THAT PERSON IS A CONFIDENTIAL
PERSON. SECONDLY, WE'RE SAYING
BEFORE ANY STUDENT GOES TO
SCHOOL, THE STUDENT AID
COMMISSION THEN WOULD, MAKE SURE
THAT THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE
THAT SCHOOL WAS EXEMPT FROM
PROVIDING THEM, PROTECTIONS FOR
LGBTQ OR ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE
THEY WERE A SMALL PRIVATE
SCHOOL, MAKING SURE THAT
EVERYBODY KNEW THAT BEFORE THEY
WENT. AND THEN, THIRD, TO
REQUIRE THE LÀ TO CONDUCT AN
ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES, THE CSUS AND THE UC
SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO QUALITY
OF LIFE AROUND THESE ISSUES.
WITH ME HERE TODAY IS CRAIG
PULFER WITH EQUALITY CALIFORNIA
AND KAVYA FROM IS A STUDENT
FROM, AND A DIRECTOR OF POLICY
FOR CHEN UP. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CRAIG PULSIPHER ON
BEHALF OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR. APPRECIATE THE
SENATORS WORK ON THIS BILL,
ACCORDING TO THE US TRANS
TRANSGENDER SURVEY, NEARLY A
QUARTER OF TRANS COLLEGE
STUDENTS REPORTED BEING
VERBALLY, PHYSICALLY, OR
SEXUALLY HARASSED WITH 16% OF
THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED HARASSMENT
HAVING LEFT COLLEGE BECAUSE THE
HARASSMENT WAS SO BAD, TRANS
STUDENTS OF COLOR WERE MORE
LIKELY TO REPORT LEAVING SCHOOL
FOR THAT REASON. IN 2016, EQCA
WAS PROUD TO SPONSOR LEGISLATION
WHICH REQUIRED COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES TO DISCLOSE IF THEY
PERMIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LGBTQ STUDENTS. SPECIFIC THE
BILL REQUIRED SCHOOLS THAT CLAIM
AN EXEMPTION UNDER EITHER TITLE
NINE OR CALIFORNIA'S EQUITY IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT TO DISCLOSE
THIS INFORMATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA STUDENT AID
COMMISSION, AS WELL AS TO BOTH
CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS
AND STAFF. UNFORTUNATELY, SOME
STUDENTS CONTINUE TO BE UNAWARE,
UNAWARE OF THESE EXEMPTIONS AND
WHAT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES
MIGHT BE IF THEIR IDENTITY DOES
NOT ALIGN WITH THEIR COLLEGE OR
UNIVERSITY'S POLICIES. TODAY, AT
LEAST NINE INSTITUTIONS ARE
EXEMPT FROM TITLE NINE, AND AT
LEAST 20 ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION ACT,
AND STUDENTS DESERVE TO KNOW
WHICH SCHOOLS HAVE A LICENSE TO
DISCRIMINATE AND IGNORE STATE
AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS
PROTECTIONS. WE APPRECIATE THE
STAFF FROM THE ASSEMBLY HIGHER
ED COMMITTEE AND SENATE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR REPORT,
WHICH INCLUDED A NUMBER OF
RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THIS
ONE, AND IT WILL BUILD ON
EXISTING LAW BY REQUIRING THE
STUDENT AID COMMISSION TO
PROVIDE A WRITTEN NOTICE TO
STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE STATE
FINANCIAL AID REGARDING WHETHER
THEIR INSTITUTION CLAIMS A
RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO STATE AND
FEDERAL NONDISCRIMINATION
PROTECTIONS. SB 1491 IS AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE TO ENSURE THAT
ALL STUDENTS, ESPECIALLY TRANS
STUDENTS WHO ARE FACING A
BARRAGE OF HATE AND VIOLENCE IN
CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, ARE AWARE OF THEIR
RIGHTS. ANY RECOURSE THEY MAY
HAVE TO ADDRESS DISCRIMINATION
AND HARASSMENT. AND I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR I VOTE
HOOPS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. MY NAME IS KAVYA
CHIDAMBARAM. I'M A FRESHMAN IN
COLLEGE AND A POLICY ORGANIZER
WITH GENERATION UP. CHEN UP IS
AN ENTIRELY STUDENT LED
ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES FOR
EDUCATIONAL EQUITY THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. I'M HONORED
TO BE HERE TODAY TO REPRESENT
CHEN UP THE STUDENTS OF
CALIFORNIA AND TESTIFY ON BEHALF
OF SENATE BILL 1491 AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF SB 1491, CHEN
SEEKS YOUR SUPPORT TODAY IN
STANDING WITH QUEER STUDENTS. WE
DESERVE TO BE RECOGNIZED,
INFORMED, AND SUPPORTED. THE
CURRENT CURRENT ED CODE LIMITS
THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL
ORIENTATION TO HETEROSEXUAL,
HOMOSEXUAL, AND BISEXUAL, BUT
QUEERNESS ESCAPES CATEGORIES. IT
IS SO MUCH MORE THAN THREE
CHECKBOXES CAN ENCOMPASS, AND
WHEN MY IDENTITY IS NOT
ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE DEFINITION,
I CANNOT EXPECT TO BE PROTECTED
BY THE POLICY. QUEER STUDENTS
DESERVE DEFINITIONS THAT REFLECT
US. ONE IN EVERY FIVE LGBTQ
STUDENTS WILL EXPERIENCE
BULLYING, HARASSMENT, OR
HARASSMENT DURING THEIR TIME IN
COLLEGE. BUT OF THOSE, ONLY A
FIFTH SAID THEIR COLLEGE HAD
CLEAR PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING
GENDER OR SEXUALITY BASED
DISCRIMINATION. DISCRIMINATED
ACTS TODAY, YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE ALL QUEER
STUDENTS RECEIVE VITAL SUPPORT,
SB 1491 WOULD ENSURE THAT
PROVIDING A CONFIDENTIAL POINT
PERSON TO BE THERE FOR QUEER
STUDENTS IS NOT A
RECOMMENDATION, BUT A
REQUIREMENT. OUR SAFETY CANNOT
BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. QUEER
STUDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE
INFORMED WHEN THEIR HIGHER
EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO GRANT THEM TITLE
NINE PROTECTIONS BY HELPING
STUDENTS UNDERSTAND WHAT
RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM,
AS WELL AS PROVIDING NECESSARY
AVENUES OF SUPPORT FOR QUEER
STUDENTS WHO ARE FACING
DISCRIMINATION. SB 1491 IS ONE
STEP IN MAKING CALIFORNIA
SCHOOLS A SAFER PLACE FOR
STUDENTS. ALL STUDENTS DESERVE A
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE
ARE RECOGNIZED AND HEARD. ALL
STUDENTS DESERVE A LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE ARE SAFE
AND SUPPORTED. ALL STUDENTS
DESERVE A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
IN WHICH WE ARE INFORMED AND
ACCOUNTED FOR. PLEASE TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY AND STAND WITH ALL
STUDENTS ON BEHALF OF GENERATION
UP, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
AYE VOTE ON SB 1491 TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
PERCIACALOS, HERE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHES THE MICROPHONE. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1491,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
SEEING NO ONE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. COMMENTS NO
QUESTIONS, NO COMMENTS, IS THERE
SOMEONE. SENATOR CABALLERO,
SENATOR LAIRD HAS MOVED THE
BILL. SENATOR CABALLERO, I JUST
WANT TO THANK, THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT TESTIFIED HERE TODAY. WE
HEAR YOU AND, IT MAKES, IT MAKES
SENSE TO GET THIS DONE. IT NEVER
WAS INTENDED TO BE A SUGGESTION.
IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE, A
COMMITMENT. AND SINCE THAT
DIDN'T HAPPEN, THAT'S. I THINK
YOU'LL SEE THIS BILL, GET OUT OF
HERE WITH A LOT OF SUPPORT. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
CABALLERO. SENATOR LAIRD HAS
MOVED THE BILL, SENATOR EGGMAN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
COULDN'T BE MORE ARTICULATE THAN
OUR WITNESSES. I ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE,
SB 1491. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED. THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER I, NUMBER
I, WILK NØ WILK. NO. ALLEN.
ALLEN I ASHBY. ASHBY I
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I RUSSO.
LAIRD. LAIRD I. MINH LILO. NO.
LILO. NO. STERN A STERN I WAHAB.
6 TO 2. ALL RIGHT. SIX, TWO.
ALTHOUGH BILL HAS ENOUGH VOTES
TO GET OUT OF COMMITTEE, WE'LL
PUT IT ON CALL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, SO,
FOLLOWING OUR PLAYBOOK HERE, WE
WOULD HAVE SENATOR BRADFORD,
SENATOR GLASER, AND I DON'T SEE
SENATOR GROVE. SO WE'RE GOING TO
TURN TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
THEIR PRESENTATION. SO IF
SENATOR ALLEN WOULD LIKE TO
PRESENT SB 1143. OH, HERE'S
SENATOR BRADFORD. OKAY. JUST
UNDER THE WIRE, SENATOR BRADFORD
, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB 1050.
OKAY WHAT? MR. CHAIR, DO YOU
MIND IF I SWITCH? SURE, SENATOR
BRADFORD, ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB
1331. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. SB 1331
ESTABLISHES A FUND FOR
REPARATIONS AND REPARATIVE
JUSTICE. DURING THE LAST TWO
YEARS, I HAD THE HONOR OF
SERVING ON THE CALIFORNIA
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE TO FIRST
IN ITS NATION THE WORK OF THE
TASK FORCE, DOCUMENTED IN GREAT
DETAIL THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE PATTERNS OF
SYSTEMIC RACIAL INJUSTICE THAT
CONTINUE LONG AFTER SLAVERY
ENDED. WE DOCUMENTED THE
RACIALLY MOTIVATED TAKING OF
BLACK LAND THROUGH EMINENT
DOMAIN, OVERPOLICING, MASS
INCARCERATION, AND THE DENIAL OF
HOMEOWNERSHIP THROUGH PRACTICES
SUCH AS REDLINING, RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS, AND ON AND ON AND ON
THAT CREATED GENERATIONAL HARM
THAT STILL EXISTS TO THIS VERY
DAY. PEOPLE WILL OFTEN SAY, WHY
SHOULD CALIFORNIA PROVIDE
REPARATIONS? CALIFORNIA WAS A
FREE STATE, A FREE STATE IN NAME
ONLY. CALIFORNIA PRACTICED EVERY
, HAD THE SAME PRACTICES OF
EVERY SLAVE STATE. IF YOU CAME
HERE AS A SLAVE, YOU WERE
TREATED AS A SLAVE. IF YOU GAVE
BIRTH HERE, YOUR CHILD WAS BORN
A SLAVE. IF YOU RAN AWAY. WE HAD
A FUGITIVE SLAVES, ACT THAT
RETURNED YOU BACK TO THE
PLANTATION. THAT YOU ESCAPED
FROM. PEOPLE WILL ALSO SAY, I
DON'T OWN SLAVES, OR I DIDN'T
OWN SLAVES. WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO
PAY? AND I SAY TO THEM, IF YOU
CAN INHERIT GENERATIONAL WEALTH,
YOU CAN INHERIT GENERATIONAL
DEBT. THIS IS A DEBT THAT'S OWED
TO THE PEOPLE THAT HELPED BUILD
THIS COUNTRY. REPARATIONS IS A
DEBT OWED TO DESCENDANTS OF
SLAVERY. IT'S THIS IS NOT A
HANDOUT OR CHARITY OF ANY SORT.
SORT IT IS WHAT IS OWED. IT'S
WHAT IS PROMISED AND WHAT IS 160
YEARS OVERDUE. I HAVE HAD THE
PRIVILEGE OF SERVING IN THE
LEGISLATURE FOR 13 YEARS, AND WE
HAVE VOTED ON DOZENS OF BILLS
ABOUT WAGE THEFT. SLAVERY WAS
250 YEARS OF WAGE LEFT. THE WAGE
THEFT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THE
HARM FROM THE WAGE STEPS, THEFT
STILL EXISTS TODAY. THE COST OF
REPARATIONS WILL BE HIGH. BUT SO
WAS THE HARM DONE TO AFRICAN
AMERICANS. AND THAT HARM AND
THOSE DISPARITIES CREATED
CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. AND HOW
WILL CALIFORNIA PAY FOR
REPARATIONS? SB 1331 WOULD
AUTHORIZE THE STATE COMPTROLLER
TO TRANSFER 6% OF THE FUNDS THAT
WOULD BE PLACED IN A STATE
BUDGET RESERVE FUND, SPECIAL
FUND FOR ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTIES
INTO THE FUND OF REPARATIONS AND
REPARATIVE JUSTICE. IF THERE IS
NO FUNDING TO SET ASIDE FOR THE
BUDGET RESERVE FUND, THERE WOULD
NOT BE A DEPOSIT IN THE FUND FOR
THE REPARATIONS. REPARATIVE
JUSTICE IF THE BUDGET IS A
REFLECTION OF OUR VALUES AND
PRIORITIES, REPARATIONS HAS TO
BE FUNDED HERE. TO TESTIFY WITH
ME TODAY IS DON TAMAKI. MR.
TAMAKI IS A MANAGING PARTNER IN
THE LAW FIRM OF, MINT. MINT ME,
MINAMI TAMAKI LLP. MR. TAMAKI
WAS A LEADER OF THE MOVEMENT TO
GAIN REPARATIONS FOR JAPANESE
AMERICANS WHO WERE INTERNED
DURING WORLD WAR TWO AND HAS
SERVED ON THE REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE AS WELL. SO, WITHOUT
FURTHER ADO, I WOULD ASK MR.
TAMAKI TO MR. TAMAKI, THE FLOOR
IS YOURS. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BRADFORD, AND THANK YOU, CHAIR
UMBERG AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I
SERVED ON THE TASK FORCE AND I
ALSO CO-COUNSEL, FRED KOREMATSU,
IN REOPENING HIS INFAMOUS
SUPREME COURT CASE, WHICH UPHELD
PUTTING JAPANESE AMERICANS IN
CONCENTRATION CAMPS. KOREMATSU'S
VINDICATION BOOSTED OUR
BIPARTISAN EFFORT FOR JAPANESE
AMERICAN REPARATIONS. SENATOR
BRADFORD DESERVES HIGH PRAISE
FOR HIS STRONG LEADERSHIP ROLE
ON THE TASK FORCE. TWO YEARS OF
WORK, 20 DAYS, 27 DAYS OF
HEARINGS LEADING TO ITS
GROUNDBREAKING REPORT,
CONNECTING THE DOTS BETWEEN THE
RACIAL POLICIES OF THE PAST AND
THEIR CASCADING HARMS. TODAY,
REPARATIONS IS NOT JUST ABOUT
SLAVERY. WHILE THE NATION'S
RACIAL DIVIDE BEGAN WITH 246
YEARS OF ENSLAVEMENT, THE FACT
THAT MEANS BLACK AMERICANS AS A
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LONGER ENSLAVED
THAN THEY HAVE BEEN FREE. WHAT
HAUNTS CALIFORNIA IS ITS FULL
THROATED SUPPORT OF RACIAL
EXCLUSION. RIGHT INTO THE 20TH
CENTURY. WHEN YOU COMPARE THE
REDLINING MAPS OF THE 1930S TO
THE 1970S AGAINST TODAY'S MAPS
OF THE MOST IMPOVERISHED, THE
MOST UNDERSERVED, THE MOST
POLLUTED NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY
ALIGN EXACTLY. BETWEEN 1934 AND
1962, BILLIONS IN HOME LOANS
WERE ISSUED, CREATING AMERICA'S
MIDDLE CLASS. BUT 98% OF THOSE
LOANS WENT TO WHITE FAMILIES BY
1940, 80% OF THE HOMES IN L.A.
HAD DEED RESTRICTIONS BARRING
BLACK PEOPLE. THE POLICY OF THE
NOT SO DISTANT PAST CREATED OUR
PRESENT. AS A RESULT, WHITE
HOUSEHOLDS HAVE NINE TIMES MORE
ASSETS THAN BLACK HOUSEHOLDS.
BLACK CALIFORNIANS HAVE AN
ALMOST EIGHT YEAR SHORTER
LIFESPAN IN SAN FRANCISCO OVER
THE LAST DECADE, AND BLACK
INFANT MORTALITY WAS FIVE TIMES
THAT OF WHITE BABIES, AND HUGE
DISPARITIES PERSIST IN JUST
ABOUT EVERY OTHER METRIC THAT
MATTERS. TO TALK ABOUT THESE
THINGS IS UNPLEASANT. ALRIGHTY.
THANK YOU SIR, WE DIDN'T WANT TO
TALK ABOUT JAPANESE AMERICAN
REPARATIONS, BUT WE ASK YOU TO
CONSIDER BLACK REPARATIONS NOW.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
NEXT WITNESS, SENATOR BRADFORD,
OTHER WITNESSES, MY PRIMARY
WITNESS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND
ASK THOSE WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1331 TO APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE, GIVE US THEIR NAME
AND THEIR AFFILIATION, THEIR
POSITION. WHAT AN HONOR THIS IS.
CHRIS LAWSON, COALITION FOR A
JUST AND EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO AMERICAN
REDRESS COALITION OF CALIFORNIA,
BAY AREA LÀ NEEDS EQUITY AND
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT OUT OF LA,
CALIFORNIA BLACK LINEAGE SOCIETY
OF THE INLAND EMPIRE ALL IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M RAFEAL PLUNKETT.
I AM A BOARD MEMBER FOR LEAP
LINEAGE EQUITY ADVANCEMENT
PROJECT, AND I'VE TRAVELED HERE
FROM DIAMOND BAR TO EXPRESS OUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YES. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DARLENE CROMARTIE.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE COALITION
FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS AMERICAN
REDRESS COALITION OF CALIFORNIA,
BAY AREA, ARC BAY AREA, AND I AM
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KIM MIMS. I'M WITH THE
COALITION FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA KGEC,
AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA ARC SACRAMENTO BRANCH
AND AMEND THE MASS MEDIA GROUP
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF 1331. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MARIE MAZZONI, BEND THE ARC
JEWISH ACTION CALIFORNIA IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
RICHARD ERLICH, CONSTITUENT OF
SENATOR ROGER NILO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI, SAMANTHA JOHNSON,
FOR THE GREATER SACRAMENTO URBAN
LEAGUE AND THE CALIFORNIA
AFRICAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DOCTOR. CRITICAL TRUTH BERRY,
INTERIM PRIME MINISTER FOR THE
REPUBLIC OF THE COUNTRY OF
HAITI. AND I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF SB 1331. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS
TRISTAN BROWN WITH CFT, UNION OF
EDUCATORS AND CLASSIFIED
PROFESSIONALS HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI, CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, RACHEL BOGERT WITH ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JONATHAN
JOHNSON, ALAMEDA COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1331 PLEASE
APPROACH. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1331,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE
SEEING NO ONE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. LET'S BRING IT BACK
HERE TO COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. SEEING NO QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS, IS THERE A MOTION?
SENATOR MOVES THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR BRADFORD, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU.
THE REPARATIONS TASK FORCE IS
PAINSTAKINGLY DOCUMENTED.
CALIFORNIA'S ROLE IN SLAVERY AND
THE DECADES OF SYSTEM, SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION THAT FOLLOWED.
PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.
THEY CAN BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH
OUR HISTORY. BUT YOU CANNOT DENY
IT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I
VOTE VIÆT. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR LAIRD. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB
1331. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG
A UMBERG I WILK ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE. CABALLERO
CABALLERO I RUSSELL. LAIRD.
LAIRD I MINH. NILO. NILO. NÓ
STERN. WAHAB 5 TO 1. WE'RE GOING
TO PUT THAT ON CALL. SENATOR
BRADFORD. SENATOR BRADFORD NEXT.
SB 1050 FILE NUMBER FIVE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT SB 1050. THIS BILL WILL
CREATE A PATHWAY TO RETURN LAND
OR PROVIDE RESTITUTION FOR
CALIFORNIANS WHO'VE HAD THEIR
LAND OR THEIR PROPERTY TAKEN BY
THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOR RACIALLY MOTIVATED REASONS.
MANY, MANY CALIFORNIANS ARE
FAMILIAR WITH THE NAME BRUCE'S
BEACH. THE HISTORY OF THE
BEACHFRONT PROPERTY, PARCEL LAND
AND MANHATTAN BEACH. I WAS
HONORED TO AUTHOR THE BILL THREE
YEARS AGO THAT HELPED RETURN THE
PROPERTY TO THE HEIRS OF CHARLES
AND WILLA BRUCE, A BLACK COUPLE
WHO IN 1912 STARTED A BEACH
RESORT IN MANHATTAN BEACH FOR
AFRICAN AMERICANS TO RECREATE
AND VISIT. BUT THE CITY OF
MANHATTAN BEACH RESENTED THE
BRUCE'S SUCCESS AND POPULARITY
AND WANTED TO PUT THEM OUT OF
BUSINESS. THE CITY USED THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE
THE BRUCE'S LAND, AND TO DO SO
FOR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE
IN 2022. AS STATED, I AUTHORED A
BILL THAT ALLOWED THE RETURN OF
THE LANDOWNERS. THE L.A. COUNTY,
TO RETURN THE LAND TO THE
DESCENDANTS OF CHARLES AND WILLA
BRUCE. JUST LIKE THE BRUCE'S
BEACH SB 50 WILL PROVIDE A BROAD
PATHWAY TO JUSTICE FOR OTHERS
WHO WERE HARMED BY SIMILAR
RACIST POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF
THE DISTANT AND RECENT PAST. WE
KNOW BRUCE'S BEACH IS NOT A
SINGLE STORY OF RACIST
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY ABUSED, USED TO MOVE
BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE OFF THEIR
LAND, DESTROY HOMES TO DEVASTATE
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FAMILIES TO
BUILD INTERGENERATIONAL WEALTH
THROUGH OWNING LAND. WE ALL KNOW
ABOUT THE RECENT STORY OF
SECTION 14 IN PALM SPRINGS. WE
KNOW ABOUT SAN FRANCISCO,
OAKLAND, LOS ANGELES, SAN DIEGO,
COLIMA AND RUSSELL CITY. JUST TO
NAME A FEW. LET'S TALK ABOUT
RUSSELL CITY THIS WAS A BLACK
AND LATINO COMMUNITY THAT'S NOW
PART OF THE CITY OF HAYWARD IN
THE EAST BAY. IN THE 1920S
THROUGH THE 1950S, RUSSELL CITY
WAS A THRIVING COMMUNITY OF
HOMES AND BUSINESSES, BUT THE
TOWN WAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF
HAYWARD, AND THEN EMINENT DOMAIN
WAS USED TO EVICT THE RESIDENTS
IN ORDER TO BUILD AN INDUSTRIAL
PARK, SB 1050 WILL CREATE A WAY
FOR THE STATE TO REVIEW CLAIMS
OF ABUSE AND DETERMINE WHETHER
COMPENSATION IS WARRANTED. THE
BILL IS DESIGNED TO HAVE A
SIMILAR STRUCTURE OF THE
CALIFORNIA VICTIMS COMPENSATION
BOARD THAT HAS THE CLOSEST
CORRELATION THÀNH, AS IT
PROVIDES RESTITUTION TO
CALIFORNIANS WHO HAVE BEEN
HARMED THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR
OWN. TESTIFYING WITH ME TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF 1050 IS JESSE
JOHNSON. JESSE LIVED IN RUSSELL
CITY BEFORE BEING FORCED
FORCEFULLY REMOVED FROM HER
HOME. SHE IS JOINED HERE TODAY
BY HER SON JONATHAN AND HER
GRANDSON, CHRISTIAN. I AM
HONORED TO HAVE THE JOHNSON
FAMILY HERE TO SHARE THEIR
STORY. ALSO TESTIFYING TODAY IS
KAVON WARD. SHE IS THE
CO-FOUNDER OF THE ORGANIZATION
WHERE'S MY LAND AND WAS
INSTRUMENTAL IN OUR WORK IN
RETURNING THE BRUCE'S PROPERTY
AND HER WORK FOCUSES ON SECURING
THE RETURN OF FORMERLY BLACK
OWNED LAND THAT WAS UNJUSTLY
TAKEN. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD EVENING SENATOR. GOOD
EVENING, SENATOR BRADFORD, AND
THE HEARING COMMITTEE. I'M GLAD
TO BE HERE AND REPRESENT THAT. I
WAS A RESIDENT IN 1963 WHEN WE
WERE FORCED OUT OF OUR LAND THAT
WE OWNED. BOTH MY MOTHER IN LAW
AND MY GRANDPARENTS WERE, WHICH
WAS BERNIE PATTERSON AND CÁC
PATTERSON. MY MOTHER IN LAW WAS
JESSIE MAE HENRY, AND WE WERE
FORCED OFF OF OUR LAND, FORCED
OUT OF OUR LAND. YOU CAN'T SEE
PAIN, BUT YOU YOU CAN FEEL IT.
