GOOD MORNING. WE ARE HOLDING
THIS COMMITTEE HEARING IN ROOM
112 OF THE OLD CAPITOL. THIS IS
NOT OUR USUAL LOCATION. SO THOSE
OF YOU WHO ARE LISTENING WHO ARE
ON THIS COMMITTEE, YOU NEED TO
MAKE YOUR WAY ACROSS THE STREET
TO THE CAPITOL ROOM 112, WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, BUT WE ARE
GOING TO BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE
, WE'RE STARTING TODAY AT 930
HERE IN THE IN THE OLD CAPITOL,
AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK
AT SOME POINT AROUND NOON, AND
THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND HEAR
THE REST OF OUR AGENDA, THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN PULLED
FROM TODAY'S AGENDA. FILE NUMBER
13, SB 1250 BY SENATOR NGUYEN.
FILE NUMBER 32, SB 1076 BY
SENATOR WILK. FILE NUMBER 38, SB
1154 BY SENATOR TATO WILL NOT BE
VOTED ON BY THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
THE AUTHOR WILL PRESENT THE
BILL, AND ANY WITNESSES MAY COME
FORWARD AND SPEAK. BUT THERE
WILL NOT LET ME UNDERLINE NOT BE
A VOTE ON THAT BILL. FILE NUMBER
39, SB 1424 BY SENATOR GLAZER,
WHICH FAILED PASSAGE IN THE
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, BUT WAS
GRANTED RECONSIDERATION. WILL
NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION BUT BY
THE AUTHOR, BUT WILL BE VOTED ON
BY THE COMMITTEE. NOW LET'S TURN
TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. LET ME
READ THE 13 BILLS THAT ARE ON
CONSENT TODAY. FILE NUMBER ONE,
SB 1476 BY SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR.
FILE NUMBER THREE, SB 1162 BY
SENATOR CORTESE, FILE NUMBER
NINE SB 1270 BY SENATOR GROVE.
FILE NUMBER TEN SB 1521 BY THE
SENATE BANKING AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE, FILE
NUMBER 12 BY SB 1202 BY SENATOR
NEWMAN WITH AMENDMENTS FILE
NUMBER 18 SB 963 BY SENATOR
ASHBY, WITH AMENDMENTS FILE
NUMBER 20, SB 1001 000 BY
SENATOR ASHBY WITH AMENDMENTS
FILE NUMBER 21 SB 1452 BY
SENATOR ASHBY. FILE NUMBER 22 SB
1454 BY SENATOR ASHBY. FILE
NUMBER 28 SB 1394 BY SENATOR
MINTE. FILE NUMBER 33 SB 1194,
BY OUR VERY OWN SENATOR WILK AND
FILE NUMBER 34, SB 901, BY
SENATOR UMBERG. AND FINALLY FILE
NUMBER 37, SB 1525 BY THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL TAKE UP THE CONSENT
CALENDAR WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM.
SO WE HAVE ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE
50% OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO
PARTICIPATE ON THIS COMMITTEE
PRESENT, AND WE HAVE LESS THAN
30% OF THE DEMOCRATS. SO IF WE
COULD GET A FEW MORE MEMBERS, WE
WOULD HAVE A QUORUM. BUT AS I
MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET, WE'RE
GOING TO WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO
PROCEED AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND
FIRST UP, WE HAVE, FILE NUMBER
TWO, SB 1109 BY SENATOR
BRADFORD, WHO IS PRESENT.