YOU CAN FEEL IT, BUT YOU CAN'T
SEE IT. IT DID HURT, AND IT HURT
VERY BADLY. SO MY HUSBAND SERVED
OUR COUNTRY DURING THAT TIME IN
THE NAVY. WHEN HE CAME HOME,
PEOPLE, A LAND HAD BEEN BURNED
UP OR HOUSES HAD BEEN BURNED
DOWN, AND OUR HOMES WERE
DEVASTATED. AND TO SEE MY
GRANDPARENTS HAVE TO DRIVE AWAY
FROM THE HOMES THAT THEY HAD HAD
GROCERIES AND HAD ANIMALS AND
HAD ALL THOSE WONDERFUL THINGS
THAT KEPT US ALIVE. AND SO I'M
VERY HAPPY THAT YOU'RE HERE TO
HEAR, HEAR THE HURT AND THE PAIN
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS.
BUT IT'S EXPRESSED FROM THE
HEAVENS NOW, FROM MY GRANDPA WHO
WAS SPEAKING THROUGH ME. NOW
PLEASE GIVE US OUR LAND BACK. WE
WANT TO BE PAID AND COMPENSATED
FOR THE HURT AND THE LOSS AND
NOW THAT THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE
THAT ARE THRIVING, THEY ARE
THRIVING AND RECEIVING MONEYS,
PLEASE GIVE US OUR LAND BACK. WE
WANT TO BE PAID AND COMPENSATED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ELOQUENT TESTIMONY.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. SENATOR
BRADFORD KAVON WARD, SHE'S GOING
TO BE SPEAKING NOW. GOOD
AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
KAVON WARDEN. I'M THE FOUNDER OF
JUSTICE FOR BRUCE'S BEACH. AND
WHEREAS MY LAND, BOTH
ORGANIZATIONS CREATED TO SUPPORT
BLACK PEOPLE AND THEIR QUEST TO
RECLAIM LAND STOLEN FROM THEM
THROUGH THE GUISE OF EMINENT
DOMAIN AND OTHER RACIALLY
MOTIVATED POLICIES AND
PRACTICES. SENATOR BRADFORD,
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
TODAY. I HAD THE HONOR OF
WORKING WITH SENATOR BRADFORD TO
PUSH FORWARD SB 796, A BILL
CREATED TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
THE LAND TO BE RETURNED TO THE
BRUCE FAMILY. HIS DETERMINATION,
HIS GRIT AND HIS PASSION FOR
REPARATIVE JUSTICE ARE IN
DIRECT, IN ALIGNMENT WITH MINE.
SO I FEEL PRIVILEGED TO SHARE
TIME AND SPACE WITH HIM AND HIS
TEAM TO ENSURE THE PASSAGE OF SB
1050 APPROXIMATE 20% OF CURRENT.
WHERE'S MY LAND CLAIMS IN THE
PIPELINE SITE EMINENT DOMAIN AS
THEIR SOURCE OF THEIR LAND LOSS
ACCORDING TO EMINENT DOMAIN AND
AFRICAN AMERICANS, A 2007 REPORT
FOR THE INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE. IT
STATES THAT BETWEEN 1949 AND
1973, 2532 PROJECTS WERE CARRIED
OUT AND 992 CITIES THAT
DISPLACED 1 MILLION PEOPLE, TWO
THIRDS OF WHICH WERE BLACK
PEOPLE. SO HOW DO WE HEAL A HARM
LIKE THAT? WE PROVIDE
COMPENSATION LIKE THE SENATOR IS
PROPOSING, AND WE GIVE LAND
BACK. THE INITIAL BILL IS IT'S A
GREAT FIRST START. I LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING THE BILL
EVOLVE TO INCLUDE LAND, RETURN
TO THE VICTIMS OF RACIALLY BASED
EMINENT DOMAIN, SIMILAR TO THE
JUSTICE AFFORDED TO THE BRUCE
FAMILY, ESPECIALLY IF THE LAND
TAKEN IS USED FOR PRIVATE USE
LIKE IN SANTA MONICA, WHERE
EBONY BEACH CLUB OWNER SILAS
WHITE'S LAND WAS RAZED IN 1958
SO THAT THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
COULD BUILD A PARKING LOT. THE
VICEROY HOTEL NOW STANDS ON THAT
LAND, AND LIKE IN RUSSELL CITY,
WHERE APPROXIMATELY 250 FAMILIES
WERE FORCED FROM THEIR LAND
WHILE NOW MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR
COMPANIES UTILIZE THAT LAND AND
PROFIT SIGNIFICANTLY FROM IT.
MOST MEMBERS OF RUSSELL CITY'S
DESCENDANTS FOR RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE WANT AND DESERVE MORE
THAN COMPENSATION. THEY DEMAND
LAND BACK JUST HE MAY DESERVES
HER LAND BACK. I THANK YOU ALL
FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS BILL,
AND FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT
RACIALLY BASED HARM REQUIRES
RACIALLY BASED REPAIR. AND I
THINK THIS COMMITTEE, FOR THEIR
SUPPORT TO SENATOR BRADFORD
AROUND THE PASSAGE OF THIS
IMPORTANT AND HISTORICAL
LEGISLATION, WHEN WE MADE
HISTORY WITH SB 796, LET'S MAKE
HISTORY WITH SB 1050. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION, YOUR POSITION.
THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, TRISTAN BROWN, CFT HERE
IN SUPPORT. HELLO. RACHEL
BHAGWAT, ACLU, CALIFORNIA ACTION
AND SUPPORT. HELLO, MARIE
MAZZONI, BEND THE ARC JEWISH
ACTION. CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
OKAY RICHARD ERLICH, CONSTITUENT
OF SENATOR ROGER NILO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JOSH, ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT
SAMANTHA JOHNSON FOR THE GREATER
SACRAMENTO URBAN LEAGUE AND THE
CALIFORNIA AFRICAN AMERICAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HELLO AGAIN, RAFEAL
PLUNKETT FROM LEAP IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. KRISTEN JOHNSON OF
ABC NEWS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
JONATHAN JOHNSON, ALAMEDA COUNTY
MENTAL HEALTH AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, DARLING. COMMITTEE FROM
KGEC AND ARC BAY AREA IN TOTAL
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS WITH KGEC ARC AND Â TÌM
MEDIA GROUP IN FULL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DOCTOR TRUTH BERRY,
INTERIM PRIME MINISTER FOR
REPUBLIC OF HAITI, IN FULL
SUPPORT OF 1050. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT. SEEING
NO ONE ELSE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. LET'S TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1050, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. SEEING NO ONE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
IS THERE A MOTION? SENATOR RUSSO
HAS MOVED THE BILL. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR BRADFORD, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? OH, I'M SORRY, SENATOR
NYOLO SURE. I FEEL IT IMPORTANT
TO EXPLAIN MY POSITION WHEN I
FIRST HEARD ABOUT THIS BILL AND
I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE BRUCE'S
BEACH, IN JUSTICE. AND HAPPY TO
SEE THAT FIXED, MY INITIAL
REACTION WAS, THIS IS A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT I CAN SUPPORT.
BUT YOU MADE IT THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL OF THE
TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA TO FOR
THE INJUSTICE OF LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS, OWNS, MANHATTAN
BEACH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT
HAPPENED, NOT NOT MODOC COUNTY,
AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING
TO BE REVIEWED BY THIS, THROUGH
THIS PROCESS, THERE'LL BE NO
RESPONSIBILITY ON BEHALF OF THE
ENTITY THAT CAUSED THE INJUSTICE
IN THE FIRST PLACE, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS. SO
TO THE EXTENT THAT ISSUES LIKE
THIS HAPPENED, EXCUSE ME, IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, IF THEY WERE TO
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, I DON'T
KNOW IF THEY'D BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL. SO MY CONCERN IS THAT, THE
INJUSTICE S IS NOT GOING TO BE
CURED BY THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE
INJUSTICE. AND I CAN'T SUPPORT
THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT A LOCAL
JURISDICTION COMMITS THAT
INJUSTICE. AND THEN THE
TAXPAYERS OF THE ENTIRE STATE
HAVE TO PAY THE DAMAGES, DOESN'T
THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A BIT OF
AN INJUSTICE ALSO, SO ENTIRELY
SUPPORTABLE CONCEPT THAT I CAN'T
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR YELLOW. OOPS SENATOR
STERN, DID YOU WANT TO. I THINK
I'M SHORTING THE ENTIRE
ELECTRICAL. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
STERN HAS A LITTLE, LET ME JUST
ASK A TECHNICAL QUESTION, AND
THEN I'LL COME CLEAN THIS UP,
JUST THE 6. THE TRANSFER. JUST
WONDERING FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS.
HOW'D THAT NUMBER GET ARRIVED AT
AND SORT OF HOW TO LOOK DOWN THE
ROAD A LITTLE BIT AT STEP TWO,
STEP THREE IN THIS AND THAT
SPECIAL FUND FOR ECONOMIC
UNCERTAINTY. SO YOU'RE SPEAKING
TO THE LAST BILL THAT WE JUST
PASSED, Þ. THAT'S 1331. YES.
OKAY. THAT'S IN 1050. WE'RE ON
RIGHT NOW. GOT IT. UNDERSTOOD.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING. AND JUST TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION, THE 6% IS
BASED ON THE POPULAR AFRICAN
AMERICAN POPULATION HERE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. POPULATION.
WE DON'T WANT NO MORE THAN WHAT
WE REPRESENT. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU. SORRY ALL RIGHT.
OTHER QUESTIONS. I THINK SENATOR
RUSSO HAS MOVED THE BILL. IS
THAT CORRECT? SENATOR BARRASSO
HAS MOVED THE BILL. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, SENATOR? YES, AND
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO JUST
ANSWER. SENATOR NEIL, IS THIS
FALLS ON THE OBLIGATION, DOESN'T
FALL ON THE STATE. AND OF
ITSELF. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WILL
BE RESPONSIBLE IF THEY PLAYED A
DIRECT ROLE. AND THE PRIME
EXAMPLE IS, AGAIN, IS THE
PROPERTY OF MR. SILAS WHITE THAT
WAS TAKEN IN 1958. AND YOU HAVE
A FOUR STAR HOTEL THAT SITS ON
GOVERNMENT OWNED LAND. THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA OWNS THAT LAND
AND THEY COLLECT THAT RENT EVERY
MONTH ON PROPERTY THAT SHOULD
STILL BE IN THE WHITE FAMILY.
AND WE HAVE EXAMPLE AFTER
EXAMPLE WHERE YOU GO DOWN TO
JULIAN IN SAN DIEGO, YOU CAN
EVEN LOOK AT ONE OF OUR STATE
PARKS, ALLENSWORTH, WHICH WAS A
THRIVING TOWN IN 1908. AND
BECAUSE OF THE RACIST COMMUNITY
POISONING THE WELLS, CUTTING OFF
THE WATER FLOW AND DIVERTING THE
TRAIN, STOP IT ALL BUT BANKRUPT
THAT TOWN AND IT'S NOW A STATE
PARK. BUT IT'S NO STATE PARK
THAT ANY OF US WOULD BE PROUD OF
BECAUSE OF ITS DILAPIDATED
CONDITION. THAT'S WHY I WAS ABLE
TO SECURE $40 MILLION A YEAR
AGO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INVEST
IN THAT PARK. SO THE DAMAGE IS
REAL. AND NOT ONLY SHOULD LOCAL
AGENCIES BE RESPONSIBLE, BUT THE
STATE AS A AS A WHOLE AND THE
NATION AS A WHOLE, BECAUSE WE
WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY IF IT
WASN'T FOR MANY OF THE RACIST
POLICIES THAT STILL EXIST HERE
IN CALIFORNIA AND AMERICA. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR VOTE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR BRADFORD,
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
RUSSO. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1050, THE MOTION
IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS ON BURKE. A
MEMBER I WILK ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
GRASSO. DURAZO I LAIRD. LAIRD I
MINH. NILO NILO. NÓ. STERN.
STERN I WAHAB. 6 TO 1. ALREADY
SIX ONE HAS ENOUGH VOTES TO GET
OUT OF COMMITTEE. BUT WE'RE
GOING TO PUT THAT ON HOLD. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS ON
CALL RATHER NOT ON. HOLD ON.
CALL ALL RIGHT, NEXT I SEE
SENATOR GLASER. SENATOR GLASER,
ITEM NUMBER TEN, SB 1424. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK THE, YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
WITH US ON THIS BILL, MEMBERS,
YOU'LL RECALL THAT LAST YEAR I
AUTHORED SB 644. IT WAS THE
FIRST IN THE NATION LAW THAT
GUARANTEES CONSUMERS THAT THEY
HAVE 24 HOURS TO CANCEL THEIR
RESERVATION WITH A HOTEL OR
SHORT TUM RENTAL OR THIRD PARTY
WEBSITE, AS LONG AS THEY BOOKED
AT LEAST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
THE STAY. I WANT TO THANK ALL
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE WHO VOTED FOR THAT
BILL LAST YEAR, AND THAT BILL
ONLY APPLIED TO IN-STATE,
FACILITIES, NOT OUT OF STATE
FACILITIES, I WAS GIVEN ADVICE
IN THE COURSE OF THAT
LEGISLATION LAST YEAR THAT SAID
THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS THAT
LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT IT COULD BE APPLICABLE. AND
BASED ON THAT ADVICE, I REMOVED
THAT PROVISION OF THE BILL THAT
WOULD APPLY IT TO, FACILITIES
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. AND YOU
ALL SUPPORTED IT ACTUALLY, ON
THE ORIGINAL FORM THAT IT HAD
BOTH, BUT WE ENDED UP NARROWING
IT WHEN IT WAS IN THE ASSEMBLY.
AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT.
HOWEVER A RECENT SUPREME COURT
DECISION MADE IT CLEAR THAT
OTHER STATES MUST COMPLY WITH
CALIFORNIA'S LAWS AND STANDARDS
WHEN THEY'RE PROVIDING GOODS AND
SERVICES TO CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS
. SO CALIFORNIA IS NOW ABLE TO.
AND BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ABLE TO
EXTEND PROTECTIONS TO OUR
CONSUMERS WHEN THEY BOOK HOTEL
AND SHORT TUM RENTAL STAYS OUT
OF STATE. SO, LOOK, IT'S NO
DOUBT THAT WHEN YOU'RE ON THE
INTERNET TRYING TO BOOK YOUR
STAY, THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BE
CAREFUL AND METICULOUS, BUT
SOMETIMES MISTAKES DO HAPPEN. IT
JUST DOES HAPPEN, SO THIS BILL
EXPANDS ON 644 BY APPLYING THAT
24 HOUR CANCELLATION AGREEMENT,
TO OUT-OF-STATE PROPERTIES. IF A
CONSUMER, A CALIFORNIA CONSUMER,
IS BOOKING THERE, THIS WILL
CREATE CONSISTENT PROTECTIONS
FOR CONSUMERS WHENEVER THEY'RE
LOOKING TO BOOK A HOTEL OR SHORT
TUM RENTAL, THEY CAN REST
ASSURED THAT IF THEY MAKE A
MISTAKE, ONLY 24 HOURS VERY
NARROW, THAT THEY CAN REPAIR IT
AND NOT BE CHARGED FOR IT, AND
FINALLY, MEMBERS, AS YOU RECALL
FROM THE LEGISLATION YOU ALL
SUPPORTED LAST YEAR, IF YOU'RE
BOOKING IT WITHIN 72 HOURS OF
GOING TO THAT ESTABLISHMENT, YOU
CAN'T DO IT. YOU DON'T GET THE
PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL. OKAY.
AND AS YOU MAY HAVE RECALL, WE
EXEMPTED OPAQUE LISTINGS LIKE
HOTWIRE AND NON PUBLIC RATES
FOR, SAY, SPECIAL EVENTS. SO THE
BILL PROVIDES THAT ONE DAY
SPECIAL WINDOW IN CASE YOU DO
MAKE A MISTAKE. IT'S GOOD FOR
CONSUMERS WHETHER THEY'RE
BOOKING IN CALIFORNIA. THE LAW
TODAY UNDER THIS BILL IT WOULD
APPLY TO OUT OF STATE PROPERTIES
. WITH THAT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT TODAY. AND,
SENATOR GLASER, YOU'VE ACCEPTED
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS? YES.
THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED ME
BECAUSE OF SOME CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE
ABILITY OF THE PLATFORMS. AND
THIS IS MOSTLY PLATFORMS, NOT
ESTABLISHED HOTEL COMPANIES, THE
PLATFORMS TO ADJUST THEIR
SYSTEMS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
PROVISION IN THIS BILL. I'VE
BEEN ASKED TO DO AN 18 MONTH
GRACE PERIOD AND I'VE AGREED TO
THOSE AMENDMENTS. SIR THANK YOU
MARTY. THANK YOU, THOSE IN
SUPPORT, SB 1424, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, SEEING
NO ONE APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE, EVEN ME TO SUPPORT
SEEING NO ME TO SUPPORT. LET'S
TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. OAN IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1424,
PLEASE APPROACH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRMAN UMBERG MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ROB
SCHNITZ. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM
CABOT CHAPMAN AND OSBORN
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
HOTEL LODGING ASSOCIATION. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO TESTIFY TODAY HERE IN
OPPOSITION OF SENATE BILL 1424,
AND TO DISCUSS WHY THE MEASURE
VIOLATES THE DORMANT COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION IN THE DORMANT
COMMERCE CLAUSE, HAS THREE
DISTINCT PRONGS OF ANALYSIS TO
DETERMINE IF A STATE OR LOCAL
LAW VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION. EACH HAS
ITS OWN ANALYSIS AND LINE OF
CASES. IF A LAW VIOLATES ANY OF
THE THREE PRONGS, ANY OF THOSE
THREE ANALYSIS ANALYZES, IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. OUR ANALYSIS
OF 1424 IS BASED ON THE THIRD
PRONG. THE DIRECT REGULATION
PRONG PROVIDES THAT A LAW
VIOLATES THE DORMANT COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO THE EXTENT IT DIRECTLY
REGULATES EXTRA TERRITORIAL
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR BUSINESS
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. THE DIRECT
REGULATION PRONG DOES NOT
INVOLVE A BALANCING TEST, AS
DOES THE SECOND PRONG, WHICH IS
THE PRONG THAT IS MENTIONED IN
THE IS THE BASIS OF THE SUPREME
COURT CASE REFERENCED BEFORE THE
NATIONAL PORK VERSUS ROSS CASE.
RATHER, EVEN IF A STATE LAW
PROPERLY REGULATES TO SOME
DEGREE CONDUCT WITHIN ITS STATE,
IT NONETHELESS VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE TO THE DEGREE IT
DIRECTLY REGULATES OUT OF STATE
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, EVEN IN
PART IMPORTANTLY, THE ANALYSIS
I'M SORRY. IMPORTANTLY, THE
FOCUS OF THE DIRECT REGULATION
PRONG IS TO LOOK TO THE
UNDERLYING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
THAT'S BEING REGULATED. IN OTHER
WORDS, WHERE ARE THE GOODS AND
SERVICES BEING CONSUMED, USED OR
DELIVERED? IN THE CASE OF SB
1424, IT VIOLATES THE THIRD
PRONG BECAUSE IT IMPOSES A
CONDITION ON THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE ROOM STAY OR
THE SHORT TUM RENTAL STAY.
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, THERE'S
AMPLE NINTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT TO
SUPPORT THIS DUE TO TIME
CONSTRAINT. I WILL NOT GO INTO
THOSE DETAILS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO
PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH
CITATIONS TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CASE CASES. I'M ALSO HAPPY LATER
TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE ROSS DECISION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. OTHERS OPPOSED
TO SB 1424. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AMELIA ZAMANI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION.
WE REPRESENT THE TRAVEL AND
TOURISM INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA.
EXCUSE ME. MY MEMBERSHIP
INCLUDES DESTINATIONS, HOTELS,
RESORTS, BOOKING SITES AND
AMUSEMENT PARKS. WE CONTINUE TO
STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 1424 DESPITE
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. FIRST, THIS
BILL GOES BACK ON GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS MADE TO MOVE OUR
COALITION TO NEUTRAL ON SB 644
LAST YEAR, INCLUDING TO LIMIT
THE BILL'S PROVISIONS TO
PROPERTIES IN CALIFORNIA. SB 644
DOESN'T EVEN GO INTO EFFECT
UNTIL JULY 1ST OF THIS YEAR. THE
BILL BEFORE YOU TODAY EXPANDS
THE SCOPE OF REFUNDS FOR
CANCELLATIONS FROM PROPERTIES
LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA TO ANY
PROPERTY ADVERTISED TO
CALIFORNIANS. EXCUSE ME, AND
BOOKED BY CALIFORNIANS. THIS IS
A SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION FOR
COMPANIES THAT OPERATE NOT JUST
NATIONALLY, BUT GLOBALLY, AND
CREATES SEVERAL CHALLENGES.
FIRST, THERE'S NO WAY TO ENSURE
COOPERATION FROM PROPERTIES
OUTSIDE OF OUR STATE, LET ALONE
INTERNATIONAL HOTELS OR SHORT
TUM RENTAL PROPERTIES.
CONSTITUTIONALITY ASIDE,
PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA
OR EVEN THE UNITED STATES ARE
MUCH LESS LIKELY TO REFUND
TRAVELERS DUE TO A REQUIREMENT
FROM OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION.
THIS WILL CREATE FALSE
EXPECTATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE
A REFUND ON A CANCELLATION OF A
RESERVATION BOOKED ANYWHERE IN
THE WORLD. SECOND, BASING
ELIGIBILITY ON THE LOCATION OF A
CONSUMER IS PRONE TO FRAUD,
ESPECIALLY FOR ONLINE BOOKINGS.