SENATOR BRADFORD. YEAH. THANK
YOU, MISTER CHAIR. AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, AND I'M HONORED TO
PRESENT, 11. OH NINE, THIS IS
GOING TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT
OF ACCOUNTS CONTROL TO COLLECT
AND REPORT DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION ON CANNABIS
LICENSEES. THE INFORMATION
PROVIDED IS VOLUNTARY, BY THE
LICENSEES CURRENT LAW OF THE
DEPARTMENT, REQUIRES THE
DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT THE NAMES
OF ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO HOLD
FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN A
CANNABIS BUSINESS. HOWEVER,
LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS. IN RECENT YEARS,
THE LEGISLATURE HAS FOCUSED ON
ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA'S
CANNABIS MARKET IS INCLUSIVE AND
SUPPORTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS
IMPACTED BY THE WAR ON DRUGS, AS
INTENDED. WHEN THE VOTERS PASSED
PROP 64. UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE
FAR FROM ACHIEVING THAT GOAL.
CURRENTLY, THIS INDUSTRY IS 85%
WHITE MALE DOMINATED, AND WE
NEED GREATER DIVERSITY. SO THIS
WILL HELP US ESTABLISH THAT,
MANY PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCING
DIFFICULTY IN ENTERING THIS
MARKET AND, AND CONTINUES TO
LACK THE DIVERSITY THAT WE ALL
WOULD HOPE FOR. THAT REPRESENTS
NOT ONLY CALIFORNIA, BUT THIS
NATION. CALIFORNIA HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
OUR CANNABIS INDUSTRY IS
EQUITABLE AND FAIR TO ALL. SB
1199 WILL HELP US REACH THAT
REACH THAT, GOAL. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BRADFORD. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION HERE IN JUST A
SECOND. LET ME ANNOUNCE THE
RULES. THE RULES WILL APPLY TO
EVERY BILL TODAY. SO, EACH
AUTHOR, EACH BILL WILL HAVE TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
EACH OF THOSE WITNESSES WILL BE
ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES, AND THEN
WE'LL HEAR FROM OTHERS WHO WISH
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. THEY GIVE
THEIR NAME, THEIR AFFILIATION
AND THEIR POSITION ON THE BILL.
LET ME REPEAT THAT. THEIR NAME,
THEIR AFFILIATION, THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL. THEN WE'LL
TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. THE
OPPOSITION WILL HAVE THE SAME
TWO WITNESSES, EACH WITH TWO
MINUTES EACH. AND THEN THE
OPPOSITION FOLKS WHO WISH TO
TESTIFY IN WHAT WE CALL ME TO
FASHION, MAY THEN THEY MAY GIVE
THEIR NAME, THEIR AFFILIATION
AND THEIR POSITION AFTER THAT,
WE'LL TURN TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. ALL
RIGHT. SO IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT,
MISS BRADFORD, SENATOR BRADFORD,
DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1109? I DON'T KNOW
IF ANYONE IS HERE TODAY. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL RELY ON YOU.
ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE IN SUPPORT
OF SB 11. OH NINE, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE SEEING
NO ONE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1109, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE, WE HAVE ONE ONE
PERSON WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1109. GO AHEAD.
SIR, DID YOU WISH TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION? NO. ALL RIGHT. IF,
IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO
WISHES TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION,
HE'S IN SUPPORT. IN SUPPORT? ALL
RIGHT, GO AHEAD, SIR. WE'LL TAKE
SUPPORT NOW, NAME IS JARED KILO
HERE. ON BEHALF OF UNITED
CANNABIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS
WITH 200 CANNABIS RETAILERS AND
FIRM SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. SEEING NO ONE. ALL
RIGHT, LET'S TURN TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES. SENATOR
CABALLERO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. NO. NO QUESTIONS. I
JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE
AUTHOR FOR BEING PERSISTENT IN
THIS AREA. THE WHOLE IDEA, WAS
SINCE CANNABIS WAS LEGALIZED,
WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE OF
COLOR TO ENTER THE MARKET,
GIVING GIVEN THAT THEY BORE THE
BRUNT OF THE ARRESTS AND
INCARCERATION FOR THE DRUG. AND
SO I SUPPORT YOU. AND WHEN WE
GET A QUORUM, I'LL MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. SENATOR BRADFORD,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, AGAIN,
THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD
MEASURE THAT JUST MAKING SURE
THAT EVERYONE IS REPRESENTED IN
THE SPACE AND THIS OPPORTUNITY,
AND WE JUST LOST A GREAT
ADVOCATE. THE FIRST AND ONLY
AFRICAN AMERICAN CEO OF A
CANNABIS COMPANY, TROY DASHER,
WHO WAS TRULY COMMITTED TO
DIVERSITY IN THIS ISSUE. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. SENATOR BRADFORD. AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME, SENATOR
CABALLERO WILL MOVE THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
NEXT WE HAVE SENATOR CORTEZ.