FRAUDSTERS COULD EASILY PROVIDE
UNVERIFIED CALIFORNIA ADDRESSES
OR USE CALIFORNIA VPN PROXIES TO
OBTAIN A REFUND WHERE THEY WOULD
OTHERWISE NOT BE ENTITLED TO
ONE. SB 644 IS LESS PRONE TO
FRAUD BECAUSE IT'S EASY TO
IDENTIFY ELIGIBLE BOOKINGS,
THOSE MADE AT CALIFORNIA
PROPERTIES AND PROCESS REFUNDS
ACCORDINGLY. THIRD, THE BILL
DOES NOT RECOGNIZE HOW NATIONAL
ADVERTISING BUYS WORK. AN AD
BUYER, NOT THE COMPANY, USES A
WIDE VARIETY OF ANALYTICS SUCH
AS BUDGET, MARKET REACH, TIMING,
AND TYPES OF MEDIA TO REACH
POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT THE COMPANY ITSELF
WOULDN'T KNOW WHICH MARKETS IN
WHAT FORMAT, WHEN AND FOR WHAT
DURATION ADS APPEAR. THE BILL
DOES NOT DISTINGUISH WHEN
ADVERTISING MUST OCCUR IN
CALIFORNIA FOR THE REFUND POLICY
TO APPLY. WE DO THANK YOU, CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE, FOR DELAYING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS BILL TO
JULY 1ST, 2026. BUT THERE ARE NO
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL MOVE OUR
COALITION TO A NEUTRAL POSITION
OR REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. FOR THESE REASONS AND
MORE, WE URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. OTHERS OPPOSED TO SB 1424,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. BEVERLY, YOU,
ON BEHALF OF BOOKING HOLDINGS,
WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
ROBERT MURRAY, CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHING, LET'S
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. SENATOR
NIELLO AND THEN SENATOR STERN,
THEN SENATOR ASHBY, SENATOR
GLAZIER, I SUPPORTED YOUR BILL
LAST YEAR, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS ONE, THOUGH. HOW ARE YOU
GOING TO ENFORCE THIS TO A BED
AND BREAKFAST IN OREGON THAT
ADVERTISES IN CALIFORNIA? AND
THEN DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE
DETAILS OF THE BILL? ACCORDING
TO THE ADVICE FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND EVEN THE ANALYSIS
THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR, YOUR
COMMITTEE WORK, IT'S A, IT CAN
BE ENFORCED IN OUR, IN OUR
COURTS. THEY ADVERTISE IN
CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO THAT
SUPREME COURT DECISION. IT SEEMS
THAT THAT IS A KEY ANSWER TO THE
THIRD TEST, AND WOULD BE
ENFORCED IN THAT FASHION. KEEP
IN MIND THAT ALL WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT THIS IS
NOT A MASSIVE REFORM IN THE IN
THE BUSINESS OF TOURISM AND
HOTEL STAYS. THIS JUST SAYS IF
YOU MAKE A MISTAKE, YOU HAVE 24
HOURS TO CORRECT IT. SO IT'S
VERY, VERY NARROW TRYING TO DEAL
WITH. I MEAN, I'M SURE YOU'RE A
WIZARD ON THE INTERNET AND YOU
CAN GO AND GO THROUGH AN OLD
GUY, OKAY, I DIDN'T I DON'T
THINK YOUR COMMENTS ARE ON THE
RECORD THERE. MAYBE THEY
SHOULDN'T BE, BUT IN ANY CASE,
IT'S REALLY EASY TO MAKE A
MISTAKE. CERTAINLY AT THE THIRD
PARTY WEBSITES VERSUS THE YOU'RE
GOING TO A HILTON HOTEL, THEY
USUALLY GIVE YOU CANCELLATION 24
HOURS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET THERE.
THIS JUST SAYS WHEN YOU MAKE THE
RESERVATION, IF YOU MAKE A
MISTAKE, YOU GIVE THAT LITTLE
NARROW WINDOW. I DON'T THINK
IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG LITIGIOUS
OPENING HERE FOR SUITS AGAINST
A, B AND B AND OREGON THAT, YOU
KNOW, DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO
HOLD SOMEONE ACCOUNTABLE WHEN,
THEY, THEY SAID THEY MADE A
MISTAKE AND THEY WANTED TO
CANCEL IN 24 HOURS. YEAH. IT
WOULD BE UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL
BUSINESS, OBVIOUSLY, I, I
CERTAINLY RESPECT, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND HIS LEGAL EXPERTISE.
I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I PLAYED
ONE ON TV ONE TIME. JUST KIDDING
, BUT I KNOW A BIT ABOUT LEGAL
OPINIONS, AND, YOU CAN ASK, TEN
ATTORNEYS A PARTICULAR QUESTION,
PARTICULARLY ABOUT THIS. AND I
SUSPECT YOU'D GET A COUPLE,
THREE DIFFERENT ANSWERS. SO I'M
JUST NOT CONVINCED THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S, IS
AUTHORITATIVE ON THIS. AND I
WOULD HATE TO SEE IT, DIVE INTO
A BUNCH OF LITIGATION OVER, AN
ISSUE THAT I THINK WOULD BE, I
STILL THINK WOULD BE DIFFICULT
TO ENFORCE. SO THAT'S THE
CONCERN THAT I'VE GOT WITH IT.
ALL RIGHT, I THINK I SAID
SENATOR STERN NEXT. YEAH THANK
YOU. I ACTUALLY I REALLY LIKE
THE, THE POLICY YOU'VE, YOU'VE
BEEN PUSHING FOR THESE PAST FEW
YEARS IN THE 24 HOUR TURNAROUND.
SEEMS EMINENTLY REASONABLE. AND
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR
THE SORT OF OR CONCERN ABOUT THE
HOTEL INDUSTRY NATIONWIDE, BEING
ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS, IT
SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT'S SORT OF ADOPTED
AS COMMON PRACTICE. MY BIGGER
CONCERN, BECAUSE WE'RE IN
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HERE HAS TO
DO WITH THE PARANOIA. I THINK WE
ALL HAVE TO HAVE AROUND THE
LITIGATE RISK. AND I KNOW WE
SPOKE. IT'S SORT OF HARD TO
GUESS WHAT, WHAT COURTS WILL DO.
I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT THE
PERSONAL JURISDICTION ISSUE.
THAT WAS MENTIONED, IN LIGHT OF
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT WITHIN OUR STATE, SONY
VERSUS HARRAH'S, IT'S MORE THE
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS IMPACT.
AND THAT IN ORDER FOR THIS BILL
TO BE UPHELD, SAY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS TO GO DEFEND IT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ARGUE FOR
A VERSION OF FEDERALISM OR AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE DORMANT
COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT I WORRY,
WOULD BE PRECEDENT SETTING IN
OTHER ARENAS FOR OTHER STATES
WHERE WE WOULD SORT OF HAVE TO
RECIPROCATE AND RECOGNIZE
ARIZONA'S JURISDICTION IF THEY
WANTED TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON
OUR BUSINESSES FROM PEOPLE IN
ARIZONA WANTING TO TRAVEL TO
CALIFORNIA, AND HOW WHAT I VIEW
AS A ROGUE SUPREME COURT
FEDERALLY COULD HAVE SOME
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HERE. SO
THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN. I
WANT TO SEE YOU KEEP MOVING
ALONG AND WORKING THIS, BUT I
WOULD LOVE SOME WAY TO HAVE SOME
REASSURANCE, THAT, YOU KNOW,
SHOULD THIS HAVE TO GET
LITIGATED AND BE UPHELD, THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PRECEDENT
SETTING FOR, FOR AGAIN, THOSE
OTHER STATES ON THINGS THAT
DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH HOTELS
THAT, YOU KNOW, A CITIZEN OF
FLORIDA TRAVELING IN OUR STATE
WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO FLORIDA
LAW AND SORT OF IT BECOMES THIS
WHOLE BATTLE OF STATES RIGHTS
THAT I WORRY SORT OF BECOMES A
SLIPPERY SLOPE. SO I APPRECIATE
YOU TAKING THAT CONSIDERATION.
YOU CAN COMMENT IF YOU'D LIKE,
THROUGH THE CHAIR, LOOK, IN SO
MANY WAYS, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE
NATIONAL POLICY IN A LOT OF
THESE PLACES WHERE WE WOULDN'T
NEED TO DO THESE THINGS. WE PASS
BILLS ON JUNK FEES, LAST YEAR
HAS THE SAME ISSUES THAT YOU'RE
RAISING ABOUT THIS BILL. SO WE
HAVE DONE THIS AS A PRACTICE TO
TRY TO PROTECT OUR CONSUMERS.
WE'D LOVE THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT AND THEY'VE SPOKEN
ABOUT IT. THE PRESIDENT BIDEN
HAS SPOKEN ABOUT JUNK FEES AS AN
EXAMPLE. BUT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW
THAT THROUGH. AND THERE HAS TO
BE ENACTMENT. BUT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS LOOKED AT IT AND
SAID, WE CAN DEFEND THE ANALYSIS
HERE. IT SAYS, QUOTE, PROVIDES A
SOLID GROUNDING THAT CALIFORNIA
HAS A BASIS FOR ENFORCING THIS
LAW IN MANY SCENARIOS. SO YOU
NEVER CAN FORETELL HOW IT ALL
GETS RESOLVED. IF THERE'S
LITIGATION, I GUESS I WOULD
REINFORCE AND SAY THIS IS THE
NARROWEST OF NARROW PROVISION
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE
HERE. THIS ISN'T SOME BROAD
BASED REFORM OF ANY INDUSTRY. IT
JUST SAYS IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE,
YOU CAN CORRECT IT. SO I DON'T
THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE BASIS
OF THAT FULL EXAMINATION THAT
YOU SPEAK OF. AND I THINK IT'S
WORTHY TO PUT IT IN THE MIX WITH
OTHER THINGS. THIS LEGISLATURE,
IN THEIR WISDOM, HAS DONE TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS. ALL RIGHT.
YES SENATOR ASHBY, THEN SENATOR
ALLEN. SORRY SORRY. I HAVE TO
SHARE WITH, SENATOR ALLEN, THERE
ARE WORSE THINGS THAT CAN
HAPPEN. YEAH, THERE ARE, SO I
HAVE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS
AS SENATOR STERN AND CHAIR. I
JUST WANTED TO ASK IF IT'S OKAY
IF I COULD ASK THE LEAD
OPPOSITION WITNESS TO COME BACK
SO I COULD ASK HIM A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. WOULD THAT BE OKAY?
SURE COULD YOU JUST EXPAND A
LITTLE BIT MORE ON THIS PIECE
THAT YOU CAN SEE WE'RE ALL
STRUGGLING WITH? I THINK IT'S
REASONABLE. THE ASSERTION THAT
SOMEBODY COULD BASICALLY CHANGE
THEIR MIND AND CANCEL WITHIN 24
HOURS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S
THE PIECE THAT'S HARD TO AGREE
WITH. WHAT I'M HAVING A HARD
TIME WITH IS ALL OF THOSE
RAMIFICATIONS AROUND OTHER
STATES. SO CAN YOU JUST HELP ME
WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE?
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION, THAT IS THE
CONCERN ABOUT, MULTIPLE STATES
REGULATING IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
THIRD PRONG OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE ANALYSIS IS ALL ABOUT. I
THINK THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF
MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THE
NATIONAL PORK CASE, WHICH WAS
THE SUPREME COURT CASE INVOLVING
PROPOSITION 12, HOW THAT APPLIES
TO OTHER POTENTIAL COMMERCE
CLAUSE CASES, OR IN PARTICULAR,
SB 1424. IT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT
APPLICABLE. IT DOESN'T. THERE
WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE ROSS
CASE, THE NATIONAL PORK CASE,
AND THAT IT WAS THE DEATH KNELL
FOR COMMERCE CLAUSE CASES. THAT
REALLY ISN'T ACCURATE EITHER.
BUT REGARDLESS, THAT CASE
INVOLVED THE SECOND PRONG, WHICH
IS A BALANCING TEST. IT DOES
ASSESS QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS
ABOUT THE PARTICULAR STATUTE AND
ITS IMPACT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE
ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
THE THIRD PRONG, THE DIRECT
REGULATION PRONG, BECAUSE WHAT
IT'S TRYING TO DO IS ADDRESS THE
VERY ISSUE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT STATES
AREN'T TRYING TO REGULATE EACH
OTHER OR, AND IN, IN NATIONAL
PORK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE
THERE WAS AND THE REASON THE
COURT UPHELD IT AND DIDN'T EVEN
GET TO THE THIRD PRONG, THE
DIRECT REGULATION, BECAUSE IT'S
CLEAR THAT THAT PROP 12 ONLY
ADDRESSED THE SELL AND THE
PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION OF PORK
WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IT DID NOT ADDRESS THE SALE OR
CONSUMPTION OF PORK OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA. CONVERSELY, 1424
IMPOSES A CONDITION ON A
RESERVATION INVOLVING A ROOM
STAY OR A SHORT TUM RENTAL STAY
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT'S
THE PROBLEM. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
I THINK THAT AT LEAST THE THREE
OF US ARE SORT OF TRYING TO MULL
OVER. I MEAN, I KNOW YOUR LEAD
OFF POSITION HERE, BUT PLAY
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE WITH ME. IS
THERE A WAY TO ACHIEVE WHAT
SENATOR GLASER IS TRYING TO
ACHIEVE, WHICH IS BASICALLY TO
SAY TO CALIFORNIANS, IF YOU
ACCIDENTALLY BOOK AN AIRBNB AND
YOU WANT TO SWITCH IT TO A
DIFFERENT ONE, SAY, THOUGHT YOU
WERE IN ONE COUNTY AND YOU JUST
A LITTLE BIT FARTHER AWAY THAN
YOU THOUGHT, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE
HELP THEM DO THAT? YEAH IT'S A
THORNY QUESTION BECAUSE BECAUSE
AGAIN, THE GOODS AND SERVICES
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE OUTSIDE
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO EVEN
THOUGH, THE THIS PARTICULAR
STATUTE MAY BE VIEWED AS NOT
OVERLY, EXPANSIVE OR, OR
AGGRESSIVE, IT MAY BE VIEWED AS
MINIMAL, I THINK, AS IT WAS
SOMEWHAT DESCRIBED. THAT'S NOT
REALLY THE ISSUE WHEN IT COMES
TO VIOLATING THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE. RIGHT IT'S JUST A
QUESTION OF ARE YOU REGULATING
SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE STATE?
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE
STATE? AND HERE IT'S NOT REALLY
POSSIBLE TO DIVORCE THE CONCEPT
OF IMPOSING A TERME UPON THE
RESERVATION. THAT'S REALLY THE
CRUX OF THE PROBLEM. AND SO I
WOULD SAY I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU
COULD SEPARATE THAT OUT, BECAUSE
I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT TOO AND
BEEN APPROACHED BY I KNOW THIS
IS LIKE THE TRAVEL CAL TRAVEL'S
REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL
AND RECIPROCITY AND WHAT THAT
WOULD MEAN TO US. AND THE ONLY
THING I COULD KIND OF COME UP
WITH WAS THE IDEA THAT SOME OF
THESE ONLINE PLATFORMS, THE
INTERMEDIARY PLATFORMS, WOULD
HOLD CALIFORNIANS RESERVATIONS
FOR 24 HOURS BEFORE ACTUALLY
BOOKING, WHICH OF COURSE, RUNS A
WHOLE NOTHER RISK OF LOSING THE
SITE. BUT THE 24 HOURS WOULD,
WOULD EXHAUST AND THEN YOU WOULD
BOOK IT. BUT I MEAN, IT'S AN
EXTRA LAYER OF WORK FOR THOSE
THIRD PARTY INTERMEDIARIES. AND
IT YOU COULDN'T GUARANTEE
HOLDING THE ROOM AT THE SAME
RATE OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
SO I GUESS I'M, I'M JUST AT A
LITTLE BIT OF A LOSS HERE. I
APPRECIATE WHAT HE'S TRYING TO
DO AND THINK THAT IT IS GOOD FOR
CALIFORNIANS. IF WE COULD FIND A
WAY TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AND CANCEL
24 HOURS. BUT I AM. I'M
TROUBLED. BY THE LEGALITY OF IT.
OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I'M THE CHAIR NOW,
AND I RECOGNIZE SENATOR DAHLE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. MR.
CHAIR, WELL, I JUST WANT TO
ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE
COMMENTS OF SENATOR ASHBY. I YOU
KNOW, I OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A GOOD
THING WE SUPPORTED THE BILL.
IT'S GOOD FOR CONSUMERS, BUT THE
APPLICABILITY, THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND THE AND I
ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S MODEST
AND I GUESS THE. WELL, LET ME
LET ME START WITH A DEVIL'S
ADVOCATE QUESTION TO THE TO THE
ADVOCATE, YOU KNOW, IS SO, SO IF
THIS WERE WOULD IT WORK. DO WHAT
THE DEVIL BY THE WAY. YEAH,
SURE, THAT WAS THAT WAS SOMEONE
ELSE EARLIER, NO, BUT BUT BUT IF
YOU, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST
TALKING ABOUT A 24 HOUR KIND OF
CURE, PERIOD. IF HE WERE ASKING
FOR MORE, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW,
BUT BUT WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS
SO MODEST. HOW WOULD YOU. I
KNOW, I KNOW, I'M SURE THERE'S
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. I'M SURE.
AND I KNOW YOU GUYS WILL MAKE A
ROBUST, YOU KNOW, COMPELLING
CASE IN COURT DISTINGUISHING
THIS FROM, FROM THE NATIONAL
PORK CASE, BUT BUT BUT GIVEN,
HOW MODEST AND REASONABLE, QUITE
FRANKLY, WHAT A GOOD IDEA THIS
ASK IS 24 HOUR CURE, PERIOD. YOU
KNOW, IS THIS NOT WORTH IS THIS
NOT A GOOD TEST CASE? I SUPPOSE,
FOR NATIONAL PORK? WELL, THERE'S
NOT ANY PRECEDENT, IN THE DIRECT
PRONG ANALYSIS, THE THIRD PRONG
ANALYSIS. AND AGAIN, THE NINTH
CIRCUIT ACTUALLY HAS THE BEST,
DEVELOPED LAW ON THE THIRD PRONG
THAN ANY OF THE OTHER CIRCUITS.
SO IT'S THE CASE LAW. THERE IS
ACTUALLY FAIRLY WELL FORMED AND
THERE'S NOT ANY PRECEDENT FOR
EVALUATING THE SEVERITY OF THE
REGULATION. THE ISSUE IS SIMPLY,
ARE YOU REGULATING IS THE
UNDERLYING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
WITHIN THE STATE OR OUTSIDE THE
STATE? RIGHT. AND THE SEVERITY
OF IT IS NOT A CONTROLLING
DETERMINATION, UNLIKE IF YOU'RE
IN THE SECOND PRONG WHERE WHERE
AGAIN, THAT'S THE NATIONAL PORK.
I MEAN, ISN'T THAT YOUR PROBLEM
HERE, SENATOR? YOU KNOW, THIS IS
THIS IS THIS IS LITERALLY A
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE
OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE ACTUAL
RIGHT. BUT THEY ADVERTISE HERE
IN CALIFORNIA. YES. THAT'S TRUE.
THAT'S A DIRECT CONNECTION TO A
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER IS THAT THEY
SAY, HEY, COME AND MAKE. BUT
WHEN THAILAND ADVERTISES
TOURISM, YOU DON'T EXPECT TO GO
TO THAILAND AND THEN BE GOVERNED
BY CALIFORNIA, I THINK THAT WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO SAY HERE IS THAT
TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS,
IF YOU ADVERTISE IN OUR STATE
FOR A LODGING ESTABLISHMENT,
THAT THAT THAT IF A MISTAKE IS
MADE AND THE 24 HOURS LATER,
THEY WANT TO CANCEL IT, THEY
SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO
THAILAND TOMORROW. YOU'RE GOING
TO GO TO THAILAND MONTHS FROM
NOW. AND IT'S A IT'S A MODEST
THING THAT, LISTEN, WE THINK
THESE ESTABLISHMENTS SHOULD BE
ACT RESPONSIBLY AND JUST PROVIDE
IT. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT WHEN
YOU SAY WHAT DO YOU WHAT DO YOU
DEFINE AS ADVERTISING, BEN?
SENATOR ALLEN, I THINK THAT I'M
NOT GOING TO SAY IT'S IN THE EYE
OF THE BEHOLDER. THAT'S TOO
EASY. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT,
ANYTHING THAT'S IN A, IN A
PUBLIC SPACE THAT PROMOTES THE
TYPE OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
THAT WOULD BE ADVANCED FOR. SO
IF I GET AN EMAIL, YOU KNOW, IF
I SIGN UP, IF I WENT ON A TRIP
TO FLORIDA AND I SIGN UP THIS
IS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, AS AN
ATTORNEY, A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS
A FACT BASED ANALYSIS. SO EVEN
WHAT I MIGHT TELL YOU TODAY IN
THIS TESTIMONY, IT WOULD BE
POTENTIALLY MORE NARROW OR MORE
EXPANSIVE. OF COURSE, I WOULD
ASSERT AS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT
ANYTHING THAT ADVERTISES TO A
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ABOUT THAT
WOULD FIT THE DEFINITION THAT
APPLIES TO THIS BILL WOULD WOULD
CONSTITUTE THAT NOW BY THE WAY,
BASED ON THE SUGGESTION OF THE
COMMITTEE, WE'RE GIVING THEM AN
EXTRA TWO YEARS TO GO AND DO
THEIR LITIGATION. IF THEY REALLY
WANT TO LITIGATE ON THIS NARROW
PROVISION OF PROTECTING
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS, THEY CAN
GO DO IT. WE YOU KNOW, I KNOW
THIS IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AND THIS IS THE TIME TO HAVE
THESE DEBATES. IT'S ALL IT'S
FAIR. BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, I AS I
SAID, WE HAVE PASSED OTHER BILLS
IN THE LAST YEAR THAT THAT GO
WAY BEYOND WHAT, WHAT I'M
PROPOSING TO DO IN THIS BILL
THAT HAS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY
FOR THOSE FORCES OF COMMERCE TO
CLAIM THAT WE'VE WE'VE
DISADVANTAGED THEM, AND IT
SHOULD BE CHANGED. THERE'S SO
MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE
DONE, BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
LOOKED AT IT AND GIVEN US
COMFORT THAT HE CAN DEFEND IT,
AND I THINK THAT'S A REASON WHY
WE SHOULD JUST LOOK AT THE
MERITS OF THIS BILL. SHOULD
CONSUMERS IN CALIFORNIA BE
GRANTED AN ABILITY TO SAY, I
MADE A MISTAKE FOR 24 HOURS ON
THESE PLATFORMS THAT ARE VERY
COMPLICATED? I WAS JOKING WITH
SENATOR NILO A MOMENT AGO, BUT
I'VE ALSO HAD PERSONAL
CHALLENGES OF, DID I DO THAT?
AND DID I SEE EVERYTHING? AND DO
I REALLY KNOW WHERE IT'S
LOCATED? AND I JUST I DIDN'T
REALLY MEAN TO CLICK IT AND IT'S
GONE THAT YOU PAID. IT'S GONE TO
SOME, FINANCE PROCESSOR AND SOME
OTHER PLACE AND YOU'RE DONE.
THAT'S THE RULE TODAY. THAT'S
THE JUNGLE WORLD OF THE
INTERNET. IN MAKING A
RESERVATION. BUT WHAT IF THE
PLATFORM, YOU'RE POTENTIALLY
COVERING THIS INCREDIBLE RANGE
OF PLATFORMS, AND I THINK YOU'RE
THINKING OF IT VERY MUCH IN
TERMS OF THE INTERNET, BUT AS I
SAY, IF I, I MEAN, THE WAY YOU
HAVE IT SET UP NOW, IF I GET AN
EMAIL AND I HAPPEN TO RECEIVE IT
WHEN I'M PHYSICALLY LOCATED IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THEN
THE LAW KICKS IN EVEN IT'S FROM
A REAL MOM AND POP OPERATION. IF
I HAPPEN TO RECEIVE IT, YOU
KNOW, I GUESS IT SEEMS AS THOUGH
THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME
DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE REALLY
FLESHED OUT HERE TO TEST
APPLICABILITY. UNLESS YOU JUST
WANT TO KICK IT TO THE COURTS
BECAUSE YOU'RE ANTISOCIAL. NO, I
DON'T WANT TO KICK IT TO THE
COURTS, IF I MAY. BUT KEEP THIS
IN MIND. THE VAST MAJORITY OF
RESERVATIONS THAT YOU MAKE IN
THIS SPACE ARE ESTABLISHED
ENTERPRISES. HILTON HYATT, THAT
ALL HAVE INCREDIBLY GENEROUS
CANCELLATION POLICIES. SO YOU'RE
NOW SAYING THE MA AND PA IN
OREGON, OR ARE THERE GOING TO BE
SOME EXAMPLES? YES BUT KEEP IN
MIND THAT IN TERMS OF PROTECTING
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS, THAT 95%
OF IT ARE PLACES THAT IF THEY
HAD JUST BOOKED DIRECTLY, THEY
WOULD NEVER EVEN BE AN ISSUE
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PROVIDE
GENEROUS CANCELLATION POLICIES.
IT'S ONLY THROUGH THIS, THIS
NEW, THIS NEW EVOLVING
ENTERPRISE IS CALLED PLATFORMS
THAT THIS IS THIS IS THERE A WAY
THAT YOU CAN REALLY ZERO IN ON
THOSE PLATFORMS WITH, WITH THE
BILL MOVING FORWARD SO THAT
BECAUSE I AGREE THERE ARE SOME
PRETTY WILD, BROKERS ONLINE NOW
THAT I'VE GOTTEN A CHANCE TO
EXPERIENCE, SO YOU KNOW WHAT? SO
YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN RIGHT
THERE. YOU YOU BOOK THROUGH THE
MAIN HOTEL. THEY'RE USUALLY
PRETTY PRETTY GENEROUS. I DON'T
I DON'T KNOW WHAT AIRBNB'S
POLICIES ARE, BUT I WOULD
PRESUME THAT WOULD BE RELATIVELY
EASY FOR THEM TO, TO ADDRESS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS THAT
THERE'S SOME NARROWING THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN HERE TO REALLY
FOCUS IN ON, ON YOUR GOALS. AND
YOU'RE STILL GOING TO FACE A LOT
OF I'D BE OPEN TO ANY
CHALLENGES. YOU HEARD FROM
OPPOSITION. THEY HAVE NO
AMENDMENTS. LISTEN, I AGREE WITH
YOU. YOU KNOW, MY PRACTICE IN
THE LAW BECAUSE I THINK THEY
FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE A REALLY STRONG CHANCE
IN COURT. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT
THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE THIRD
PRONG ANALYSIS. WELL, AS I SAID,
WE HAVE WE HAVE PROFESSIONALS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, BEN, THAT
REPRESENT CONSUMERS. I THINK WE
HAVE A VERY STRONG CASE. AND
THAT'S BEEN THE DEFEND OTHER
LAWS THAT YOU HAVE VOTED FOR AND
PASSED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS.
THEY FEEL THAT ARE MUCH MORE
SUBSTANTIAL THAN THIS. BUT OF
COURSE, IF THE OPPOSITION HAS
ANY SUGGESTIONS ON ON TO NARROW
THIS IN A WAY, BUT I HAVEN'T YOU
HAVEN'T HEARD THAT TODAY. THEY
SAY, I THINK THE PROBLEM YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE IS THAT THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO BE INCLINED TO TRY
TO FIX THE BILL, THAT THEY'RE
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK HARD
TO DEFEAT IN COURT. I GUESS WHAT
I WOULD INVITE YOU TO ENGAGE
WITH MEMBERS, I SUPPOSE, ON THAT
ANALYSIS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK
IT'S IN THEIR INTEREST TO, GIVE
YOU AMENDMENTS, QUITE FRANKLY.
BUT BUT ALL THE REASON TO ALLOW
ME TO CONTINUE TO MOVE THE BILL
FORWARD AND TO WORK WITH ALL OF
YOU IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS, WE
OBVIOUSLY WANT TO HAVE A LAW
THAT CAN STAND UP THAT'S IN
THAT'S IN ALL OF OUR INTERESTS
TO DO THAT. AND SO IF THERE'S
WAYS TO DO THAT, AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD, I'M CERTAINLY
OPEN TO THAT. AND, AND TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF YOUR INSIGHTS AND
OTHERS FOR SURE. ARE YOU ARE YOU
DONE BEEN AROUND MORE OR LESS.
WE'RE GOING TO GO IN
ALPHABETICAL, ALPHABETICAL
ORDER. SENATOR ASHBY. SORRY, I
JUST I FEEL LIKE SENATOR ALLEN'S
QUESTIONS ARE GIVING ME MORE
QUESTIONS, LIKE THE ADVERTISING
COMPONENT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW HOW
THIS WORKS. WE ALL WORK WITH
THESE VISITS. SO WHAT DOES THAT
EVEN MEAN? SO IF FLORIDA DOES A
IF FLORIDA'S VISIT ORLANDO DOES
A MASSIVE AD CAMPAIGN, IS THAT
HILTON AND SOME INDIVIDUAL
AIRBNBS ADVERTISING CALIFORNIA
OR IS THAT VISIT FLORIDA VISIT
ORLANDO'S ADVERTISING DO THEY
INTERMINGLE IS A BILLBOARD THE
SAME AS SOMETHING YOU SAW ON THE
INTERNET? AND IF THEY ADVERTISE,
YOU KNOW, THE INTERNET
ADVERTISING MIGHT NOT BE SO
TARGETED THAT THERE'S SPECIFIC
LOOKING AT CALIFORNIA, BUT
SOMEBODY IN LODGING, I KNOW IT'S
LIKE BEACH DESTINATION, JUST
BECAUSE I PUT THAT IN AND I LIVE
IN CALIFORNIA, THAT DOESN'T. NOW
THEY'RE ADVERTISING TO ME
BECAUSE I PUT UP THE RED FLAG ON
MY COMPUTER THAT I'M LOOKING AT
BEACH DESTINATIONS. AND BY THE
WAY, EVERY ALGORITHM ON MY PHONE
AND MY ALEXA AND MY HOUSE AND
WHATEVER ELSE IS LISTENING TO ME
IS GOING TO SEND ME EVERY BEACH
DESTINATION IN THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA. WHICH, BY THE WAY,
FOR THE RECORD, I LIKE BECAUSE
IT JUST HELPS ME REMEMBER WHAT I
WAS TRYING TO DO IN THE FIRST
PLACE. BUT IT AND WE JUST
THERE'S SO MUCH OF THAT
ADVERTISING THAT IS LIKE
CONTROLLED SO DIFFERENTLY MOVING
FORWARD. AND I, I ACTUALLY
REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF A 24
HOUR CANCELLATION. I JUST CAN'T
WRAP MY MIND AROUND HOW IT'S
LEGAL OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA. IF
YOUR BILL WAS TO MAKE EVERYBODY
INSIDE OF CALIFORNIA TO DO THAT,
IT'D BE AN EASY YES FOR ME. AND
I WOULDN'T EVEN BE TALKING RIGHT
NOW. BUT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING
HOW WE DO THAT TO FLORIDA
WITHOUT LETTING FLORIDA TELL US
THEIR PEOPLE CAN CARRY GUNS AND
CONCEALED WEAPONS INTO OUR
STATE, OR THEY'RE THEY CAN FORCE
THEIR LAWS ON US. AND I'M HAVING
TROUBLE WITH THAT PIECE, GIVEN
WHAT I KNOW ABOUT PORK LAW,
THAT'S I'M I'M STRUGGLING
MIGHTILY WITH THAT NATIONAL
PORK. YEAH. NATIONAL PORK. AND
IF I MAY I MEAN THAT'S THAT'S A
GREAT YOU CAN YOU COULD SEE
YOURSELF IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME
COURT NOW ARGUING BOTH SIDES ON
THE POINTS THAT YOU'VE JUST
MADE. AND THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WE LEAVE TO OUR
HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND TO
WRESTLE WITH THOSE BIG ISSUES.
OBVIOUSLY, 24 HOUR CANCELLATION
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE BIGGEST
ISSUE FOR THE FACT SITUATION.
THEY MIGHT WANT TO MAKE THESE
CHALLENGES. I SUSPECT THEY WOULD
COME IN IN OTHER WAYS AND OTHER,
OTHER LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN
ENACTED. THIS IS A MODEST ONE.
IT PROTECTS CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS. THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS TO BE
RAISED. I CAN'T, I CAN'T I CAN'T
SETTLE THEM. I CAN SPEAK TO WHAT
OUR LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN
CALIFORNIA HAVE SAID. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
HAS SAID WE CAN DEFEND THIS. SO
I RESPECT THAT OFFICE, AND I
RESPECT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
COME TO THAT CONCLUSION. I
CERTAINLY, SHORE UP MY VIEW THAT
THEY'RE THEY'RE WILLING TO GO
OUT AND DEFEND CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS ON THIS BILL AND
OTHERS THAT YOU ALL HAVE
SUPPORTED OVER THE YEARS. AND
THAT, TO ME, SHOULD GIVE YOU, I
HOPE, THE CONFIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. YEAH. WELL, I'LL
JUST I'M WILLING TO I'D LOVE TO
SEE THE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE. LOVE TO. YOU
KNOW, I TAKE YOU AT A WORD TO
ENGAGE WITH OUR OFFICE AND
OTHERS ON TRYING TO MAKE SOME
REFINEMENTS. SO IN THAT SPIRIT,
I'M I'M, YOU KNOW, WILLING TO
GIVE YOU THE COURTESY OF
ALLOWING YOU TO WORK CONTINUALLY
ON THIS. AND, BUT I DO THINK
THERE IS A NUMBER OF, OF, OF
THESE THIRD PRONG ISSUES THAT WE
SHOULD WE REALLY SHOULD, IN GOOD
FAITH, TRY TO GET ADDRESSED IF
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS BILL
FORWARD. THANK YOU. AND SPEAKING
OF THAT, SENATOR DURAZO JUST,
MOVED THE BILL SO WITH THAT, IF
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, ALLOW
SENATOR GLAZIER TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU FOR THE ROBUST CONVERSATION
TODAY. I'D LOVE TO FIND MORE
WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONCERN
OF THE OPPOSITION. YOU ALL WERE
THERE LAST YEAR IN TRYING TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS FOR
IN-STATE RESERVATIONS. THIS
PROVIDES THAT AVENUE FOR OUT OF
STATE. THE BILL WILL BE HEAVILY
SCRUTINIZED. I'M SURE AS IT
GOES, IF IT GETS OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE TODAY. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. SO THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
LET'S CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN SB 1424.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG
WILK NØ WILK. NO. ALLEN. ALLEN.
AYE. ASHBY CABALLERO. DURAZO.
AYE. LAIRD. MIN NILO. NO. NILO.
NO. STERN WAHAB. YOU HAVE 2 TO
2. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TWO.
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. SENATOR
GROVE, YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT.
I TRIED TO HELP YOU OUT,
GIRLFRIEND, AS BEST I COULD, BUT
. OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU MADE A
TOTAL ERROR WHEN YOU SAID
SENATOR ROSCOE MOVED THE BILL. I
GO, SHE'S NOT EVEN IN THE ROOM.
AND YOU WERE HIDING BEHIND. I
COULDN'T SEE YOU BEHIND. SENATOR
GLAZIER. YOUR PASS IS AMENDED TO
ADD FLAVOR. ALL RIGHT, SO UP
NEXT IS ITEM 11 BY SENATOR
GROVE. AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS
Dð PASS AND SEND TO LABOR, WHICH
I WILL SEE AGAIN WITH THAT, THE
FLOOR IS YOURS, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO THANK CHAIR
UMBERG AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE EXISTING LAW TOOK
EFFECT JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM ASKING
CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF OFF DUTY.
ABOUT OFF DUTY OR PRIOR CANNABIS
USE. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR FOR
THEIR FEEDBACK ON THIS BILL, AND
I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE
THE PRIOR USE LANGUAGE, THAT WAS
ADDED IN THE STATUTE LAST YEAR
WITH SB 700 BY SENATOR BRADFORD,
AS AMENDED. SB 1264 WOULD EXEMPT
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, FROM
THIS STATUTE GOVERNING
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF OFF DUTY
CANNABIS USE, ALLOWING EMPLOYEES
TO BE TESTED FOR CANNABIS USE.
THE BILL IS NARROWLY THE BILL.
THIS BILL IS NARROWLY DRAWN TO
PROVIDE A TARGETED EXEMPTION FOR
JUST THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE UNDERTAKING
DUTIES DIRECTLY RELATED WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THIS IS THE SAME
EXEMPTION GIVEN TO THE
CONSTRUCTION TRADES CURRENTLY
THAT THEY HAVE IN STATUTE, AND
ALSO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
THAT OPERATE BOTH LAW
ENFORCEMENT INDIVIDUALS THAT
CARRY A FIREARM BUT THEN ALSO
OPERATE HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS. AND
THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THEY'RE
THE TRUCK DRIVERS ARE EXEMPTED,
BUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
ARE NOT. AND WE'RE JUST TRYING
TO ALIGN THAT. THE WORK OF BOTH
PROFESSIONALS HAS IMPORTANT
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND RESPONSIBILITY. PEACE
OFFICERS ARE EXPECTED TO
OVERCOME INTENSE PHYSICAL
CHALLENGES AND MAKE SPLIT SECOND
DECISIONS IN LIFE AND DEATH
SCENARIOS, AND THESE
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE GENERALLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOSE EFFECTS
OF CANNABIS USE. SB 1264 WILL
ENSURE DEPARTMENTS RETAIN THE
ABILITY TO TEST EMPLOYEES FOR
CANNABIS USE TO ENSURE THE
HIGHEST PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
ARE MET IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENVIRONMENT. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS CORY SALZILLO WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION AND JONATHAN FELDMAN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA PEACE
OFFICERS. EXCUSE ME, POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION. CORY, THANK
YOU. AND UNDER THE RULES OF THE
OF THE COMMITTEE, PRIMARY
WITNESSES GET TWO MINUTES. SO
THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. CORY SUSILO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
PLEASED TO CO-SPONSOR THE BILL.
I'M NOT SURE I CAN SAY IT BETTER
THAN THE AUTHOR DID, BUT I WILL
NOTE THAT AS THESE BILLS AB 28
188 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK AND
THEN SUBSEQUENTLY SB 700 BY
SENATOR BRADFORD, IT WAS
GENERALLY PRESUMED, AT LEAST BY
US, THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THOSE BILLS THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN EITHER BILL'S REACH
IN THE WAKE OF THE BILL'S
PASSAGE, THEIR SUBSEQUENT
IMPLEMENTATION, AND THEN SOME
MORE REFINED LEGAL ANALYSIS,
IT'S LESS CLEAR THAT THAT'S THE
CASE. SO THIS BILL ELIMINATES
ANY UNCERTAINTY IN THAT REGARD.
WITH A TARGET EXEMPTION FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT APPLICANTS AND
EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE OR ARE
UNDERTAKING DUTIES DIRECTLY
RELATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. AS
THE AUTHOR NOTED, WE ARE HAPPY
TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS
DISCUSSED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS THAT BRINGS THIS
EXEMPTION IN LINE WITH THE
EXEMPTION THAT EXISTS IN CURRENT
LAW FOR THE TRADES, BOTH
PROFESSIONS OBVIOUSLY HAVE
PUBLIC FACING IMPLICATIONS FOR
SAFETY AND RESPONSIBILITY, AND
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO SPONSOR THE
BILL. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
. ALRIGHTY. OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHING
MICROPHONE. ANY METOO TESTIMONY?
YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. DARRYL LUCIAN, HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
PROTECTIVE LEAGUE REPRESENTING
THE NOW 9000 OFFICERS OF THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
JARED MOSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1264,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, DALE GEHRINGER
HERE FOR CALIFORNIA NORML,
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR REFORM
OF MARIJUANA LAWS AND A
CO-SPONSOR OF AB 2188. THIS BILL
IS A STEP BACKWARDS FROM,
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS THAT WERE
ESTABLISHED BY AB 2188 AND 2022,
BASICALLY, AB 2188 JUST BANS THE
USE OF OUTMORE LOADED AND
UNSCIENTIFIC DRUG URINE TESTS
THAT HAVE NO RELATION TO ACTUAL
JOB PERFORMANCE. THIS, SB 1264
REPEALS THESE PROTECTIONS FOR
ACTUALLY A BROAD SPECTRUM OF
WORKERS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT,
EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING THEIR USE
OF MARIJUANA OFF THE JOB, EVEN
FOR MEDICINE. WE'RE CONCERNED
THAT 1264 UNDERMINES CONFIDENCE
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT
REESTABLISHES A WALL OF MISTRUST
BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE
CANNABIS COMMUNITY THAT WAS
BUILT UP UNDER YEARS OF
PROHIBITION, BUT FINALLY REMOVED
BY OUR LEGALIZATION LAW. THIS
BILL IMPLIES THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, UNLIKE
OTHER WORKERS, CAN'T BE TRUSTED
TO USE CANNABIS SAFELY OFF THE
JOB, LET ME JUST SAY THAT
NOTHING IN CURRENT LAW PREVENTS
LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM MAINTAINING
A STRICT DRUG FREE WORKPLACE. AB
2188 ALLOWS EMPLOYERS TO USE
ORAL SWAB, BLOOD OR BREATH TESTS
OR PERFORMANCE TESTS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY SENSITIVE TO IMPAIRMENT
. BUT, LET ME SAY SB 1264 IS
EXCESSIVELY BROAD. IT INCLUDES A
HOST OF CIVILIAN POSITIONS WITH
NO ENFORCEMENT DUTIES, SUCH AS
COMMUNICATIONS, RECORD KEEPING,
ANIMAL CONTROL, CORONERS, PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION, IT'S BEEN
POINTED OUT THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION TRADES GOT A
SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM AB 2188.
THIS WAS DONE AT THE UNION'S
INSISTENCE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG
STANDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
TO THE INDUSTRY. WE THEREFORE
URGE YOU TO REJECT SB 1264, THE
CANNABIS COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO
BE ASSURED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM OUR RANKS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1264,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS BETH NANOWSKI WITH SEIU
CALIFORNIA. APOLOGIES FOR THE
LATE OPPOSITION TO THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME LIGHT
INITIAL ENGAGEMENT WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND THE
COMMITTEE. WE ARE PROUD TO
REPRESENT THOUSANDS OF UNSWORN
STAFF THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY
THIS BILL. SECOND, THE COMMENTS
MADE BY OUR COLLEAGUE AT CAL
NORML LOOK FORWARD TO
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. KRISTEN. HEIDELBERG
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS, WESTERN STATES COUNSEL,
ALSO IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
APOLOGIES FOR ALSO LATE
OPPOSITION AND HAPPY TO ENGAGE
IN CONVERSATION TO GET WHERE WE
CAN. WE REPRESENT THOUSANDS OF
WORKERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND ARE LOOKING TO
STEP FORWARD AND NOT BACK. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE.
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SENATOR ALLEN, DO YOU WANT TO
GIVE US SOME RESPONSE TO SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED? I YOU KNOW,
PARTICULARLY, THE IDEA THAT IT'S
GOING TO WRAP IN A LOT OF
NON-SWORN OFFICERS WITHIN LAW
ENFORCEMENT WORLD, YOU COULD
START AND I CAN FINISH. MR.
SUSILO, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, THROUGH THE CHAIR,
SENATOR, WE TRY TO TARGET THE,
DEFINITION IN THE STATUTE AS
CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE. IT DOES
INCLUDE SOME NON-SWORN
CIVILIANS, BUT IT DOESN'T BELIE
THE FACT THAT SOME OF THOSE, NOT
ALL OF THOSE, IN OUR OPINION,
THOSE NON-SWORN POSITIONS DEAL
WITH VERY SERIOUS AND VITAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS. SO RECORD
SUPERVISORS, FOR EXAMPLE,
DISPATCHERS, RIGHT, A
DISPATCHER, THEY'RE NOT OUT IN
THE FIELD NECESSARILY. THEY MAY
NOT HAVE A GUN ON THEIR HIP, BUT
THEY ARE CONTROLLING THE
RESPONSE TO A SITUATION. AND SO
HAVING THAT ABILITY TO MAKE
SURE, CLEARLY WE KNOW IMPAIRMENT
IS NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS, BUT
JUST THE SORT OF LONG TERME
EFFECTS BY CANNABIS USE AND THE
SORT OF TRUST AND RESPONSIBILITY
THAT'S EXPECTED, SO WE TRIED TO
FOCUS THIS AND AGAIN, AS YOU
KNOW, SHERIFF'S OFFICES, AND
JUST SHERIFF'S OFFICES, BUT HAVE
A WHOLE HOST OF DUTIES, ANIMAL
CONTROL, CORONER FUNCTIONS.
THERE ARE DEPUTY CORONER
INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE OUT ON THE
STREET, PUBLIC FACING. SO OKAY,
I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS
TODAY, BUT YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY A
QUITE A BIT OF WORK AHEAD IN
TERMS OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED FROM
OPPOSITION. SO, AND WE WEREN'T
AWARE OF THE OPPOSITION UNTIL I
THINK LATE LAST NIGHT, WE WOULD
HAVE WORKED WITH THEM. YOU KNOW,
I WORK ON MY BILLS. I WOULD HAVE
WORKED WITH THEM TO ADDRESS
THEIR OPPOSITION AND THE
QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD. WE
SIMPLY LOOKED AT THE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. WAS THERE SHERIFF'S
OFFICERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS WERE LIKE, LOOK, THESE
GUYS CARRY A GUN. THESE GUYS DO
THIS. THESE GUYS DRIVE A TRUCK.
THESE GUYS ARE EXEMPTED, BUT
THESE GUYS ARE NOT, OR GIRLS. SO
WE JUST ALIGNED IT WITH WHAT THE
BUILDERS TRADE LANGUAGE WAS. AND
THEN WE TOOK THE CHAIR'S
AMENDMENTS AND THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT EVERYBODY WAS COMFORTABLE
WITH THIS SITUATION. AND THEN
LATE OPPOSITION CAME LAST NIGHT.
BUT I'D BE GLAD TO WORK WITH
HIM. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, YEAH.
I'M SORRY, SENATOR STERN AND
THEN SENATOR RUSSO. YEAH. THANK
YOU. APPRECIATE. YEAH. THIS ALL
HAPPENS LATE. I JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE I KNOW WE HAVE THE
ASSOCIATIONS HERE. MY, ONE OF MY
LOCAL POLICE CHIEF, CHIEF
SCHWARTZ, AND THEN OUR VENTURA
COUNTY SHERIFF BOTH RAISED THIS
ISSUE LAST YEAR. SO I ACTUALLY
APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO COME
FORWARD WITH SOME SOLUTION,
BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT ESPECIALLY LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES JUST HAVE A CULTURE
WHERE THEY HAVE TRUST AND THAT
THERE'S NOT TOO MANY, YOU KNOW,
HIDDEN, ISSUES THAT MAY ACTUALLY
AFFECT ABILITY TO CARRY OUT A
VERY, VERY DIFFICULT JOB. BUT, I
THINK THE PRIOR USE AMENDMENTS
ARE A GOOD STEP IN THAT
DIRECTION. HOPE YOU'LL KEEP
WORKING ON IT. BUT I'LL BE I'LL
BE SUPPORTING THE MEASURE TODAY.
AND THANK YOU, SIR. ABSOLUTELY,
SIR. WE ARE, WE DID TAKE THE
PRIOR AMENDMENT. WE TALKED TO
THE POLICE CHIEFS AND THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICERS, AND THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS THAT
ARE VERY QUALIFIED TO BE LAW
ENFORCEMENT THAT MAYBE HAD A
FIVE YEAR, YOU KNOW, STINT WHERE
THEY SMOKED POT AND OR WHATEVER.
AND SO THEY WERE EXCLUDED BEFORE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
RECOGNIZED THAT THAT IS A
QUESTION THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE
ASKED, BUT THEY DO WANT TO
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY THAT
CARRIES A GUN THAT PERFORMS
THESE SPECIFIC DUTIES,
INTERACTING WITH THE PUBLIC IS
NOT, IS NOT IN CURRENT USE OF
CANNABIS. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
RUSSELL. YEAH, I, I
MISUNDERSTOOD A LITTLE BIT HERE
IN TERMS OF THE ORGANIZATION
ÓRDENES THAT WERE IN SUPPORT AND
IN OPPOSITION. AND I'D LIKE TO
HEAR FROM THE IMPACT THAT IT'S
GOING TO HAVE ON RANK AND FILE,
SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL
HAVE HAD ANY CONVERSATION AT
ALL. IF WE'RE COULD I ASK SOME
EITHER SEIU OR UFCW? YOU SURE.