THEN WE'LL HAVE SENATOR EGGMAN,
SENATOR CORTEZ, ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, SB 1299. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 1299, THE
BILL SPONSORED BY THE UNITED
FARM WORKERS. THE INCREASED
FREQUENCY OF EXTREME HEAT
CONDITIONS AND ITS GROWING RISKS
TO WORKERS HIGHLIGHT THE
IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY OF
EMPLOYER COMPLIANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA'S OUTDOOR HEAT
REGULATIONS TO KEEP WORKERS SAFE
. SB 1299 PROMOTES COMPLIANCE
WITH THE EXISTING OUTDOOR HEAT
REGULATION THROUGH A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION FOR HEAT RELATED
INJURY AND DEATH. FARM WORKERS
WHO SUFFER INJURY, ILLNESS, OR
DEATH WHILE WORKING FOR A
NON-COMPLIANT EMPLOYER WILL BE
TREATED AND COMPENSATED
EXPEDITIOUSLY. THE BILL ALSO
ESTABLISHES THE FARM WORKER
CLIMATE CHANGE, HEAT INJURY AND
DEATH FUND TO OFFSET DERS
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THE NEW
FUND WILL BE FUNDED ON A ONE
TIME BASIS FROM THE EXISTING
WORKER'S COMP ADMINISTRATION
REVOLVING FUND. SOME OF THE
LARGE SOME OF THE LARGEST
AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN THE
STATE ARE EXPERIENCING RECORD
BREAKING HEAT WAVES. IN 2022,
KING CITY IN MONTEREY COUNTY
BROKE ITS HOTTEST TEMPERATURE
EVER RECORDED AT 116 DEGREES.
FRESNO RECORDED AN ALL TIME HIGH
AT 114 STOCKTON IN SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY SHATTERED ITS 1988 RECORD
OF 106 BY REACHING 112 DEGREES.
THESE RECORD BREAKING HEAT WAVES
ARE HARMING THE HEALTH OF
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS. FROM 2018
TO 2019, THE NUMBER OF SUSPECTED
AND CONFIRMED FOR FARM WORKER
HEAT RELATED DEATHS INCREASED
EXPONENTIALLY. WITH US TODAY TO
TESTIFY, WE HAVE MARTHA MONTIEL,
A FARM WORKER REPRESENTING THE
UNITED FARM WORKERS, AND AN
CATON IS AN HERE. ARE YOU THE
INTERPRETER? EXCUSE ME, MR.
CHAIR, AND CAPTAIN, DIRECTOR,
PESTICIDE AND WORKER SAFETY
PROJECT AND LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE
FOR THE CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, THANK
YOU. AND AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I'D ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. I
THINK I WOULD JUST CLARIFYING
THAT THE WITNESS NEEDS, HER
INTERPRETER. I DON'T KNOW HOW
THE CHAIR WANTS TO HANDLE THAT.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL WE'LL FIGURE
THAT OUT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR CORTEZ, TWO WITNESSES,
TWO MINUTES EACH, MA'AM. THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. GO AHEAD. AND IF
YOU'RE SPEAKING IN SPANISH AND
SOMEONE'S GOING TO, YOU'RE GOING
TO SPEAK IN SPANISH. YOU'RE
GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO
TRANSLATE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO
IT THIS WAY, LET'S LET'S STOP
EVERY, YOU KNOW, 15 SECONDS OR
SO, SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND.
ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. GRACIAS
OKAY. BUENOS DIAS. MY NAME IS
MARTHA MONTIEL. SÐNG TRABAJADORA
AGRICOLA MIEMBRO DE LA UNION DE
LA FUNDACION DE LA UNION DE
CAMPESINOS RAMOS LÀ. A DOZEN. NO
ESTOY AQUI PARA MAS BÀN OFFICIOS
PARA LOS TRABAJADORES AGRICOLAS.
NO ESTOY AQUI PARA PEDIR CAMBIOS
EN LA REGULACIONES DE LA CALOR.
CADA VEZ MAS COLOR EL COLOR
ENFERMA LOS TRABAJADORES
AGRICOLAS EL COLOR DE MUCHOS DE
NOSOTROS. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS MARTA MONTIEL. I'M A FARM
WORKER AND MEMBER OF UFW
FOUNDATION, AND WE ARE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1299. I'M NOT HERE
TO ASK FOR MORE BENEFITS FOR
FARM WORKERS. I'M NOT HERE TO
ASK FOR CHANGES TO THIS STATE
OUTDOOR Kò REGULATIONS. IT IS
GETTING HOTTER. HE MAKES FARM
WORKERS SICK. HE HAS KILLED TOO
MANY OF US. NO. NO, SIR. EL
ESTADO KNOWS YOUR NUMBERS DE LOS
TRABAJADORES AGRICOLAS C¢M.
CUANDO EL ESTADO DE ESTAS
MUERTOS DESCUBRIO CÁC DE LOS
EMPLEADOS. ESTOS TREINTA
TRABAJADORES AGRICOLAS MUERTOS.
LA REGULACIONES DE LA CALOR.
CALIFORNIA NO. UN REGISTRO DE
CUANTOS TRABAJADORES SON
ADMITIDOS IN A HOSPITAL DEBIDO A
LOS GRUPOS DE CALOR. OTRAS
ENFERMEDADES DE DEBIDO AL GOLPE
DE CALOR. THIS, THEY GAVE US THE
NAME OF 30 FARM WORKERS WHO DIE
IN 2019. WHEN THE STATE LOOK
INTO THESE DEATHS, THEY FOUND
OUT 13 OF THE EMPLOYERS OF THOSE
30 DEAD FARMWORKERS WERE IN
VIOLATION OF THE HEAT
REGULATIONS. CALIFORNIA DOES NOT
KEEP TRACK OF HOW MANY WORKERS
ARE ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL
BECAUSE OF HIS STROKE OR OTHER
HEAT ILLNESS IN UNO DE
EXPERIENCIA IMPACTANTE, CUANDO
ESTABA TRABAJANDO EN LOS CAMPOS
DE YUBA A èC, A COLOR MACHINE
IN MCALLEN, LAWCENTER S¼ MARIDO
E CÁC EL CONOCIMIENTO PORQUE NO
HABIA ACERCA AGUA, NI NI SOMBRA.
LO HEMOS EL MAYORDOMO, PERO ÉL
NO QUISO ASUMIR LA
RESPONSABILIDAD. PODEMOS LA CASA
O EL MÉDICO ESTA FALTA DE
RESPUESTA E PLAN POR PARTE DE
LOS EMPLEADOS ES LA NORMA. IN
THE SUMMER OF 2021, I HAD AN
IMPACTFUL EXPERIENCE WHEN I WAS
WORKING IN THE GREAT FIELDS. IT
WAS OVER 100 DEGREES. MY
COLLEAGUES STARTED FEELING DIZZY
AND ALMOST BECAME UNCONSCIOUS
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T WATER
NEARBY, THERE WASN'T SHADE. WE
TOLD THE CREW LEADER, BUT HE
DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY AND TOLD US THAT
WE COULD TAKE HER TO THE HOUSE
OR DOCTOR'S OFFICE. THIS LACK OF
RESPONSE AND PLAN BY EMPLOYERS
IS THE NORM. LA LUCHA CONTRA EL
CAMBIO CLIMATICO NO SE TRATA DE
COCHES ELÉCTRICOS TAMBIÉN SE
TRATA DE COSAS SIMPLES COMO AGUA
POTABLE FRIA SOMBRA DE DESCANSO
NO DE MACEDO PEDIR CUANDO ESTAS
COSAS REALMENTE SALVAN VIDAS.