WHOEVER LIKE TO COME TO THE
MICROPHONE FIRST? DO YOU THINK?
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU
SEE A PATH TO, AMENDING THIS IN
SUCH A WAY THAT WOULD REPRESENT
THE RANK AND FILE? OR DO YOU SEE
THIS AS SORT OF ONE OF THOSE
UNFIXABLE? SENATOR RUSSELL, IF
YOU DON'T MIND, COULD I COULD I
ASK A QUESTION ALONG THE LINES
OF YOURS? WHAT EMPLOYEES ARE YOU
SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT,
THAT YOU REPRESENT? SURE. THAT
WORK FOR YOU, SENATOR RUSSELL?
YES. RIGHT. HAPPY TO START THERE
AGAIN, BETH MOLDOWSKY WITH SEIU,
IN TERMS OF FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, THINK ACROSS OUR
PUBLIC SECTOR BARGAINING UNITS
IN PARTICULAR. THINKING ABOUT
THE WORKFORCE THAT WE HAVE
THERE, SOME OF THE JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS WERE ACTUALLY,
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SPONSOR AND
APPRECIATE THAT ACKNOWLEDGMENT,
BUT THAT COULD BE SOMEONE WHO IS
A CLERK AT A SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
COULD BE SOMEONE HANDLING FILES.
IT COULD BE SOMEONE IN ANIMAL
CONTROL, MAYBE, WHO'S, YOU KNOW,
OUT ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY
ON THINGS RELATING TO ANIMAL
CONTROL. I CAN PUT TOGETHER A
FULLER LIST OF JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS, IF THAT'S
HELPFUL. BOTH FOR THE AUTHOR AND
FOR CERTAINLY THE NEXT COMMITTEE
HEARINGS AS WELL. I DON'T HAVE
THE PREPARED TODAY, BUT WE DO
BELIEVE IT'S THOUSANDS OF RANK
AND FILE MEMBERS ACROSS A
VARIETY OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY, SENATOR
RUSSELL. GO AHEAD. THE QUESTION
WAS, DO YOU FORESEE THAT THERE'S
CAN YOU TELL IF THERE'S A
FIXABLE PATHWAY HERE, OR IS IT
SO, HARDCORE DIFFICULT THAT YOU
DON'T SEE IT? YOU KNOW, WE'RE
ALWAYS OPEN TO CONVERSATION.
ADMITTEDLY, WE HAVE NOT BROUGHT
FORWARD ANY AMENDMENTS YET TO
THE AUTHOR, SO CERTAINLY ALWAYS
HAPPY TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS. DO
WANT TO APPRECIATE AS WELL,
THOUGH, THE MORE GLOBAL CONCERN
THAT HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED IN
TERMS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS
JUST IMPLEMENTED, TO EXTENT TO
WHICH WE COULD BE ROLLING THINGS
BACK HERE AS WE, YOU KNOW, FIRST
GET OUR HANDLE ON IT. I THINK
THE OTHER THING I'LL JUST
ACKNOWLEDGE, WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT SOME OF OUR LARGE
BARGAINING UNITS, YOU HAVE BOTH
KIND OF UNSWORN RANK AND FILE
MEMBERS IN DEPARTMENT THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY, SIDE BY
SIDE IN THE SAME BARGAINING UNIT
AS OTHER DEPARTMENTS, BE IT A
HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND OTHER
FUNCTIONS. AND JUST, THIS
TENSION, WE COULD BE
UNINTENTIONALLY CREATING WITHIN
THOSE BROADER BARGAINING UNITS,
HAVE KIND OF DIFFERENT SETS OF
RULES FOR DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF
THAT BARGAINING UNIT. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR OSSOFF, DOES THAT ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION? OKAY. IS THERE A
FOLLOW ON? I CAN BE SORRY. I CAN
BE REALLY QUICK. KRISTEN
HEIDELBACH, AGAIN WITH UFCW
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL. WE DON'T
ACTUALLY REPRESENT WORKERS THAT
ARE COVERED, ALTHOUGH THE FOLKS
THAT ARE COVERED, IT'S NOT JUST
PEOPLE THAT ARE BEARING ARMS.
IT'S A LARGE GROUP OF FOLKS. OUR
CONCERN IS BECAUSE WE WORK SO
HARD ON AB 2188 QUIRKE'S BILL
THAT CHANGED THE TESTING
STANDARD. NOTHING IN CURRENT LAW
ALLOWS OR PREVENTS AN EMPLOYER
FROM MAKING SURE THAT THEIR
WORKFORCE IS DRUG FREE. BUT THIS
KIND OF ADDS A CARVE OUT, WHICH
WE ALREADY HAD WORKED REALLY
CLOSELY WITH. THE BUILDING
TRADES TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE
HAPPY. AND SO THIS IS A REAL
SLIPPERY SLOPE IN A LEGALIZED,
REGULATED STATE LIKE CALIFORNIA,
WHERE IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO GO
ON A FRIDAY NIGHT AND ENJOY A
GLASS OF WINE AND THEY CAN GO TO
WORK ON MONDAY AND NOT GET IN
TROUBLE, WE LIVE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THEY CAN LEGALLY BUY
THE PRODUCT AND SO WE REALLY ARE
ALIGNED WITH THE THOUGHTS THAT
DALE BROUGHT FORWARD WITH CAL
NORMAL. BUT WE'RE COMPLETELY
OPEN TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR
AND MAKING SURE WE CAN GET
THERE. SO THERE'S NONE OF YOUR
NONE OF THE FOLKS YOU REPRESENT,
BUT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE
SLIPPERY SLOPE I AM BECAUSE ONCE
WE ADD THAT CARVE OUT, THEN
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE AND
MORE GROUPS THAT ARE GOING TO
HOP ON AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT
OUR FOLKS COVERED BY THIS. SO
RIGHT NOW, IN FROM A LABOR
PERSPECTIVE. GOT IT. OKAY.
THANKS. OKAY. YEAH. WAIT A
MINUTE. ONE SECOND HERE FROM A
LABOR. OH, ONE SECOND, ONE
SECOND HERE. SENATOR BARRASSO,
HAVE YOU FINISHED? SENATOR
RUSSO'S FINISHED OTHERS WITH
QUESTIONS. SENATOR STERN, DID
YOU HAVE A QUESTION? JUST A
PERSPECTIVE FROM RANK AND FILE
OFFICERS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS
HOPING FOR, TOO. I KNOW WE HAVE
PEOPLE HERE. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK
YOU AGAIN, COMMITTEE AND
MEMBERS. SO LOS ANGELES POLICE
PROTECTIVE LEAGUE IS THE LARGEST
BARGAINING UNIT OF EIGHT 30.1
PEACE OFFICERS IN THE STATE. AND
BY FAR IT IS A VERY DEEP CONCERN
THAT IS CAUSING, I THINK, A LOT
OF TENSION, INTERNALLY AS OF
RIGHT NOW AND FRANKLY, CONFUSED
THÀNH, WITHIN THE UNION IN TERMS
OF, OF HOW WE REALLY ROLL THIS
OUT AND HOW WE LIVE UP TO THE
ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS THAT
THE LEGISLATURE HAS DESIRED AND
IMPOSED UPON PEACE OFFICERS,
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REALLY
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS
CLEAN. SO, FROM THAT BARGAINING
UNIT PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE
STRONGLY, STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS MEASURE, AND WE FIND IT
CLARIFYING AND IT'S GOING TO NOT
THAT YOU WANT TO BE IN THE WEEDS
OF INTERNAL, OPERATIONS, OF HOW
LABOR UNIONS WORK. IT IS GOING
TO, I THINK, GIVE US A LOT OF
CLARITY. IT'S GOING TO GIVE US A
LOT OF LEGAL CLARITY ON WHAT WE
COVER FOR OUR MEMBERS IN TERMS
OF LEGAL DEFENSE AND THINGS OF
THAT NATURE, IT'S JUST GOING TO
BE VERY HELPFUL. SO WE
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR STERN FINISHED. OTHER
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS SEEING NO
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, IS
THERE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR ASHBY MOVES THE BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR
GROVE, FOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
WE SUGGESTED. THANK YOU SIR. ALL
RIGHT, WE'D LIKE TO CLOSE. JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. I DO AGREE WITH THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVE THAT
DID SAY THIS WILL PROVIDE
CLARITY. AND I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT
CLARITY TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
ALRIGHTY. MADAM SECRETARY,
THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY SENATOR
ASHBY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 11, SB
1264. THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO SENATE LABOR, PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
UMBERG. I UMBERG I WILK I WILK I
ALLEN. ALLEN I ASHBY. ASHBY I
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I DURAZO
LAIRD MINH. NILO NILO I STERN A
STERN I WAHAB. YOU HAVE 7 TO 0
SEVEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU. SENATOR GROVE. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR OKOBOJI, I SEE
SENATOR OKOBOJI HERE, ITEM
NUMBER 13, SB 1040.
SIX.
OH. I'M SORRY, SENATOR OKOBOJI.
YES THANK YOU, AND GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THIS BILL. I'M PLEASED
TO PRESENT SB 1040, WHICH WOULD
FACILITATE THE SERVING OF COURT
DOCUMENTS TO INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS BY ALLOWING THE
PROCESS SERVER TO LEAVE THE
DOCUMENTS WITH THE FACILITIES
LITIGATION COORDINATOR. THIS
BILL WILL ALLOW THE EFFECTIVE
DELIVERY OF COURT DOCUMENTS
WITHOUT A PROCESS SERVER BEING
DENIED ACCESS MULTIPLE TIMES TO
THE INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL BY
PRISON OR JAIL STAFF. EXISTING
LAW IS UNCLEAR WHETHER SERVING
COURT DOCUMENTS TO A SHERIFF OR
WARDEN CONSTITUTES PERSONAL
SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENTS.
BECAUSE THE LAW IS AMBIGUOUS, A
COUNTY JUDGE MAY FIND THAT
DELIVERY OF COURT DOCUMENTS TO A
SHERIFF OR WARDEN DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE PERSONAL SERVICE, AND
CAN REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF DUE
DILIGENCE TO EFFECT THE SERVICE
FREQUENTLY TO SHOW DUE
DILIGENCE, THE PROCESS SERVERS
WILL MAKE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO
DELIVER THE DOCUMENTS TO AN
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL, EVEN
WHEN THE JAIL OR PRISON STAFF
INDICATE THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO
PRESENT THE INDIVIDUAL TO
RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS. THE
NEGOTIATED APRIL 8TH AMENDMENTS
ADDRESS THE AMBIGUITY IN THE
CIVIL SERVICE PROCESS OF AN
INCARCERATED PERSON BY
EXPLICITLY CODIFYING PORTIONS OF
THE CDCR'S DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
MANUAL TO ENSURE DELIVERY OF
SERVICE FOR BOTH IN-PERSON AND
MAIL DELIVERY, I WORKED CLOSELY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION TO IMPROVE
THE BILL. JOINING ME IS MIKE
BULLOCK, WHO REPRESENTS THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF LEGAL SUPPORT
PROFESSIONALS. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MR. BARLOW. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, MIKE
BULLARD, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LEGAL
SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS. THIS HAS
BEEN A PART OF AN EFFORT WE'VE
BEEN ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO
NORMALIZE, REGULARIZE THE
SERVICE OF PROCESS IN PENAL
FACILITIES WHERE PRACTICES
DIFFERED GREATLY. SOME PRISONS,
FOR EXAMPLE, WERE SENDING OUR
MEMBERS AWAY AT THE GATE AND
SAYING, JUST MAIL IN THE
DOCUMENTS, WHICH IS NOT, IN OUR
VIEW, VERY GOOD SERVICE. SO
WE'RE REALLY WORKING HERE. YOU
KNOW, AN INCARCERATED PERSON
BOTH, DESERVES AND IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO DUE
PROCESS. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THEY GET THE DOCUMENTS IN A
RELIABLE WAY, AT THE SAME TIME,
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK
MULTIPLE TIMES TO BE TOLD THE
SAME THING BY THE PRISON THAT
YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TWO MORE
TIMES, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO
PRODUCE THE, INCARCERATED
PERSON. SO WE APPRECIATE THE
EFFORTS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
WORKING WITH US. WE'VE ALSO
WORKED AND CONTINUING DIALOG
WITH THE ACLU. WE APPRECIATE THE
HARD WORK OF THE COMMITTEE AND
MR. DOHERTY ON THIS, AND SO WE
THINK THIS IS LEADING TO BETTER
SERVICE, MORE RELIABLE SERVICE
THAT INCARCERATED PEOPLE
DESERVE. AND WITH THAT, WE'D ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? SB
WHATEVER. SB 1040 GETTING TIRED.
THANK YOU. NO ONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT. LET'S TURN TO
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1040, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOING ONCE, GOING
TWICE. HERE WE GO. NOT ACTUALLY
OPPOSED, BUT RACHEL BHAGWAT,
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE
CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A POSITION
ON THIS BILL, BUT WANTED TO
REITERATE THAT WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
AND THE SPONSORS ON OUTSTANDING
ISSUES AND WANT TO THANK THEM
FOR THE GOOD FAITH CONVERSATION
SO FAR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE THAT
WISHES TO EXPRESS THEIR NÓ
POSITION, SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHES THE MICROPHONE? ALL
RIGHT. LET'S TURN TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS SEEING NONE, I WILL SKIP
THE WAR STORY ABOUT OR STORIES
ABOUT TRYING TO DEPOSE PEOPLE IN
PRISON. QUESTIONS? YES. SENATOR
ALLEN MOVES THE BILL. ARE YOU
MOVING THE BILL, SENATOR ALLEN?
YES. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ALLEN
MOVES THE BILL. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
GET IT DONE. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 13, SB 1040. THE MOTION
IS DO PASS TO SENATE PUBLIC
SAFETY UMBERG UMBERG I WILK I
WILK I ALLEN ALLEN I ASHBY ASH
ASHBY I CABALLERO I DURAZZO.
DURAZZO I LAIRD. MINH. MELLO I
HILO. I STERN, A STERN I WAHAB.
WAHAB I 9 TO 0 NINE ZERO. WE'LL
PUT THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR OKOBOJI. I SEE SENATOR
SKINNER HERE. SO HERE'S THE
RUNDOWN. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM
SENATOR SKINNER. THEN WE'LL HEAR
FROM IF SENATOR SMALLWOOD CUEVAS
IS AVAILABLE THEN SENATOR
WIENER. SO SENATOR SKINNER, ITEM
NUMBER 19, SB 906.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, SB 906, AS YOU. I'M
SURE AWARE, CALIFORNIA, WAS THE
FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO
GIVE OUR STUDENT ATHLETES THEIR
NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS RIGHTS.
THAT WAS A BILL I CARRIED. I
DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YEAR, BUT
ANYWAY, ANYWAYS. AND I WILL GIVE
THIS LITTLE EDITORIAL THAT IN
WATCHING MARCH MADNESS AND
SEEING THAT THE WOMEN'S GAMES
BROKE ALL RECORDS FOR ALL
BASKETBALL GAMES EVER. NOT JUST
WOMEN'S BASKETBALL GAMES, BUT
THERE WAS MORE VIEWERSHIP. SO,
YOU KNOW, WHY DID WERE YOU
WATCHING THOSE WOMEN MORE?
BECAUSE THEIR ADS ALL OVER THE
PLACE, THEY'RE BEING SPONSORED.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PAYING
ATTENTION MORE. AND I THINK THE
NIL REALLY HELPED THAT. I WAS A
LITTLE DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAITLYN
CLARK, THE NUMBER ONE PICK IN
THE DRAFT FOR THE WNBA, IS GOING
TO GET PAID. BUT THAT'S A
DIFFERENT STORY, AND WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO WORK ON THAT IN
ANOTHER WAY. BUT ANYWAY, SO WE
KNOW THAT NIL HAS HELPED OUR
ATHLETES. WE KNOW IT'S HELPED
WOMEN, BUT IS IT BEING FAIR? IS
IT IS IT AN EQUITABLE. IS IT
BEING USED EQUITABLY? IT'S HARD
TO LEGISLATE FOR THAT. BUT WHAT
I'M TRYING TO DO NOW WITH SB 906
IS TO TRY TO GET SOME TRANS
AGENCY AND SOME INFORMATION SO
WE CAN DETERMINE THAT. SO FIRST
I WANT TO SAY THAT I'M ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS THAT CLARIFY THE BILL
AND ADD FURTHER PROTECTIONS FOR
STUDENT PRIVACY, COMPLETELY
ACCEPTING THOSE. OKAY. AND WITH,
WHY WE NEED TO GET THIS
INFORMATION IS WE HAVE NOW, THIS
RISE IN THIS THING CALLED
COLLECTIVE AND WHAT THE
COLLECTIVES ARE, ARE BOOSTERS.
NOW, WE KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IN
THE PAST, PART OF WHY NIL WAS
NEEDED, THAT THERE WERE A LOT
OF, THERE WAS SOME CORRUPTION
IN, IN COLLEGE SPORTS WHERE
BOOSTERS WOULD PAY UNDER THE
TABLE TO ATHLETES TO TRY TO
ATTRACT THEM TO A COLLEGE. AND,
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THAT WAS
EXPOSED AND BUSTED. BUT NOW WE
HAVE THESE COLLECTIVES BEING
FORMED FOR CERTAIN COLLEGES TO
GIVE THAT COLLEGE A AN ADVANTAGE
AND ATTRACTING STUDENTS. AND
THOSE BOOST THESE COLLECTIVES
ARE IN EFFECT BEING THE ENTITY
TO GIVE YOU AN NIL DEAL. THEY'RE
NOT ARRANGING NIL DEALS
ELSEWHERE. THEY'RE LIKE BEING
THE NIL DEAL. BUT ANYWAY, SO WE
WANT TO SEE WHETHER NOT JUST
THESE COLLECTIVES BUT THE
GENERIC USE OF NIL IS IT,
HIGHLY, HIGHLY,
DISPROPORTIONATELY BENEFITING
MALE ATHLETES VERSUS FEMALES OR
IS THERE AT LEAST, YOU KNOW,
SOME, SOME LEVEL OF EQUITY IN
IT? SO WHAT WE ASK COLLEGES,
WOULD THIS INFORMATION REQUIRES
THE COLLECTIVES AND OTHER NIL
ENTITIES THAT DO DEALS OF 5000
OR HIGHER TO PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION TO THE COLLEGE THAT
THE ATHLETE ATTENDS. THE COLLEGE
WOULD THEN ONLY MAKE ANONYMOUS
AGGREGATED DATA PUBLIC. NOW MY
MAIN WITNESS IN SUPPORT WOULD
HAVE BEEN BETSY STEVENSON. SHE'S
THE FORMER ATHLETIC DIRECTOR OF
UCLA, HOWEVER, SHE WAS UNABLE AT
LAST MINUTE TO COME. SO I WILL
NOT HAVE A KEY WITNESS IN
SUPPORT. BUT I'VE NOW LAID OUT
TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE BILL
DOES. ALL RIGHT, THOSE THOSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 13. EXCUSE ME, SB
906, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
BRITTNEY BARSOTTI, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA
BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION AND
MEDIA ALLIANCE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE, THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
906, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. SEEING NO ONE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE,
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SEEING NO QUESTIONS. SENATOR
STERN MOVES THE BILL. LET ME
JUST COMMENT, SENATOR SKINNER, I
CAN'T IMAGINE THE FEAR THAT WAS
STRUCK IN THE HEARTS OF COLLEGE
ADMINISTRATORS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY WHEN THEY SAW THE NAME
SKINNER ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CAPTION COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS,
STUDENT ATHLETE COMPENSATION.
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN HEART
PALPITATIONS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY, SO BILL'S MOVE WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? TOO BAD I
DON'T HAVE A FEW MORE YEARS TO
GIVE THOSE STUDENT ATHLETES
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS AS
THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT
DARTMOUTH. NOW YOU'VE JUST UPPED
THEIR PALPITATIONS. SO. RIGHT,
RIGHT. WELL, THEN THEY SHOULD BE
REALLY HAPPY WITH JUST LETTING
THIS ONE OUT. ANYWAY, I
APPRECIATE, YOUR SUPPORT AND I
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY
BILL'S MOVE. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
19, SB 906. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG Ã
UMBERG. I WILK ALLEN. ALLEN. I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I. DURAZZO. DURAZZO I.
LAIRD MIN. NILO. NILO I. STERN.
STERN I WAHAB. WAHAB I. H080.
WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL. I'M TOLD
THAT SENATOR SMALLWOOD CUEVAS IS
ABOUT TO ENTER THE ROOM, SO
WE'LL TAKE A BREAK IN PLACE, SO
AFTER SENATOR SMALLWOOD CUEVAS
COMES SENATOR WIENER, THEN
SENATOR ALLEN, THEN SENATOR
RASO, THEN FINALLY SENATOR WAHAB
AND. ALL RIGHT. SURE. GO AHEAD,
SENATOR WAHAB. GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 26, SB
1356 WITH THE, I OPPOSE THE
SENATOR ALLEN AND SENATOR
BARRASSO. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT
HEARING? NO OBJECTION. ALL
RIGHT. GO AHEAD, SENATOR WAHAB.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. COLLEAGUES AND
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I WANT TO
THANK COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK. I KNOW THEY WORK REALLY
HARD ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL. SB
1356 REQUIRES JUDICIAL COUNCIL
TO CONSIDER THE ROLE OF GENDER
IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND
MEETINGS, THE NEEDS OF LITIGANTS
IN UNIQUE SITUATIONS OF
VULNERABILITY WHEN DEVELOPING
TRAININGS, WHILE TRAINING
REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS
COVERED UNDER EXISTING LAW AND
TRAINING ON GENDER BIAS EXISTS,
THERE ARE STILL GENDER
DISCREPANCIES IN JUDICIAL
DECISIONS TO ACCOMPLISH EQUALITY
AND NON DISCRIMINATION IN THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS BILL WOULD
EXPAND UPON THE EXISTING
TRAINING TO ENSURE GENDER
PERSPECTIVE IS INCORPORATED
ACROSS THE COURT SYSTEM. I WOULD
LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY FIRST
WITNESS, MISS ANNE RAVEL. ANNE
HAS SERVED AS AN ELECTED
GOVERNOR ON THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA, A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIR OF THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES
EVALUATION. SHE WAS ALSO
NOMINATED TO THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION BY PRESIDENT
BARACK OBAMA ON JUNE 2013, AND
SERVED AS CHAIR OF THE
COMMISSION FOR THE 2015 AND VICE
CHAIR FOR 2014. BEFORE LEAVING
IN 2017. SHE'S ALSO A FORMER
CHAIR OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION.
MY SECOND WITNESS WILL BE ROSA
CALDERON, SO WITH YOUR
PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO ASK ANNE
UP TO THE LECTERN. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MISS RAVEL. THE FLOOR
IS YOURS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COMMITTEE, FOR, HEARING THIS
REALLY IMPORTANT MEASURE, IN
ORDER TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE
CALIFORNIA JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT'S
CRUCIAL THAT JUDGES MAKE
DECISIONS THAT ARE IMPARTIAL,
FAIR, AND NOT DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST WOMEN OR MINORITIES.
IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT OUR COURT
SYSTEM MUST ALWAYS RESULT IN
EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.
AND I WANT TO MENTION I'M
PRESIDENT OF A GROUP IN SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, THE SILICON VALLEY
ETHICS ROUNDTABLE, AND JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND COMPREHENSION
OF INEQUITIES IN OUR SOCIETY IS
A SIGNIFICANT ETHICAL ISSUE. AND
TO ASSURE IMPARTIALITY IN THE
JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING, JUDGES
HAVE TO RECEIVE TRAINING THAT
INCLUDES GENDER SENSITIVITY IN
COURT PROCEEDINGS, IN THE
ELIMINATION ELIMINATION OF
GENDER STEREOTYPES,
UNDERSTANDING THE INEQUITY OF
POWER RELATIONSHIPS FOR WOMEN,
AND RECOGNIZING NEEDS AND
REMEDIES FOR GROUPS IN
VULNERABLE SITUATIONS. ASIANS,
AS WAS INDICATED BY SENATOR
WAHAB, SB 1356 EXPANDS THE SCOPE
OF EXISTING JUDICIAL TRAINING
PROGRAMS TO BROADLY ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF GENDER BIAS AND
PRESENTLY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
DOES NOT DO THAT KIND OF
TRAINING FOR THE JUDGES, AND IT
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THEY
DO SO. AND I HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH JUDGES AND
FROM, MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL, AND THEY AGREE WITH
THIS. THE NEED TO HAVE MORE,
MORE TRAINING FOR JUDGES ON
THESE ISSUES, SO, THIS JUDICIAL
TRAINING AND I DON'T AM I GOING
ON TOO LONG? WELL, YOU'VE
EXCEEDED THE TWO MINUTES, SO GO
AHEAD, WRAP IT UP. YOU SUPPORT
THE BILL. MY GUESS IS, YES, I
PLEASE ASKING FOR THE SUPPORT
FOR THIS BILL, AND I ALSO WANTED
TO MENTION TO YOU THAT THE
GROUP, THE ETHICS ROUNDTABLE
HAS, WHICH CONSISTS OF A LOT OF
VERY WELL KNOWN PEOPLE IN
SILICON VALLEY, SUPPORT THE BILL
AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS. HI.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ROSA
CALDERON, AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.
AND I SUPPORT SB 1356 AS A
LATINA REFUGEE WHO ACCESS HIGHER
EDUCATION AND ALSO BECAME A
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, I FOUND
MYSELF UNABLE TO EVADE THE
PERVASIVE BIASES OF OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM. THIS BILL IS A LIFELINE
FOR COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE EXPERIENCED THE HARSH
REALITIES OF GENDER AND RACIAL
BIAS WITHIN OUR COURTS, WE HAVE
A TWO TIERED SYSTEM WHERE SOME
INDIVIDUALS WITH MEANS HIGHER
PRIVATE ATTORNEYS AND CAN KEEP
THEIR MATTERS OUT OF THE PUBLIC
COURT SYSTEM, WHILE OTHERS PLEAD
OUT, MANY OUT OF FEAR, WITHOUT
EVER CONSULTING AN ATTORNEY. A
2023 REPORT BY UCLA FOUND THAT
LENGTHY SENTENCES FOR WOMEN
FUNCTIONED AS A PUNISHMENT
RATHER THAN REHABILITATION.
ADDITIONALLY, IT FOUND THAT
WOMEN ENTERING THE CRIMINAL
LEGAL SYSTEM HAD SURVIVED
MULTIPLE FORMS OF RACIALIZED,
GENDERED, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TIED TO
THE CHARGES THAT THEY FACED.
CALIFORNIA HAS MORE THAN 100
SEPARATE PENAL CODE SECTIONS
THAT PROSECUTORS CAN USE TO
ENHANCE, EXTEND SENTENCES BASED
ON CURRENT CHARGES OR WITHOUT
PAST CONVICTION RECORDS.
CALIFORNIA ALSO HAS THE
DISTINCTION OF A STATE WITH THE
HIGHEST RATE OF WOMEN SENTENCED
TO LIFE IN PRISON ABOUT 1 IN 4,
AND DESPITE OUR STATE'S
COMMITMENT TO RACIAL EQUITY,
BLACK AND LATINOS BEAR THE
DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN OF
COMPRISING 66% OF COUNTY JAIL
AND 74% OF THE PRISON OF THE
PRISON POPULATION, WHILE ONLY
REPRESENTING 47% OF OUR STATE'S
POPULATION. OUR JUDGES ARE OUR
BEST AND FINAL LINE OF DEFENSE
IN A SYSTEM THAT IS INHERENTLY
SKEWED. THEY HOLD IMMENSE POWER
TO SHAPE THE OUTCOME OF OUR
CASES BY RECOGNIZING THE UNIQUE
VULNERABILITIES FACED BY
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. I WANT
TO THANK MISS RAVEL AND SENATOR
WAHAB FOR BRINGING THIS ISSUE
FORWARD, AND I ASK YOU FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE ON SB 1356. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE SEEING
NO ONE ELSE APPROACHING. IF YOU
ARE OPPOSED TO SB 1356, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. SEEING
NO ONE APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE, LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
HAVE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS,
COMMENTS. SENATOR ASHBY HAS
MOVED THE BILL, ALL RIGHT. MY
LAST COMMENT IS I SUPPORT THE
BILL. I BELIEVE IN SEVERAL
THINGS. ONE IMPLICIT BIAS EXISTS
IN OUR CULTURE, AND IT HAS MANY,
MANY FORMS. TWO IS THAT IT'S
USEFUL AND IN FACT, VERY
IMPORTANT THAT JUDGES RECOGNIZE
AND ADDRESS IMPLICIT BIAS. AND I
SUPPOSE EXPLICIT BIAS AS WELL,
AND THREE, IS THAT THE ONLY
CONCERN I HAVE IS A SEPARATION
OF POWERS CONCERN, JUDICIAL
COUNCIL IS NOT VOICED ANY
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL, SO FAR
BE IT FROM ME TO THROW MY BODY
IN FRONT OF IT. BUT IF THE
LEGISLATURE WERE TOLD HOW WE
NEED TO BE TRAINED BY THE
JUDICIARY, OR IF THE
ADMINISTRATION TOLD US HOW WE
NEED TO BE TRAINED, WE WOULD
SAY, HEY, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
OUR OWN QUALIFICATIONS, OUR OWN,
OUR OWN TRAINING. BUT JUDICIAL
COUNCIL HAS NO CONCERNS. AND SO
THEREFORE I SUPPORT THE BILL.
SO, MADAM SECRETARY, SENATOR
ASHBY HAS MOVED, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
26, SB 1356. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
UMBERG A UMBERG I WILK ALLEN.
ALAN I ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DURAZO DURAZO I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH. NILO STERN
A STERN I WAHAB A WAHAB I. 8 TO
0 EIGHT ZERO. WE'LL PUT THAT ON
CALL. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
SMALLWOOD, CUEVAS IS HERE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, SENATOR,
ITEM NUMBER 20, SB 1340. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES, IT SHOULD
BE. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND GOOD AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES,
I WANT TO I'M EXCITED TO,
INTRODUCE SB 1340. AND I WANT TO
START BY THANKING THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR YOUR
AMENDMENTS, WHICH I HAVE
ACCEPTED. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS
IMPORTANT POLICY. SB 1340 WOULD
SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
LAST YEAR'S SB 150, BILL, WHICH
WE ALL SUPPORTED AND GOT TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK AND WAS SIGNED.
AND THIS HELPS TO GUIDE THE
STATE'S USE OF INCOMING FEDERAL
FUNDING, SUCH AS THE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND
JOBS ACT, THE INFLATION
REDUCTION ACT, FUNDING, AND OUR
CHIPS AND SCIENCE ACT INVESTS
CGRTS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
AS WE ARE USING THESE FUNDS TO
BUILD WORKFORCE IN CALIFORNIA,
THAT WE'RE DOING SO TO CREATE
GOOD QUALITY CAREERS AND
COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND I WANT TO THANK
MY GOOD COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
DELROSSO, WHO WAS A PARTNER IN
GETTING THAT HISTORIC
LEGISLATION PASSED IN SB 150.
BUT WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT
PRESIDENT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
HAS BEEN VERY, VERY CLEAR ABOUT
THE WAYS IN WHICH THESE DOLLARS
ARE TO BE USED AND THE
EXPECTATION FOR STATES IN TERMS
OF OUR COMPETITIVENESS, FOR
THESE FUNDS. THE NUMBER ONE
THING THAT THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION HAS, HAS LIFTED
UP AS A GUIDELINE IS ENSURING
THAT THESE ARE GOOD CAREERS,
MEANING THAT THESE ARE JOBS THAT
PAY SUSTAINABLE WAGES AND
PROTECT WORKERS, AND THAT UNDER
REPRESENTED POPULATIONS HAVE
ACCESS TO THESE JOBS. AND IN
ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT, WE HAVE
TO ADDRESS EXISTING BARRIERS IN
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SPACE, WHERE
CURRENTLY, WHEN WE LOOK AT
CONSTRUCTION ALONE, 93% OF THAT
SECTOR IS MADE UP OF MEN AND
OVER 60% OF IT IS MADE UP OF
WHITE MEN. SO SB 1340 AUTHORIZES
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT TO
PARTNER WITH LOCAL AGENCIES TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE A PROACTIVE
ENFORCEMENT MODEL TO INVESTIGATE
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND TO
REMOVE THAT WORKPLACE BARRIER,
ACCORDING TO OUR CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT, MOST RECENT ANNUAL
REPORTS, IN 2020, THEY RECEIVED
OVER 23,000 EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS, AND
IN 2021 HAVE SEEN A RECORD
INCREASE IN THAT NUMBER. THE
HIGH VOLUME OF COMPLAINTS IN
ADDITION TO THE DEPARTMENT'S
RESPONSIBILITIES, LEAVE CRD
OVERBURDENED AND UNDERSTAFFED.
THIS AS WE ARE EXPECTING,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO COME INTO
OUR STATE TO BUILD THIS NEW
WORKFORCE AND OUR CLIMATE
RESILIENT ECONOMY. THE LOS
ANGELES CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY DISTRICT, HAS
TRAINED STAFF THAT IS READY AND
IS ADDRESSING CLAIMS. BUT
EXISTING LAW PREEMPTS, PREEMPTS
THEM FROM INVESTING, GETTING THE
MAJORITY OF COMPLAINTS, AND
REQUIRES THAT THEY FORWARD THOSE
COMPLAINTS TO STATE DEPARTMENTS
WHICH ONLY SERVE TO INCREASE THE
BACKLOG THAT OUR CURRENT CIVIL
RIGHTS DEPARTMENT HAS. WE HAVE
TO MAKE SURE THAT CRD IS UP TO
THE TASK. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE
WE HAVE MORE BOOTS ON THE
GROUND, TO ADDRESS, EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION IN A WAY THAT
BUILDS PARTNERSHIPS AND THAT
ENSURES THAT ALL WORKERS HAVE
ACCESS TO QUALITY JOBS IN OUR
STATE. BUT PARTICULARLY AS WE
LOOK AT THIS INFRASTRUCTURE
SECTOR, THIS BILL WOULD
ADDITIONALLY REQUIRE THAT
CONTRACTORS REPORT DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT, WHICH WILL BE
TRACKED AND REPORTED ON
PUBLICLY. AND LASTLY, SB 1340
WOULD ESTABLISH A PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE MADE
UP OF COMMUNITY AND LABOR AND
WORKFORCE EXPERTS TO ACT AS
INTERMEDIARIES WITH THE STATE
AND CONTRACTOR AND LABOR TO
ENSURE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS TO
STRENGTHEN RECRUITMENT,
RETENTION AND PROTECTION FOR OUR
MOST VULNERABLE WORKERS TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE COMING
TO CALIFORNIA TO CREATE GOOD
JOBS. THERE ARE NEW
OPPORTUNITIES ON THE HORIZON. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERY
CALIFORNIAN HAS ACCESS ACROSS
THE STATE. SB 1340 ENSURES THOSE
DOLLARS AND THOSE JOBS REACH OUR
MOST VULNERABLE AND HISTORICALLY
DISENFRANCHIZED COMMUNITIES.
WITH ME TODAY IS SABAH WAHEED,
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
UCLA LABOR CENTER. AND, SHE
WILL, BE MY ONLY WITNESS TODAY,
AND I'LL PROCEED AFTER THAT.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. ALL RIGHT.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SENATORS. MY NAME IS
SABAH WAHID AND AS SENATOR SAID,
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE UCLA
LABOR CENTER, CALIFORNIA LEADS
THE NATION IN PROTECTING WORKERS
FROM DISCRIMINATION, BUT LACKS
SUFFICIENT BOOTS ON THE GROUND
TO MAKE THESE PROTECTIONS A
REALITY. THIS BILL DOES THREE
KEY THINGS TO COMBAT SYSTEMIC
DISCRIMINATION AND THE LACK OF
ACCESS TO GOOD JOBS. FIRST, THIS
BILL WILL ALLOW LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO ASSIST THE STATE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION. WE'VE
ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY LIFTED
STATE PREEMPTION IN WAGE AND
HOUR LAWS. CITIES LIKE SAN
FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES HAVE
CREATED CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENTS
POSITION TO PARTNER WITH THE
CRD. SECOND, THIS BILL ENSURES
EQUITY METRICS AND THE DATA TO
MONITOR COMPLIANCE PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS, FAIR HIRING, AND
OTHER MEASURES CAN INCORPORATE
WAGE AND EQUITY GOALS INTO THE
CONTRACTING MODEL. THIS INCLUDES
CLEAR WORKFORCE TARGETS ACT OF
MONITORING, TRANSPARENCY AND
CONSEQUENCE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
THIRD, THE BILL TAKES ADVANTAGE
OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS WITH
CBOS. THESE PARTNERSHIPS, LIKE
THE CALIFORNIA WORKFORCE
OUTREACH PROJECT AND THE
CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC ENFORCEMENT
PARTNERSHIP, USES THE, QUOTE,
TRUSTED MESSENGER MODEL THAT
MEETS PEOPLE AT BUS STOPS AT
HOUSES OF WORSHIP AND SCHOOLS TO
CONNECT THEM TO WORKPLACE RIGHTS
AND OPPORTUNITIES. COMMUNITY
PARTNERS LIKE UNIONS AND WORKER
CENTERS ENSURE BETTER OUTCOMES
FOR UNDERREPRESENTED WORKERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE LA BLACK WORKER
CENTER CONDUCTS A ROBUST
TRAINING WITH WRAPAROUND
SERVICES THAT PROGRAM SAU
GRADUATES WITH 61% FULL
EMPLOYMENT AT FULL EMPLOYMENT
AFTER ONE YEAR. IN CONCLUSION,
SB 1340 OFFERS A SIGNIFICANT
STEP TOWARDS BUILDING AN
INCLUSIVE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA
BY LIFTING PREEMPTION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS LAW USING DATA TO GUIDE
ENFORCEMENT AND STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIPS, WE ENSURE THAT NO
WORKER IS LEFT BEHIND. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB 1340?
PLEASE APPROACH MARIKO YOSHIHARA
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WORKER POWER AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS MIKE WEST ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. YVONNE FERNANDEZ,
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RACHEL
BHAGWAT, ACLU, CALIFORNIA ACTION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. TONY,
WALKING OUT HERE ON BEHALF OF
LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF US ARE
NONE AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
ROZ MEYERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BLACK
WORKERS HUB. I'M HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN. BETH MALINOWSKI
WITH SEIU CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHING
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1340, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
NOT OPPOSED TO THE BILL. WE'RE A
TWEENER. WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS
THE SUPPORT. WE SUPPORT THE
INTENT, SUPPORT THE GOALS.
CLEARLY I REPRESENT THE
CALIFORNIA AIR CONDITIONING
CONTRACTORS, UNION CONTRACTORS.
WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE CAREERS
THAT WE PROVIDE. WE'RE VERY
PROUD OF OUR APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS, THERE'S JUST SOME
ISSUES WITH OUR SKILLED AND
TRAINED WORKFORCE AND, YOU KNOW,
OUR RECRUITING EFFORTS, WE FALL
SHORT. WE TRY HARD. JUST TO GIVE
YOU AN EXAMPLE, WE'VE HAD TWO
DECADES OF TRYING TO GET WOMEN
INTO CONSTRUCTION, VERY ACTIVE
PROGRAMS. BUT WE STILL HAVE ONLY
A 3% SUCCESS RATE. SO THESE ARE
THINGS I JUST WANT TO WORK
THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR
CONTRACTORS ARE ALIGNED WITH
WHAT YOUR EFFORTS ARE ATTEMPTING
TO DO, AND THAT WE ACHIEVE THE
GOALS. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL
RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO TESTIFY ON
SB 1340? SEEING NO ONE
APPROACHING OKAY. LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. SENATOR ALLEN OH WELL,
I JUST HAVE YOU GUYS QUESTION OR
COMMENT. JUST A QUICK QUESTION
ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THERE'S BEEN DIALOG. WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE
QUESTION? JUST THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THERE'S BEEN DIALOG. I
WASN'T CLEAR FROM THE COMMENTS
POSITION. THERE HAS BEEN DIALOG
IN FROM THE FROM THE TWEENER
RIGHT. FROM THE YES, FROM THE
TWEENER. YES. THERE'S BEEN
DIALOG. WE'RE APPRECIATIVE OF
THE AMENDMENTS THEY TOOK AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
SHEET METAL CONTRACTORS. YEAH
OKAY. SO AND I WANT TO SAY AND I
KNOW WERE YOU DIRECTING A
QUESTION TO ME OR WAS THAT I
THINK I GOT ADDRESSED? YEAH I'M
COOL. SO THEN I WILL KNOW.
SENATOR ROUNDS. COOL. I'M COOL.
ALL RIGHT. SO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR STERN MOVES
THE BILL, SENATOR SMALL CUEVAS,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I JUST
WANT TO SAY AND APPRECIATE THE
TESTIMONY AND THE AND THE
QUESTION AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS BECAUSE WE GOT TO
GET IT RIGHT, I THINK THIS IS
NOT A NEW MODEL. THIS IS A MODEL
THAT'S BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE
LAST 20 YEARS. IT'S A PROVEN
MODEL THAT'S WORKED IN MANY
PLACES. AND I'VE HAD THE HONOR
OF WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH
SHEET METAL CONTRACTORS AND
SHEET METAL WORKERS UNION ON
THIS. AND, WE NEED EVERY DOLLAR
THAT WE SPEND NOW TO BE A
MULTIPLIER IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AS WE FACE A
DEFICIT, WE NEED TO MOVE OUR
PEOPLE OFF THE SUBSIDY AND
POVERTY AND THE AT RISK OF
HOMELESSNESS LIST AND PUT THEM
IN A LIST OF FULL EMPLOYMENT AND
A PATHWAY TO CAREERS. THIS IS
HOW WE DO IT. AND THIS IS ABOUT
FEDERAL FUNDING. WORKING THE
HARDEST AND REACHING THE
FARTHEST IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
THIS FILE, ITEM NUMBER 20, SB
1340. THE MOTION IS TO PASS THE
SENATE LABOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
AND RETIREMENT UMBERG I UMBERG I
WILK ALLEN. ALLEN I ASHBY. ASHBY
I CABALLERO. CABALLERO I DURAZO
DURAZO I LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH.
NILO. NILO. NØ. STERN STERN I
WAHAB. 7 TO 1 SEVEN ONE. WE'LL
PUT THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, SENATOR. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I SEE SENATOR
WIENER. SENATOR WIENER, THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER 22, SB 988.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, SENATOR
WIENER. I THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB
988, THE FREELANCE WORKER
PROTECTION ACT TO PROVIDE BASIC
PROTECTIONS FOR FREELANCE
WORKERS, I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AND I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE WORKING
WITH US ON THE BILL. FREELANCERS
IN GENERAL DO NOT HAVE BASIC
WORKER PROTECTIONS, MOST
NOTABLY, THE RIGHT TO BE PAID
FOR THEIR WORK ON TIME.
SOMETHING THAT BASIC THAT YOU DO
THE WORK AND YOU ACTUALLY GET
PAID ON TIME, ACCORDING TO THE
FREELANCERS UNION, 71% OF
WORKERS, FREELANCE WORKERS HAVE
EXPERIENCED LATE OR NONPAYMENT,
59% REPORT LIVING PAYCHECK TO
PAYCHECK, AND ONLY 25% REPORT
THAT THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY HAVE
WRITTEN CONTRACTS FOR THEIR WORK
, VERSIONS OF THIS BILL WERE
PASSED LAST YEAR IN BOTH NEW
YORK AND ILLINOIS, LA COUNTY HAS
ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE, BUT OF
COURSE, THAT IS LIMITED BECAUSE
IT'S ONLY ONE COUNTY, SB 988
WILL REQUIRE MANDATORY CONTRACTS
, 30 DAY PAYMENT TERMS, PAYMENT
AGREEMENT PROTECTIONS, WILL
PROVIDE ANTI-RETALIATION
MEASURES AND DAMAGE PROTECTIONS,
AND PROVIDE JUST THIS BASIC
LEVEL OF PROTECTIONS FOR
FREELANCE WORKERS, SB 988 ALSO
GIVES THE STATE LABOR
COMMISSIONER THE AUTHORITY TO
ENFORCE THESE PROTECTIONS AND
GIVES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE
ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE AND
INITIATE CIVIL ACTIONS, IF
NEEDED, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. ARE THEY HERE?
AND, UNFORTUNATELY, MY WITNESSES
, I THINK ARE ON THEIR WAY, I
THINK IT CAME UP A LITTLE MORE
QUICKLY THAN THEY ANTICIPATED,
SO I'LL STIPULATE YOUR WITNESSES
ARE IN SUPPORT. YES, MY
WITNESSES ARE IN SUPPORT. AND,
MAYBE WE CAN DO. I DON'T KNOW,
OPPOSITION FIRST AND THEN SEE
IF. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL DO THE
OPPOSITION FIRST. YEAH. WE'RE
FLEXIBLE. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 988, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. YOU'VE
SURPRISED EVERYONE, SENATOR
WIENER, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION,
SO. ALL RIGHT, AND IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 988, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. OKAY,
SENATOR WIENER, WE'RE GOING TO
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
GREAT. SO ALL RIGHT. AND WE
WOULD HAVE WE WOULD HAVE HAD A
FREELANCER AND THEN ALSO THE
TEAMSTERS, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT
THEY'RE HERE IN SPIRIT. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS OF SENATOR
WIENER, YOU ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENTS. I THINK YOU DID AT
THE VERY OUTSET. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. SOMEBODY JUST SAID
MOVE THE BILL. SENATOR CABALLERO
SAID SHE MOVES THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT, SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. APPARENTLY, WE'RE
TIRED, SENATOR WIENER. SO WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YOU'D LIKE AN
AYE VOTE? I WOULD, ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT,
MADAM SECRETARY. IT'S BEEN MOVED
BY SENATOR CABALLERO. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER 22, SB 988. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS. BERG I
AM BERG I WILK ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I RUSSELL DURAZO I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH. ELO STERN A
STERN I WAHAB WILK I WILK I. I
WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG BILL 8
TO 0 EIGHT ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO
PUT THAT ON CALL. I SEE YOUR
WITNESSES HAVE ARRIVED. WE'VE
STIPULATED YOU SUPPORT THE BILL
UNLESS YOU WANT TO TESTIFY.
OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT
, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, SENATOR WIENER. NEXT,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SENATOR
ALLEN, THEN SENATOR BARRASSO.
AND AFTER SENATOR BARRASSO, WE
WILL HAVE NO FURTHER BUSINESS,
IN THE COMMITTEE. AND SO, NO,
NO, WE'LL GO BACK THROUGH THE
ROLL. BUT JUST IF YOU ARE
WATCHING, FROM YOUR OFFICE, NOW
WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO COME
BACK TO COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR ALLEN. WELL THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, LET ME
START BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE
FOR THEIR DUE DILIGENCE WITH
THIS MEASURE. AND I AM HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS, SO THIS
HAS TO DO WITH THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. THOUSANDS OF
EVERYDAY HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS ARE
CLASSIFIED AS HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE, SINCE THEY ARE
DEEMED TO POSE A SEVERE THREAT
TO HUMAN HEALTH, ANIMALS AND THE
ENVIRONMENT IF IMPROPERLY
MANAGED IT AT THE END OF LIFE.