GRACIAS FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE
IS NOT JUST ABOUT ELECTRIC CARS.
IT'S ALSO ABOUT SIMPLE THINGS
COOL DRINKING WATER, SHADE AND
REST BREAKS. THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH
TO US WHEN YOU KNOW THESE THINGS
REALLY DO SAVE LIVES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS IN SUPPORT. YOU CAN
STAY HERE IF YOU. IT'LL WORK. GO
AHEAD. JUST GO AHEAD AND START
SPEAKING. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
UMBERG AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I'M ANN KATON, WORK HEALTH AND
SAFETY SPECIALIST WITH
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION. WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 1299 BECAUSE
BY INCENTIVIZING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE HEAT ILLNESS AND INJURY
PREVENTION REGULATION, IT WILL
SAVE LIVES AND PREVENT
DEBILITATING INJURY AND ILLNESS.
YOU'VE JUST HEARD ABOUT THE WAY
THE PROCESS WOULD WORK IS AS
FOLLOWS A FARM WORKER SUFFERS A
HEAT INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH
WHILE EMPLOYED DURING DOING
AGRICULTURAL WORK. THE WORKER OR
DECEASED WORKER'S FAMILY FILES A
WORKER'S COMP CLAIM IF THE CLAIM
IS CONTESTED, IT IS REVIEWED BY
THE WORKER'S COMP APPEALS BOARD,
WHOSE JUDGES ROUTINELY EVALUATE
EVIDENCE OF SAFETY REGULATION
COMPLIANCE IN WORKER'S
COMPENSATION CASES. IF THE
EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
EMPLOYER WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION
STANDARD, THE INJURY OR FATALITY
BECOMES ELIGIBLE FOR THE
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION UNDER SB
1299. IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF
VIOLATION OF THE HEAT REGULATION
AT THE TIME OF INJURY OR DEATH,
SB 1299 SIMPLY DOES NOT APPLY,
BUT THE CASE MAY STILL BE RULED
COMPENSABLE. THE WORKER'S COMP
APPEALS BOARD WILL RULE BASED ON
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ON WHETHER
THERE WAS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE HEAT REGULATION. SB 1299
DOES NOT CHANGE. THE EXISTING
OUTDOOR HEAT REGULATION, DOES
NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYERS WHO ARE
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEAT
ILLNESS PREVENTION REGULATION
DOES NOT CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL
WORKER'S COMP BENEFIT LEVEL,
DOES NOT IMPOSE A PENALTY ON
EMPLOYERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. WE URGE AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THOSE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1299, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GIVE US
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION,
YOUR POSITION. ELMER LOZADA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND SUPPORT YOU. WITH
THE WESTERN STATES COUNSEL AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE SEEING
NO ONE ELSE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. LET'S NOW TURN TO
THE OPPOSITION, IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 1299, LET ME ASK
THE WITNESSES WHO ARE IN SUPPORT
TO RETURN BACK TO THE AUDIENCE.
AND IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO
GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SEAT. FOR,
WITNESSES WHO WISH TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION, IT'S YOUR
CHOICE AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO
SIT HERE AT THE TABLES OR
WHETHER YOU WANT TO TESTIFY FROM
THE MICROPHONE. THAT'S TO MY
LEFT. TO YOUR RIGHT. ALL RIGHT,
SIR, FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS JASON SCHMELTZER. AND TODAY
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION ON WORKER'S
COMPENSATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, DO YOU WANT
TO OBSERVE BROADLY ABOUT
PRESUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS SERVE
A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE IN THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM, AND
THAT IS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH
CALIFORNIA HAS A NO FAULT SYSTEM
AND JUDGES ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED
TO INTERPRET THE LAW IN THE
DIRECTION OF PROVIDING BENEFITS,
THERE ARE SOME TYPES OF INJURIES
WHEN COMBINED WITH THE
OCCUPATION, THAT MAKE IT
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR INJURED
WORKERS TO MEET SORT OF THEIR
LOW BAR OF PROOF OR
COMPENSABILITY A FEW EXAMPLES
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND HEART
DISEASE, WE DON'T KNOW PRECISELY
HOW STRESS AND OTHER FACTORS OF
THE JOB LEAD TO HEART DISEASE,
BUT WE DO KNOW THAT IT DOES.
THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION WE SORT
OF SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE
EMPLOYER. SAME IS TRUE WITH
FIREFIGHTERS AND CANCERS. WE
CAN'T DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE FOR
EACH FIREFIGHTER TO SPECIFIC
FIRES AND SPECIFIC EXPOSURES.
BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE
EXPOSED CARCINOGENS THEIR ENTIRE
CAREER. THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION,
PRESUMPTIONS ARE GRANTED BECAUSE
WITHOUT THEM IT WOULD BE
FREQUENTLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A
LEGITIMATELY INJURED WORKER TO
DEMONSTRATE WORKPLACE CAUSATION
AND ACCESS TO WORKER'S
COMPENSATION. THÀNH SYSTEM
PRESUMPTIONS ARE ABOUT THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
WHAT I'M HEARING IN THIS BILL IS
A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE
REGULATORY PROCESS ON CAL OSHA,
1299 DOESN'T REALLY FIT INTO THE
PRESUMPTION SCENARIO. I JUST
OUTLINED. IN MOST CASES, THERE'S
GOING TO BE VERY LITTLE MYSTERY
SURROUNDING HOW AND WHERE A FARM
WORKER BEGAN SUFFERING FROM HEAT
ILLNESS. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE
PERSPECTIVE, A PRESUMPTION ISN'T
NEEDED OR APPROPRIATE HERE.
CONSIDER A FEW DETAILS IN ORDER
TO TRIGGER THE PRESUMPTION IN SB
1299, A WORKER MUST SHOW ONE
THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEAT
ILLNESS. HEAT ILLNESS
REGULATIONS, AND TWO, THAT THEIR
CLAIMED HEAT ILLNESS IS
RESULTING FROM THAT. OUT OF FROM
THAT LACK OF COMPLIANCE. ONCE
YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THOSE TWO
THINGS, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A
PRESUMPTION BECAUSE YOU'VE
ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL CAUSATION
AND THEREFORE HAVE ACCESS TO THE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION SYSTEM. SO
EVEN IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION,
IT DOESN'T SORT OF SPEAK THE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION LANGUAGE,
THE BILL IS ALSO UNCLEAR ABOUT
WHAT EVIDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED
TO ESTABLISH THAT AN EMPLOYER
WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REGULATIONS WOULD WRAP UP. THANK
YOU. ABSOLUTELY, OR WHAT THIS
MEANS FINALLY, CONCERN ABOUT THE
WCRB BEING THE APPROPRIATE VENUE
FOR THE SYSTEM. THE CAL OSHA
SYSTEM HAS ITS OWN APPEALS BOARD
WITH ITS OWN RICH HISTORY. AND I
ASSUME YOU OPPOSE YOU URGE A NO
VOTE? YES OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS LARA CURTIS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY TODAY. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION.
AND WHILE WE ARE VERY
SYMPATHETIC TO THIS ISSUE, AND
WE TOO WANT TO REDUCE THE RISK
OF HEAT EXPOSURE AND ILLNESS, WE
ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED BECAUSE
WE DON'T FEEL THAT SB 1299 IS
THE RIGHT SOLUTION. WE ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE CWC, BUT I
WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSCORE TWO
ISSUES WITH THE BILL. FIRST, AS
THE LEGISLATURE AND
ADMINISTRATION HAVE RECOGNIZED
MANY TIMES, PRESUMPTION SHOULD
BE ESTABLISHED SPARINGLY. JUST
LAST YEAR, GOVERNOR NEWSOM
VETOED A NUMBER OF BILLS ON
PRESUMPTIONS, SAYING THAT
PRESUMPTIONS MUST BE BASED ON
CLEAR AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE.