HOWEVER, WHILE THESE PRODUCTS
ARE IN MANY RESPECTS UBIQUITOUS
IN OUR HOMES, MOST RESIDENTS
DON'T KNOW WHAT IS CONSIDERED
HAZARDOUS. WHAT'S NOT, NOR DO
FOLKS KNOW HOW TO MANAGE A
DANGEROUS PRODUCT AT THE END OF
LIFE. EVEN IF A PERSON KNOWS
THAT A PRODUCT IS TOXIC AND
CAN'T SIMPLY BE THROWN AWAY,
MANY COMMUNITIES LACK A
CONVENIENT SYSTEM FOR SAFELY
COLLECTING THIS WASTE, AND WE'RE
STARTING TO SEE DISPOSAL AND
COLLECTION COSTS INCREASING. AND
CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE EITHER
RAISING RATES TO COVER THE COST,
OR THEY HAVE TO REDUCE SERVICES,
WHICH FURTHER REDUCE CONVENIENCE
FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS IN THIS
SPACE. SO THE STATE HAS OFFERED
SOME LIMITED GRANTS TO BUILD NEW
FACILITIES OR EXPAND EXISTING
ONES. FUNDING HAS FALLEN FAR
SHORT OF WHAT'S NEEDED. FOR
EXAMPLE, WHILE CAL RECYCLES
FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM HAS A
CAP OF $5 MILLION A YEAR ON THE
EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR A
NEW FACILITY IN SONOMA IS
BETWEEN 13 AND 16 MILLION. SO
THIS BILL BUILDS OFF OF THE WORK
THAT WE DID WITH SB 54 AND SOME
OF THE OTHER EXTENDED PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY WORK THAT IS
UNDERWAY. SOME OF YOU WERE
INVOLVED WITH TO CREATE A TO ASK
THE CONSUMER, COMPANY, THE
CONSUMER PRODUCT COMPANIES IN
THE HOUSEHOLD, HAZARDOUS WASTE
SPACE TO FORM A PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY ORGANIZATION THAT
WILL BE TASKED WITH ENHANCING
ACCESSIBILITY AND FULLY FUNDING
THE SAFE COLLECTION,
TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. AND
SO HAPPY TO WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT,
HEIDI SANBORN, I THINK IS COMING
FROM THE NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP
ACCIDENT. OKAY. JORDAN IS HERE
FROM NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP ACTION
COUNCIL AND MELISSA SPARKS WITH
CALIFORNIA CITIES WHO ARE BOTH
HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT, GO AHEAD. THE FLOOR IS
YOURS. YEAH. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ALLEN, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, WE
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK ON THIS BILL
AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. I
AM JORDAN WELLS ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP ACTION
COUNCIL, A NONPROFIT THAT
ADVOCATES FOR AN EQUITABLE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND ONE OF THE
NATION'S FOREMOST EXPERTS IN
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
. ALSO KNOWN AS EPR. WE ARE ALSO
THE SPONSOR OF SB 1143. SB 1143
WILL REQUIRE THE PRODUCERS OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE, ALSO
KNOWN AS HWT, IN OUR WORLD, AS
DEFINED TO FUND THE CONVENIENT
COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR THE MOST
TOXIC PRODUCTS SOLD ONTO THE
MARKETPLACE. CALIFORNIA'S
STATEWIDE COMMISSION ON
RECYCLING MARKETS AND CURBSIDE
RECYCLING DEVELOPED OVER 34
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAD
UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS AMONG THE 17
DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS, WHICH
INCLUDED WASTE HAULERS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, UNIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.
MANY OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS
HAVE BECOME LAW, BUT THEIR VERY
FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS
ACTUALLY HOW EPR. WHILE THE COST
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THEREBY
RATEPAYERS PAY TO MANAGE HOW ARE
EXORBITANT, WE KNOW WE ARE STILL
NOT CAPTURING AT ALL. THE
REMAINDER IS IMPROPERLY DISPOSED
OF IN THE TRASH OR RECYCLING,
WHERE IT ADDS COSTS AND CAN
CONTAMINATE FOOD GRADE MATERIALS
DUMPED IN THE ENVIRONMENT, WHERE
IT CAN POLLUTE, OR STOCKPILED IN
RESIDENTS HOMES, WHERE IT CAN
CREATE A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY
RISK. THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
HAS ALREADY TAKEN A PRODUCT BY
PRODUCT APPROACH FOR CERTAIN
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, INCLUDING
PAINT, MERCURY, THERMOSTATS,
MEDICATIONS AND NEEDLES IN LIEU
OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE ZERO
WASTE SONOMA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APPROVED THE DRAFTING OF AN HWT,
EPR ORDINANCE AND WE KNOW THAT
THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY
JURISDICTION LOOKING AT SOLVING
THIS ISSUE LOCALLY DUE TO AN
ACTION AT THE STATE LEVEL. THIS
WOULD CREATE ANOTHER PATCHWORK
OF REQUIREMENTS THAT INDUSTRY
WOULD BE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH
ACROSS THE STATE. WE ARE MEETING
WITH OPPOSITION AND LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS TO
BETTER DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE
BILL AND TIMELINES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP,
SENATOR ALLEN, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1143, MELISSA SPARKS KRANZ
WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES, GOOD MORNING. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, HERE TO
PROVIDE SUPPORT ON 1143 LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING CITIES
AND COUNTIES, ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR SOLID WASTE AND HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT. OUR
JURISDICTIONS OPERATE PERMANENT
FACILITIES, TEMPORARY EVENTS AND
OIL COLLECTION SITES. THERE ARE
151 PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
ACROSS THE STATE. OUR HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS DO
ACCEPT A WASTE FROM HOUSEHOLDS,
BUT ALSO SMALL BUSINESSES. WE
CLEAN UP ABANDONED WASTE SITES
AND ALSO SOLID WASTE LOAD CHECK
PROGRAMS. WE STRIVE TO KEEP
PROGRAMS AS FREE OR AS LOW COST
FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS. TO
AVOID ILLEGAL DUMPING THAT WE
ULTIMATELY HAVE TO MANAGE AS
WELL. SO HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MANAGE. WE
HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT
MANUFACTURERS INTRODUCE INTO THE
STREAM OF COMMERCE, BUT WE AND
OUR RATEPAYERS HAVE TO PAY TO
MANAGE THOSE MATERIALS AT THE
END OF LIFE. MANY PRODUCTS COST
US MORE OR OR AS MUCH OR MORE TO
MANAGE AT THE END OF LIFE THAN
IT COSTS AT THE POINT OF SALE
AND WE SUPPORT 1143 BECAUSE IT
FILLS A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN THE
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE IN THE
STATE, 1143 WILL HELP ENSURE
THAT MANUFACTURERS, NOT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND RATEPAYERS, BEAR
THE COST OF MANAGING THE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND WE
BELIEVE THAT THE PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY ORGANIZATION
WOULD HELP COORDINATE COLLECTION
AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
ACROSS THE STATE TO ACHIEVE GOOD
ECONOMIES OF SCALE. WORKING WITH
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE
CHALLENGED BY THAT. SO WE
SUPPORT THE BILL, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS
. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF SB
1143, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GOOD EVENING, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. KARA ROSS, ON
BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF TRUCKEE IN
SUPPORT, KAYLA ROBINSON ON
BEHALF OF RETHINK WASTE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR SO. KUDOS HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE STOP WASTE WESTERN PLACER
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. AND
THEY'RE ALL IN SUPPORT AND
SUPPORTING CONCEPT CALIFORNIA
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS
GROGAN ON BEHALF OF REPUBLIC
SERVICES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
CAMERON DIMITRI, WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF LA COUNTY
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND
JORDAN WELLS AGAIN EXPRESSING
SUPPORT FOR ZERO WASTE SONOMA
CLEAN WATER ACTION, PESTICIDE
ACTION NETWORK, CALIFORNIANS FOR
PESTICIDE REFORM, MARIN SANITARY
SERVICE, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
RECYCLING ASSOCIATION, THÀNH,
SEA HUGGER, ZERO WASTE, USA,
CITY OF 1000 OAKS, NAPA
RECYCLING AND WASTE SERVICES,
AND THE RESOURCE RECOVERY
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MIKE ROBSON HERE
ON BEHALF OF WORTHINGTON
ENTERPRISES, THEIR LEADING
MANUFACTURER OF PRESSURIZED GAS
CYLINDERS IN THE IN THE NATION.
AND, WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL AND CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE AUTHOR AND MAKING IT A GOOD
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE'RE IN FAVOR OF GOOD BILLS.
ALL RIGHT. HI, EMILY PAPPAS,
NIEMELA PAPPAS AND ASSOCIATES.
WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT NOR
OPPOSED. OFFICIALLY, WE JUST
HAVE CONCERNS. WE REPRESENT THE
ANIMAL HEALTH INSTITUTE, THE
MANUFACTURE OWNERS OF ANIMAL
MEDICINES. AND SPECIFICALLY IN
THIS INSTANCE, A SMALL CANINE
COMPANIONS. AND WE ARE INCLUDED,
GIVEN THAT THE BILL NOW
ENCOMPASSES PESTICIDES. AND SO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS AND HAVE ANOTHER
MEETING ON THURSDAY, AND ALSO
HERE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
LIFE SCIENCES ASSOCIATION, ALL,
ALL TWEENERS ARE ALL. YES. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. LET'S TURN
NOW TO THE OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 1143, PLEASE
APPROACH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
CHRISTOPHER FINARELLI, ON BEHALF
OF THE HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION,
REGRETFULLY, IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1143, OUR MEMBERS MANUFACTURE A
NUMBER OF THE PRODUCTS INCLUDED
IN THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL FROM
PESTICIDE PRODUCTS, WHICH
INCLUDE HOUSEHOLD USES LIKE
DISINFECTANTS TO AEROSOLS TO
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS AND OTHERS.
FIRST, LIKE TO UNDERSCORE HOW
APPRECIATIVE WE ARE OF THE
AUTHOR AND SPONSORS FOR THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH US ON
THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC. HOWEVER,
WE BELIEVE ADDITIONAL STUDY IS
WARRANTED BEFORE PASSING ANOTHER
LARGE EPR PROGRAM. HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN CALIFORNIA IS
COMPLICATED. THE STATE HAS
ADOPTED CRITERIA TO DETERMINE
WHAT IS HAZARDOUS WASTE THAT
RESULTS IN SEVERAL ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS BEING MANAGED AS
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE, THEN
WOULD IN OTHER STATES AND UNDER
FEDERAL RULES, AS PART OF THEIR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
DUE IN 2025. DTSC INTENDS TO
EVALUATE SEVERAL ISSUES RELATED
TO HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN
THE STATE, INCLUDING THE
CRITERIA USED IN CALIFORNIA TO
DETERMINE WHAT IS HAZARDOUS.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A WORKSHOP ON
THIS TODAY, IN THIS AFTERNOON,
THE PLAN WILL ALSO INCLUDE A,
WASTE REDUCTION AND CAPACITY
ASSURANCE STRATEGY AS CAPACITY
TO MANAGE HAZARDOUS WASTE WITHIN
THE STATE HAS DECREASED. WE
BELIEVE THIS WORK WILL BE
INCREDIBLY INFORMATIVE ON HOW TO
BETTER MANAGE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. FOR EXAMPLE,
WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
RECENT AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY THE
SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM, WE ARE
CONCERNED THIS COULD CREATE
UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW
WHERE MANUFACTURERS ARE REQUIRED
TO JOIN THE PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY ORGANIZATION
WOULD BE SUBSIDIZING PRODUCTS
WHICH ARE NOT IN SCOPE BUT STILL
MEET THE CRITERIA OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE, ADDRESSING THE CRITERIA
ITSELF WOULD CREATE MORE EVEN
PLAYING FIELD AND LESS CONFUSION
FOR CONSUMERS. WE INTEND TO BE A
PARTNER IN THIS CONVERSATION,
AND THAT'S WHY, AS A FIRST STEP
TOWARD STRENGTHENING EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROGRAMS, WE
SUPPORT CONDUCTING A NEEDS
ASSESSMENT TO FORM A BASELINE OF
GOAL SETTING AND DETERMINE THE
APPROPRIATE POLICY RESPONSES. WE
RECOGNIZE EPR CAN BE SUCCESSFUL
IN CERTAIN APPLICATIONS, BUT
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN
THAT IT'S THE ONLY OPTION. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1143. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
ROB SPIEGEL, CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR LOUIS BROWN
ON BEHALF OF WESTERN PLANT
HEALTH ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
BED FRANK, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
THE MICROPHONE. LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, ONE
OF OUR JURISDICTION HERE IS,
WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVIL
PENALTIES AND THE ANTITRUST
ISSUES. SO THAT'S WHAT WE FOCUS
UPON. JUST A HEADS UP TO FOLKS
WHO ARE INTERESTED IN WHY IT IS
WE HAVE JURISDICTION AND WHAT
OUR FOCUS IS. ALL RIGHT. SO
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, SEEING NO
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. DID YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS, SENATOR. SENATOR
CABALLERO HAS A QUESTION.
ACTUALLY, JUST A COMMENT, I HAD
INDICATED TO THE SENATOR THAT I
HAD SOME ISSUES AND SOME
CONCERNS. THEY'RE NOT REALLY THE
PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE, BUT
THAT WE HAD A ROBUST
CONVERSATION. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY BECAUSE
SENATOR ALLEN WORKS REALLY HARD
AT TRYING TO, PICK OFF AS MANY
OF THE OPPONENTS AS POSSIBLE BY
AMENDING BILLS SO THAT THEY DO
THE RIGHT THING. RIGHT. AND,
HE'S PUSHED ME TO SUPPORT A
WHOLE BUNCH OF BILLS THAT I
WOULD NOT NORMALLY HAVE
SUPPORTED BECAUSE, BECAUSE HE
DOES THAT. SO I EXPECT THAT THE
YOUR COMMITMENT TO ME WAS YOU'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO WORK
WITH ALL THE OPPONENTS TO GET IT
RIGHT. AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT
VERY MUCH. AND REGARDS TO THE
ISSUES THAT THIS COMMITTEE LOOKS
AT, I'M I'M SATISFIED THAT
YOU'RE DEALING WITH THEM. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR, SENATOR WILK, SO
SORRY, MR. CHAIR. I KNOW YOU
WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE. NO, NO,
NO. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT YOUR BILL AS WELL TODAY.
ALTHOUGH I THINK I THINK IT'S I
THINK IT'S PRETTY BROAD. BUT AS
SENATOR CABALLERO SAYS, YOU HAVE
A HISTORY OF BEING ABLE TO PICK
PEOPLE OFF. I LOVE THAT ANYWAY.
AND SOMETIMES IN A GOOD WAY. IN
A GOOD WAY. SO I ALWAYS RESERVE
THE RIGHT. I ALWAYS RESERVE THE
RIGHT, LATER. AND SOMETIMES IT
HAS COME BACK AND I'VE NOT BEEN
ABLE TO DO IT. BUT I KNOW HOW
SINCERE YOU ARE AND HOW SMART
YOU ARE, AND HOW HARD YOU WORK.
I DO THOUGH, AND I KNOW WE KIND
OF TALKED OFFLINE. IF YOU COULD,
MAYBE ADDRESS A CONCERNS BY THE.
NOW, I GOT TO PUT ON MY $3
READERS THE ANIMAL HEALTH
INSTITUTE. OH, YEAH, I KNOW, YOU
KNOW, MY DOGS SEE ME IN A VÆ ARE
GETTING READY IN A COUPLE OF
WEEKS TO LEAVE TO THEIR SUMMER
HOME ON CAPE COD, AND THEY HAVE
TO TAKE THEIR TICK MEDICINE. AND
SO I JUST WANT TO WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE ALL IN
COMPLIANCE. SO HAVE YOU HAVE YOU
TALKED TO THEM YET? YEAH. SO WE
ACTUALLY HAVE A ARE YOU
REFERRING TO YOUR DOGS OR ARE
YOU MY DOG TOO? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WE'VE ONLY BEEN FOCUSING ON KI¾M
AND NOT AB, BUT WE'VE, NO, WE
ACTUALLY SO THE FOLKS FROM THE
ANIMAL HEALTH INSTITUTE, WE'VE
GOT A BIG MEETING, I THINK
THURSDAY MORNING, WITH THEM, YOU
KNOW, THE. SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING
TO WORK THROUGH THE CONCERNS. I
THINK THE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE,
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS TO JUST
HAVE EVERYBODY REMEMBER, THIS IS
THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM SB 54,
RIGHT? WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE
TOXIC MATERIAL TO BE RECYCLED.
WE JUST WANT IT TO BE PROPERLY
MANAGED AT THE END OF LIFE. SO
IN THAT SENSE, THERE'S A REAL
KIND OF CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE,
YOU KNOW, FLEA AND TICK
MEDICINES, LIKE THE ONES
NORMALLY YOU TAKE THE DOSE AND
THEN THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING
LEFT, RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. NO,
THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT,
THAT'S RIGHT. SO, SO THAT'S
RIGHT. THE QUESTION IS FOR THAT
STUFF THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW,
FINISHED, YOU KNOW, OR LIKE A
FLEA COLLAR, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT'S
ANOTHER THING THAT'S CURRENTLY
CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS WASTE, YOU
KNOW, THAT WOULD BE TREATED BY
LIKE ANY OTHER PRODUCT COVERED
IN THE BILL. SO, THAT'S THE
ISSUE. I MEAN, I THINK WHAT GETS
TRICKY WITH, WITH THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE IS WHAT TO DO
WITH THE LITTLE PLASTIC VIAL,
THAT'S USED TO DISPENSE THE
LIQUID FLEA MEDICINE, FOR
EXAMPLE. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
WHY, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR IT'S
OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR APPROACH HAS
BEEN TO RELY ON THE DIRECTION
FROM FROM DTSC OR US EPA SO IF
THE PRODUCT IS SO HAZARDOUS THAT
AN EMPTY VIAL IS STILL
CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS, IT WOULD
BE COVERED UNDER THE BILL. IF
IT'S NOT, IF THE DIRECTIONS ON
THE BOX ALLOW FOR THE VIAL TO BE
THROWN AWAY AND THE, YOU KNOW,
CURBSIDE, I BELIEVE IT IS
ALLOWED TO BE THROWN AWAY UNLESS
MY WIFE'S, BREAKING THE LAW.
YEAH. WELL, THEN IF THAT'S THE
CASE. YEAH, SHE LOOKED A LOT AT
ME. I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD
RIGHT NOW. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT.
YEAH I MEAN, IF SO, IF AT SOME
POINT WE'LL READ YOU YOUR
RIGHTS. BUT ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.
YEAH. I MEAN, IF THE DIRECTIONS
ON THE IF THE DIRECTIONS ON THE
BOX PER, YOU KNOW, LIST ARE, YOU
KNOW, REALLY BREAKING WITH DTSC
AND EPA RULES, IF THE DIRECTION
ON THE BOX ALLOW THE VIAL JUST
TO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE
CURBSIDE BIN, AND THEN THAT'S
NOT HOW THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED A
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. SO IT
WOULDN'T BE COVERED UNDER THE
BILL. NOW PART OF THE BILL DOES
REQUIRE THE PRODUCERS TO INCLUDE
CONSUMER OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
IN THEIR PLANS, AND THIS WILL
HELP CONSUMERS BETTER
UNDERSTAND. SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO
APPROACH THIS QUESTION WITH MORE
KNOWLEDGE. BUT IT'S VERY
POSSIBLE THAT THIS ISN'T GOING
TO BE A PROBLEM AT ALL. THE
ISSUE REALLY, THEN, IS GOING TO
COME DOWN TO WHERE THE DTSC AND
EPA STANDARDS ARE FOR CERTAIN
TYPES OF MEDICINES OR, YOU KNOW,
AND IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT
THAT SOME ARE GOING TO BE SOME
ARE GOING TO TRIGGER HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND OTHERS MAY
NOT. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK
THROUGH. WELL, THAT WAS A VERY
COMPLETE ANSWER, AND I THANK YOU
FOR THAT. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS COMMENTS. SENATOR
STERN HAS MOVED THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT. WOULD YOU CLOSE, SENATOR
ALAN, I KNOW I APPRECIATE THE
DIALOG AND I AND I DO I
APPRECIATE ALL RIGHT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
WAIT A MINUTE I'M WHOA, WHOA.
I'M I CAN SEE I'M LOSING CONTROL
HERE. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THE
FOLKS IN THE PEANUT GALLERY
JUST. OKAY FOLKS, WANT TO WATCH
THE LAKERS AND KINGS GAMES. ALL
RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR ALLEN, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. THE BILL'S BEEN
MOVED, YES, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER 23, SB 1143.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG I UMBERG
I WILK I WILK I ALLEN ALLEN. I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I RUSSELL Dð RUSSELL I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN MIN I NILO.
STERN A STERN I WAHAB. THANK
YOU. MEMBERS. THANK YOU. A 9 TO
0 NINE ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO PUT
THAT ON CALL. ALL RIGHT. LAST
BILL. SENATOR BARRASSO ITEM
NUMBER 24 SB 1490. SO, IF YOU
ARE WATCHING, THIS IS THE LAST
BILL WE'RE GOING TO THEN GO
THROUGH THE ROLL. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, FIRST, I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH OUR OFFICE, I AM
COMMITTED, TO MAKING THE
AMENDMENTS OUTLINED ON PAGE TEN
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. I
ALSO COMMIT TO CONTINUE THE
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS
ON REMAINING CONCERNS.
SPECIFICALLY ANY, PENALTIES THAT
RESTAURANTS MAY EXPERIENCE, AND
I AM COMMITTED TO CLARIFYING AND
IMPROVING THESE PROVISIONS,
WHICH ARE REALLY INTENDED TO
PROTECT SMALL RESTAURANTS FROM
BEING UNFAIRLY TREATED ON THE
APPS. SB 1490 WILL STRENGTHEN
THE FAIR FOOD DELIVERY ACT BY
REQUIRING FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS TO DISCLOSE TO
CONSUMERS THE ACTUAL COSTS
INVOLVED IN ONLINE FOOD ORDER
AND DELIVERY. THIS INCLUDES BOTH
THE FEES CHARGED TO RESTAURANTS,
IF THE RESTAURANT CHOOSES TO ASK
FOR THEM, AND THE FEES DIRECTLY
PAID BY CUSTOMERS, AS WELL AS
FOOD ORDER INFORMATION. SINCE
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC,
RESTAURANTS HAVE EXPERIENCED A
SIGNIFICANT REVENUE SHIFT FROM
TRADITIONAL IN-PERSON DINING TO
ONLINE ORDERS, WHICH NOW AVERAGE
30 TO 40% OF RESTAURANT REVENUE.
RESTAURANTS PAY A DELIVERY
COMMISSION, PAY A DELIVERY
COMPANY A COMMISSION ON THEIR
SALES AND MARKETING, AND
PROCESSING FEES FOR LISTING THEM
ON THEIR PLATFORMS. HOWEVER,
THIRD PARTY FOOD DELIVERY
PLATFORMS SUCH AS DOORDASH OR
UBER EATS HAVE USED AND
SOMETIMES ABUSED THEIR LEVERAGE
TO IMPOSE HIGH AND HIDDEN FEES
AND ACTIVELY CUT RESTAURANTS OFF
FROM THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS. SB
1490 WILL PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY
TO BOTH RESTAURANT OWNERS AND
CUSTOMERS IN FOOD DELIVERY
TRANSACTIONS, SO THEY WILL KNOW
THE TRUE COST OF THE SERVICES
AND WHO IS PAYING FOR THEM,
CUSTOMERS WANT TO KNOW WHEN
THEIR FOOD WILL ARRIVE AND IF IT
DOESN'T, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? SB
1490 WILL ALSO ALLOW RESTAURANTS
TO REQUEST REMOVAL FROM THE
DELIVERY PLATFORM IN A TIMELY
MANNER, AND AS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS, I WILL BE ACCEPTING
AMENDMENTS THAT SPECIFICALLY
STATE THESE PROVISIONS PROVIDE.