HOWEVER, THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
BILL HAVE NOT SHOWN DATA SHOWING
THAT HEAT ILLNESS CLAIMS ARE
BEING DENIED, NOR HAVE THEY
SHOWN A FAULT WITHIN THE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
WITHOUT THIS CLEAR AND
COMPELLING EVIDENCE, THIS BILL
FAILS TO PASS THE STANDARDS THAT
THIS LEGISLATURE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE SET FOR
PRESUMPTIONS. SECOND, INJURY IS
DEFINED IN THE BILL AS ANY HEAT
RELATED INJURY, ILLNESS, OR
DEATH THAT DEVELOPS OR MANIFEST
AFTER THE EMPLOYEE WAS WORKING
OUTDOORS OR WITHIN THE PAY
PERIOD IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
SUFFERS ANY HEAT RELATED
ILLNESS, INJURY OR DEATH. SO
THERE IS NO REAL LIMIT ON THE
TIME FRAME AS TO WHAT
CONSTITUTES AFTER WORKING
OUTDOORS FOR THE MAJORITY OF
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES, A ONE
WEEK PAY PERIOD IS COMMON.
HOWEVER, FOR OTHERS SUCH AS
DAIRY FARMERS, A ONE MONTH PAY
PERIOD IS NOT UNCOMMON, SO THE
INJURY MUST DEVELOP OR MANIFEST
WITHIN A WEEK OR A MONTH AFTER
WORKING OUTDOORS AND COULD
INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, RETURNING
HOME, WORKING OUT, DOING MANUAL
LABOR IN ONE'S OWN YARD OR
PLAYING SPORTS IN THE EXTREME
HEAT. AND WHILE THE BILL SAYS
THAT IT IS A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION, THIS PRESUMPTION IS
TECHNICALLY REBUTTABLE. BUT A
REVIEW OF SECTION 3395 SHOWS
THAT THERE ARE 73 INDIVIDUAL
STANDARDS THAT COULD TRIGGER
THIS PRESUMPTION. SB 1299 AND
PRESUMPTIONS ARE RARELY REBUTTED
BECAUSE THE VIRTUAL
IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROVING A
NEGATIVE RENDERS THE PRESUMPTION
FUNCTIONALLY, FUNCTIONALLY
CONCLUSIVE. THUS, SB 1299 S
DEFINITION OF INJURY WOULD
ARGUABLY CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF
COVERAGE FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO
SUFFERS A HEAT RELATED INJURY
ILLNESS A WEEK TO A MONTH AFTER
WORKING, AND SUCH PRECEDENT
COULD UPEND THE WORKER'S
COMPENSATION SYSTEM. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE REQUEST WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE
ON SB 1299. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GIVE US
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION AND
YOUR POSITION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND SENATOR CARLOS
GUTIERREZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
WESTERN ENERGY PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA FAST
FOOD ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA
COTTAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. DENNIS
ALBIANI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GRAIN AND FEED
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SEED
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PEAR
GROWERS, SEVERAL OTHER
AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS, AS
WELL AS THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION, AS WELL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS ENGLAND,
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HERE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE APPROACHED THE
MICROPHONE, LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES. SENATOR
CABALLERO. SO, LET ME JUST SAY.
WELL, THANK SENATOR CORTESE FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD, WHAT
I HEAR THE OPPOSITION SAYING IS
THAT IT'S THE WRONG END. CITIES
THAT ARE OVERSEEING THIS AND
THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT
NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE'S
ALREADY THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP.