ÓRDENES SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH
ANY PREEXISTING CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN A PLATFORM
AND A FOOD FACILITY. IT ALSO
PROTECTS RESTAURANTS FROM
RETALIATION OR DISCRIMINATION
FROM DISPUTING ERRONEOUS
TRANSACTIONS, UTILIZING SUPPORT
FOR REVIEW FOR REVIEWING APP
INFORMATION, IN SELECTING
SPECIFIC SERVICES, AND FOR
OPTING OUT OF ALL PLATFORM
SERVICES, TODAY I HAVE WITH ME
TWO WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. OR MAYBE ONE, SEAN RYAN
FROM GOOD PIZZA, I THINK GREG
LEFT. YEAH, BUT YOU'LL BE OKAY,
A STATEMENT FROM GREG PLUMMER
AND, JOE REINSTEIN WITH THE
DIGITAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO
GOOD PIZZA. YES IT'S SHOULD HAVE
TIME. SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT SOME
TIME. RIGHT. JUST TO HAVE JUST
SOME JUST TO BE CLEAR. AND I
THINK YOU'VE INDICATED THIS,
SENATOR ALSO. BUT IN ORDER TO
AVOID ANY DOUBT ON PAGE TEN OF
THE ANALYSIS, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT YOU
HAVE INDICATED THAT WHERE YOU'RE
GOING TO TAKE AMENDMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT'S LISTED ON
PAGE TEN IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE.
YES. OKAY JUST TO BE CLEAR.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE FLOOR
IS YOURS. HELLO, SENATORS. MY
NAME IS. WHAT DID YOU BRING WITH
YOU? I'M SORRY. DID YOU BRING
ANY OF YOUR WARES WITH YOU?
PIZZAS? YEAH. SHOULD WE HAVE
THEM DELIVERED? YEAH. OH. ALL
RIGHT. OH, THAT'S A TRICK
QUESTION. YEAH. YOU GET TWO
MINUTES. GO AHEAD. I'M GOING TO
GET LONGER, BUT TWO MINUTES.
THERE YOU GO. MY NAME IS SEAN
RYAN. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS AT THE GOOD PIZZA IN
LOS ANGELES. ONLINE ORDERS FROM
THIRD PARTY DELIVERY SERVICE
PLATFORMS MAKE UP APPROXIMATELY
25% OF MY REVENUE. ALTHOUGH
THESE SERVICES CAN BE
CONVENIENT, IT HAS BEEN COSTLY
WITH NON-NEGOTIABLE COMMISSIONS
AND ADDITIONAL FEES FOR
MARKETING LISTINGS AND CASH
PROCESSING. I HAVE TO ADD
ANYWHERE FROM 25 TO 30%
COMMISSION TO THE COST OF MY
MENU ITEMS ON THEIR PLATFORMS.
THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE I'M
MAKING MORE MONEY FROM AN ONLINE
ORDER, WHEN ALL I'M ATTEMPTING
TO DO IS MAINTAIN AN ALREADY
RAZOR THIN MARGIN. THIS IS NOT
RIGHT, AND IT MISLEADS THE
CUSTOMER TO THINK THAT I'M PRICE
GOUGING THEM. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE
FROM MY MENU. IF SOMEONE ORDERS
A SUPREME PIZZA FROM ME, IT'S
$26 ON THIRD PARTY DELIVERY
PLATFORM. I MUST PRICE THE SAME
PIZZA. AT 29, I CAN ONLY MAKE
$20.30, SO I'M MAKING EVEN LESS.
MY CUSTOMER IS PAYING EVEN MORE,
YET THEY ADVERTISE AND PROMOTE
NÓ OR DELIVERY FEES, TO
CUSTOMERS. BUT DELIVERY IS FAR
FROM FREE. ADDITIONALLY, THE
DELIVERY PLATFORM REPS CALL ME
AND TELL ME THAT THERE ARE
PROBLEMS WITH MY LISTING, THAT
MY PRICES ARE TOO HIGH. IF I
DON'T LOWER THEM, I'LL BE
DEPRIORITIZED WITHIN THE
ALGORITHM. THIS IS THE TYPE OF
POWER THEY HAVE. I HAVE A LOT OF
CUSTOMERS WITH NEGATIVE DELIVERY
EXPERIENCES, DELIVERIES ARE
LATE, GO TO THE WRONG ADDRESS OR
THE PIZZA IS COLD. THE CUSTOMER
CAN DEMAND REFUNDS AND DEPENDING
UPON THE PLATFORM, WE ARE AT
THEIR MERCY. IT COMES OUT OF MY
POCKET AND I HAVE TO FIGHT TO
GET MY MONEY WITH MY THIRD PARTY
PARTNER. WE HAVE NO CONTROL NOR
AUDIT POWER OVER. IT'S NOT FAIR.
OUR DELIVERY PLATFORM SHOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF
DISPUTES I MAKE TO CHALLENGE THE
CHARGEBACKS, BECAUSE OF THE
SHEER VOLUME OF THIRD PARTY
DELIVERY PLATFORMS, WE ARE ALSO
FORCED TO USE AGGREGATE
PLATFORMS THAT COLLATE ALL THE
ORDERS COMING IN FROM EACH
SERVICE. THANK YOU SIR, IF YOU
COULD WRAP IT UP. VERY GOOD. SB
1490 WOULD, HELP. MY BUSINESS
WILL ALLOW MY CUSTOMERS TO
FINALLY UNDERSTAND THE TRUE COST
OF DELIVERY AND WHO IS MAKING
THE LION'S SHARE OF PROFITS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB
1490. HI. THANK YOU. I'M
SPEAKING FOR GREG PLUMMER,
CONCORD COLLECTIVE AND ENJOY.
REPEAT, WHO WAS HERE UNTIL ABOUT
25 MINUTES AGO. AND
UNFORTUNATELY HE HAD TO FLY
BACK. SO I WILL BE QUICK AND
READ HIS TESTIMONY. HE SAYS
HELLO, MY NAME IS GREG PLUMMER.
I AM CEO AND MANAGING PARTNER OF
CONCORD COLLECTIVE AND ENJOY.
REPEAT. I'M A SEASONED
RESTAURANT MANAGER, ENTREPRENEUR
AND COMMUNITY ADVOCATE BASED IN
LA. AS A CHILD, I REMEMBER MY
DAD WOULD LET ME AND MY BROTHER
COME ALONG TO VISITS TO OUR
FAMILY, FRIENDS, RESTAURANT AND
JOYS BACK IN DETROIT, WHICH MADE
A LASTING IMPRESSION ON ME AND
ULTIMATELY, WHY I PURSUED A
CAREER IN THE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY. I LAUNCHED ENJOY
REPEAT, A FULL SERVICE
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT FIRM.
AFTER 12 YEARS IN THE AIRPORT
CONCESSION INDUSTRY AT LAX.
TODAY AT CONCORD COLLECTIVE, I
WORK WITH BRANDS LIKE CHICK FIL
A, PANDA EXPRESS, AC CIRCUIT,
BAY AREA AND TACOS BEACH BURGER
AND BAR, AMONG OTHERS. I'VE SEEN
FIRSTHAND THE ISSUES THAT
RESTAURANTS FACE WITH DELIVERY
PLATFORMS. ADDITIONAL
TRANSPARENCY IS NEEDED FOR BOTH
CUSTOMERS AND RESTAURANT
RESTAURANTS ALIKE. THERE IS
EXISTING LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS
RESTAURANTS TO DISCLOSE TO
CUSTOMERS THE DELIVERY FEES AND
COMMISSIONS CHARGED, BUT THERE
IS CURRENTLY NO MECHANISM
INCLUDED IN AB 286 FOR
RESTAURANTS TO PUT THIS INTO
PRACTICE, ENABLING THIS OPT IN
FEE TRANSPARENCY FEATURE WILL
GIVE RESTAURANTS AND CONSUMERS
THE FULL PICTURE OF THE FEES
CHARGED AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THE
PRICES CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
WHEN THE THIRD PARTY DELIVERY
PLATFORMS ADVERTISE AND PROMOTE
FALSE AND MISLEADING QUOTE
DELIVERY FEES, WHEN THE ACTUAL
COST IS MUCH HIGHER AND HIDDEN
FROM CONSUMERS IN THE
COMMISSIONS THAT ARE CHARGED TO
THE RESTAURANT. ASIDE FROM
DELIVERY FEE TRANSPARENCY,
RESTAURANTS FACE A HOST OF OTHER
ISSUES FROM ANTI-COMPETITIVE
BEHAVIOR OF THE PLATFORMS, SUCH
AS BEING LIMITED IN THE NUMBER
OF TRANSACTIONS. WE CAN DISPUTE
CHARGEBACKS FROM DELIVERY MANY
TIMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE RESTAURANT'S PERFORMANCE.
YET OUR RESTAURANTS END UP
BEARING THE BRUNT OF THE COST OF
THE REFUNDS REMOVAL FROM THE
DELIVERY PLATFORMS IS DIFFICULT,
AND ALTHOUGH CURRENT LAW
REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT, THERE IS
NO MECHANISM FOR EASY REMOVAL OR
A TIME PENALTY FOR INACTION BY
THE DELIVERY PLATFORMS. SB 1490
WOULD HELP THE RESTAURANTS I
WORK WITH AND PROVIDE CUSTOMERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MORE
VISIBILITY INTO THE FEES. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF SB 1490,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE I
SEE HEAD SHAKING. NO IT'S
GETTING READY TO OPPOSE QUICKLY
IF THE Þ OKAY SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING IN SUPPORT OF 1490,
IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1490,
PLEASE PLEASE APPROACH. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
ROBERT MURRAY FOR THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WILL
ENDEAVOR TO BE QUICK AND CLEAR,
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS,
APPRECIATE THE IMMENSE BEING
TAKEN AND APPRECIATE THE
COMMITMENT TO WORK FORWARD. WE
SPOKE SOME IN THE HALLWAY
EARLIER AND PLANNED TO KEEP
TALKING THERE. I WANT TO BE
CLEAR, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO FEE
CLARITY HERE. THERE'S A TON OF
EXISTING LAW IN THIS AREA. I
WON'T GO THROUGH THAT. WE WOULD
SAY ADDRESS, AS MUCH OF THIS WAS
PASSED OVER RECENT YEARS. MANY
OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THESE BILLS
AROUND THIS, INCLUDING BILLS
PUSHED BY LORENA GONZALEZ AND
OTHERS, I ALSO WANT TO FLAG LAST
YEAR'S JUNK FEE BILL ADDRESSES
CONCERNS AROUND CLEAR PRICING IN
THIS SPACE. SO WE CANDIDLY DON'T
NECESSARILY SEE THE WHOLE THE
SPONSORS SEE IN EXISTING LAW
AROUND CLARITY HERE, GIVEN
RECENT LAW, WHICH THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, I THINK EXPLAINS.
WELL, I ALSO WANT TO FLAG THE
PIECES WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO AND
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO ALL
SECTIONS, INCLUDING THE
MECHANISM, AS MENTIONED BY THE
SENATOR, TO REMOVE RESTAURANTS
FROM LISTINGS IF THEY SO PREFER.
IN FACT, WE WOULD SAY EXISTING
LAW, WHICH REQUIRES A CONTRACT,
COVERS THAT POINT. BUT WE'RE NOT
OPPOSED TO THOSE PIECES. WE ARE
OPPOSED TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS.
I'LL FLAG ONE OF MY COLLEAGUE,
JOSE TORRES FROM, FROM TECHNET
WILL FLAG ANOTHER. FOR EXAMPLE,
SECTION 22599 REQUIRES FOOD
DELIVERY SERVICES TO EXPLAIN TO
ANY RESTAURANT AND CONTRACT WITH
EXACTLY HOW THEY SPEND PORTIONS
OF WHAT I WOULD CALL BUNDLED
SERVICES. THAT IS, YOU HAVE
DELIVERY ADVERTISEMENT AND
OTHERS. AND NOW I HAVE TO
EXPLAIN WHAT EACH PART OF THAT
IS. I WOULD AKIN IN THE
RELATIONSHIP OR EXCUSE ME IN THE
RESTAURANT CONTEXT. I WOULD SAY
THAT'S LIKE SAYING I'D LIKE TO
ORDER A COMBO MEAL, AND NOW I'D
LIKE YOU TO BREAK OUT EACH PIECE
FOR ME. YOU DON'T GET TO BREAK
THAT OUT IN A BUSINESS
TRANSACTION, RIGHT? YOU KNOW
WHAT THE PRICE IS? YOU KNOW WHAT
YOU'RE GETTING. BUT THE RIGHT TO
DEMAND THE UNDERLYING PRICE OF
EACH PIECE DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO
US. SO THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS
WE HOPE TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON,
BUT BUT AT THIS POINT, WE REMAIN
OPPOSED, AND I'LL PASS THE REST
TO MY COLLEAGUE. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS. JOSE TORRES WITH TECH
WITH TECHNET. I WANT TO
REITERATE WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED. ALSO WANT TO THANK
COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE FOR LISTENING, TO OUR
CONCERNS AND ADDRESSING SOME OF
THEM. AND BEING WILLING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH US.
HOWEVER, WE ARE STILL
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 1490.
SOME OF THE REMAINING PROVISIONS
OF THE BILL MAY APPEAR TO BE
WELL INTENTIONED, BUT AS THEY
ARE DRAFTED, THEY WOULD CREATE
LOOPHOLES INVITING FRAUD, MAKING
IT HARDER FOR PLATFORMS TO BEST
SERVE OUR RESTAURANTS AND
UNDERMINE SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT
RESTAURANTS. SO I'LL BE BRIEF IN
MY EXPLANATIONS, BUT HAPPY TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE BILL REMOVES ANY
LIMITS ON ORDER DISPUTES FOR
ERRORS AND ORDERS. PLATFORMS DO
HAVE A PROCESS WHERE THEY ARE
LENIENT WHEN IT COMES TO ORDERED
DISPUTES. IF AN ERROR IS
REPORTED, OFTEN THEY WILL ABSORB
THE COSTS THEMSELVES WITHIN A
REASONABLE LIMIT TO PREVENT ANY
REPEATED FRAUD. SO WHEN THE
LIMIT IS REACHED, A RESTAURANT
CAN STILL SUBMIT A DISPUTE. 100,
BUT THEY ARE NOW JUST REQUIRED
TO WORK WITH THEIR ACCOUNT
MANAGER AND SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION
. REMOVING THIS LIMIT WOULD
INCENTIVIZE RESTAURANTS AND
PLATFORMS TO FIGHT OVER
CAUSATION FOR EVERY SINGLE ERROR
IN AN ORDER. THE BILL ALSO
CONTAINS A PROVISION PROHIBITING
PLATFORMS FROM PENALIZING
RESTAURANTS FOR REFUSING TO USE
A SERVICE, SO WHEN A RESTAURANT
AND A PLATFORM ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT, THE RESTAURANT
CHOOSES THE BEST OPTION PLAN FOR
THEIR NEEDS. AS MENTIONED BY MY
COLLEAGUE, THE LANGUAGE IS
BROUGHT. THE LANGUAGE OF THIS
BILL IS BROAD AND WILL LIMIT HOW
BEST A PLATFORM CAN SERVICE A
RESTAURANT. BECAUSE ANY CHANGES
IN THE SERVICES WOULD WOULD BE
SEEN AS A PENALTY. AND FINALLY,
WHILE RESTAURANTS ARE ABLE TO
BRING ON THIRD PARTY CONSULTANTS
, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THESE
THIRD PARTIES COMPLY WITH
APPLICABLE CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS BECAUSE AS AS IT IS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT COULD BE
INTERPRETED TO PROHIBIT
PLATFORMS FROM TAKING REASONABLE
ACTIONS AND MAKING SURE THAT
THESE THIRD PARTIES ARE NOT
HARMING THE PLATFORMS OR THE
RESTAURANTS THEMSELVES. AND THEN
FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE
OPPOSED TO SB 1490. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. OTHERS. IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1490. HELLO, MR. CHAIR.
HELLO, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS,
SAMANTHA JOHNSON, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA AFRICAN AMERICAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WE
APOLOGIZE TO THE AUTHOR FOR LATE
OPPOSITION AS WE ONLY RECENTLY
JOINED THE COALITION OPPOSING
THIS BILL. SO WE DID NOT SUBMIT
A LETTER. HOWEVER, WE ARE
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS AUSTEN
HAYWORTH, ON BEHALF OF UBER AND
UBER EATS, JUST WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL. WE'RE OPPOSED
. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHING. ALL RIGHT,
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR RUSSO. I
KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON
THIS. MY CONCERN WAS THAT
CONSUMERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO
MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE WHEN
THEY'RE ORDERING FOOD TO BE
DELIVERED, OR PICKING UP THAT
KIND OF THING, I KNOW THAT THAT
YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THERE'S
STILL MORE WORK TO BE DONE, AND
I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I ALSO
APPRECIATE YOUR GOOD FAITH.
COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THE BILL. SO THANK YOU ALL
RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.
SENATOR ASHBY, JUST MORE OF A
STATEMENT TO DON'T NEED TO
BELABOR THE POINT. LATE.
EVERYBODY'S READY TO GO, I HAVE
A FEW CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL,
BUT IT'S COMING TO ME NEXT IN
BPD, I BELIEVE. RIGHT, WE'RE DO
PASS TO BUSINESS PROFESSIONS,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SO I HAVE
NO DOUBT WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT
WHATEVER IS LEFT THERE. YOU'RE A
GREAT AUTHOR. YOU'LL WORK HARD
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU THERE. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. I JUST WANT
YOU TO KNOW I DO STILL HAVE SOME
CONCERNS I'M HOPING WE CAN WORK
ON IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. IS
THERE A MOTION? I'M SORRY.
SENATOR WAHAB MOVES THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR WAHAB MOVES
THE BILL. SENATOR RUSSELL, I'D
LIKE TO CLOSE. I JUST WANT TO
THANK EVERYBODY. THIS IS REALLY
TAKEN A LOT OF WORK, A LOT OF
FEEDBACK. AND, THANK YOU, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS AND EVERYONE WHO'S
PARTICIPATED, SPONSORS. ALL
RIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 24, SB 1490. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS THE SENATE BUSINESS
PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT UMBERG I UMBERG I
WILK NØ WILK NØ ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I DURAZO RUSSELL I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH. MINH I.
NILO. NILO NØ. STERN A STERN I
WAHAB. WAHAB I 9 TO 2 NINE TWO.
THE BILL IS OUT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. SO WE'RE GOING TO
WE'VE GOT ALL THE MEMBERS HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE
ROLL ONE TIME. JUST ONE TIME.
AND SO THOSE OF YOU WATCHING IN
PRESENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT
THE STAFF AND I HAVE EACH PICKED
A TIME. AND IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH NOTHING BUT BRAGGING
RIGHTS, AND I AND I HAVE 530. SO
I'M GOING TO GO VERY SLOWLY. ALL
RIGHT, SO HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT,
MADAM SECRETARY, LET'S CALL THE
ROLL ONE FINAL TIME ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ALLEN ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY.
ASHBY. AYE. MINH MINH. AYE.
WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE. 11 TO 0 11
ZERO. THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS
ADOPTED. FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE.
SB 1465 CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALLEN
ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE
MIN. MIN. AYE. WAHAB. WAHAB AYE.
11 TO 0 SEVEN ZERO 11 ZERO. THE
BILL IS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO SB 942, CHAIR VOTING AYE.
ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY ASHBY.
AYE. MIN. MIN. AYE 10 TO 1. 10
TO 1. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER THREE. SB 1223. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. MIN MIN. AYE 11 TO
0. 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1066. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. DURAZZO. DURAZZO.
AYE MIN. MIN AYE 11 TO 0 11
ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB 1050. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WILK NOT VOTING.
CABALLERO AYE. CABALLERO. AYE.
MIN WAHAB. WAHAB AYE. 8 TO 1
EIGHT ONE. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX, SB 1331. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. WILK NOT VOTING.
RUSSELL. RUSSELL. AYE. MIN
STERN. STERN. AYE WAHAB. WAHAB.
AYE. 8 TO 1. EIGHT ONE. BILLS
OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB
1238. CHAIR VOTING AYE. RUSSELL.
RUSSELL. AYE MIN. MIN AYE. WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE. 11 TO 0 11 ZERO.
BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER
NINE, SB 1491. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
RUSSELL. RUSSELL. AYE. MIN MIN
AYE. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE 9 TO 2
NINE TWO. BILL IS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER TEN, SB 1424. CHAIR NOT
VOTING YET. NOT YET. HAVING
VOTED UMBER GUY UMBER. UMBER.
AYE. ASHBY CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
AYE. LAIRD MIN. STERN. WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE 5 TO 2. FIVE TWO.
BILL. FAILS SOMEBODY MOVE.
RECONSIDERATION SENATOR
CABALLERO MOVES TO
RECONSIDERATION. OKAY. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 11 SB 1264 CHAIR VOTING
AYE. RUSSELL LAIRD. LAIRD. AYE.
MIN MIN. AYE. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE
10 TO 0 TEN ZERO. BILLS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 13 SB 1040.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. LAIRD LAIRD
AYE. MIN MIN AYE 11 TO 0.
SENATOR Þ 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT AND
FILE ITEM NUMBER 19, SB 906.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. WILK WHICH
BILL WIENER 19, SB 906.
GREETINGS AND CONSENT. AYE WILK.
AYE. LAIRD LAIRD. AYE. MIN. MIN.
AYE 11 TO 0 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 20 SB 1340.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. WILK NÓ. WILK
NØ MIN AYE. MIN AYE. WAHAB.
WAHAB. AYE 9 TO 2 NINE TWO.
BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER 22
SB 988. CHAIR VOTING AYE. MIN
MIN AYE. NEELO WAHAB. WAHAB AYE
10 TO 0 TEN ZERO. BILLS OUT.
FILE ITEM NO. OH, OKAY. FILE
ITEM NUMBER 23 SB 1143 CHAIR
VOTING AYE. NEELO WAHAB. WAHAB.
AYE 10 TO 0 TEN ZERO. BILLS OUT.
CAN I VOTE NO ON THAT? ITEM
2326. AYE TEN 2343. OH, I THINK
MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG. SO WHAT'S
THE. SO SENATOR ALLEN'S BILL.
I'M SORRY. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE ON THIS IS WRONG. NO, IT
IS MY NUMBERS ON MY FILE ITEMS
ARE INCORRECT. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT
THAT. THAT'S OKAY. NØ. DID YOU
SAY WHERE ARE WE? FILE NUMBER
23. WHAT'S THE 10 TO 0 TEN ZERO?
THE BILL IS OUT. OKAY. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 26, SB 1356, CHAIR VOTING
AYE. WILK NOT VOTING. MIN MIN
AYE. NEELO THAT IS 9 TO 0. 9 TO
0. THAT BILL IS OUT. THAT'S IT.
ALL RIGHT. SO THE SCORE IS 41 TO
40. LAKERS ARE WINNING WITH
SEVEN MINUTES LEFT IN THE SECOND
QUARTER. WE WILL WE WILL ADJOURN
UNTIL THE 23RD OF APRIL.
EVERYONE BRING YOUR RED BULL.
AMEN. FOR YOUR SLEEPING BAG AND
SLEEPING BAG. CORRECT. THANK YOU
ALL. THANK YOU. STAFF.