LET ME JUST SAY THAT THAT WE CAN
LOOK AT ALL OF THAT. THE ISSUE
IS, DO I THINK WE NEED TO
PROTECT WORKERS IN THIS
INSTANCE, FARM WORKERS FROM THE
HEAT THAT IS A RESULT OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND THE ANSWER HAS TO BE
ABSOLUTELY YES, THE WHEN I
WORKED FOR GOVERNOR BROWN, IF
THE INDOOR HEAT REACHED 80
DEGREES OR HIGHER, EVERY
EMPLOYEE WAS SENT HOME BECAUSE
IT WAS TOO HOT TO BE IN A
BUILDING. AND IF IT'S TOO HOT AT
80 DEGREES 80 TO WHATEVER THE
NUMBER IS, THEN HOW CAN WE NOT
HAVE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE THAT
THAT WILL PROVIDE A LIFE SAVING
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE
WORKING OUT OUTDOORS, AND THAT'S
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
EMPLOYER. AND THAT'S A
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAYORDOMOS
OR THE CREW LEADERS. AND, AND IN
AND IN MY MIND, IT'S A MINIMUM.
SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR
BILL. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
HERE TODAY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO
SAY THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
FINESSE THAT YOU'VE YOU'VE USED
IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE
NOT ASKING FOR MORE. YOU'RE JUST
ASKING FOR ENFORCEMENT. AND THE
WAY YOU ENFORCE IT IS BY SAYING,
LOOK, YOU GOT TO IF YOU DON'T
HAVE COOL WATER, SHADE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN OUT OF THE
SUN AND REST, THEN, THEN THERE'S
A PROBLEM. AND SO I APPRECIATE
THAT VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHTY.
THANK YOU, NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
COME SEEING NONE, SENATOR
CORTEZ, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME,
I BELIEVE SENATOR CABALLERO
MOVED THE BILL. I WILL, AND
WE'LL TAKE IT UP FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH
I'M SORRY. WE'D LIKE TO CLOSE,
BUT REALLY, I'D JUST LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE, THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS FOR A
TREMENDOUS JOB ON THE ANALYSIS.
WE GAINED A LOT OF INFORMATION I
DID AS AN AUTHOR, IN TERMS OF
RECENT EXAMPLES OF EXCELLENT
STATISTICS. WELL, THEY'RE NOT
EXCELLENT IN TERMS OF THE
OUTCOME ON THE WORKERS, BUT
EXCELLENT IN TERMS OF US MAKING
THE CASE AND SUPPORTING THE
CAUSE FOR THIS BILL. AND THAT
WORK IS APPRECIATED, IS A VERY
DEEP DIVE, AND I'D RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. AYE VOTE WHEN THE
TIME COMES. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. I
BELIEVE IT WAS IAN DOHERTY, AS A
MATTER OF FACT, WHO DID THE
ANALYSIS AND WE'RE ALL BLESSED
BY HAVING SUCH A WONDERFUL
JUDICIARY STAFF. SO THANKS.
YEAH. EXCELLENT JOB. ALL RIGHT.
OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE SENATOR
EGGMAN, WHO IS PRESENT AND THEN
ENTERS SENATOR EGGMAN. WE HAVE
SENATOR GLAZER TIMES THREE. SO,
SENATOR, SENATOR EGGMAN, ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1051, GOOD
MORNING, EVERYBODY, AND THANK
YOU FOR HEARING ME TODAY. THIS,
TALKING ABOUT PROTECTIONS FOR
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
ASSAULT AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND
FOR THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL. WE
KNOW ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE
REASONS WOMEN FIND THEMSELVES
OUT OF HOUSING, COUCH SURFING
AND ON THE RUN IS BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT SAFE AT HOME. AND SO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS
EXTENDED A LOT OF LAWS, TO SAY
THAT THE WOMEN NEED HAS
PROTECTION TO GET OUT OF LEASES
FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS
AROUND ABUSE. THIS WILL THEN
APPLY TO BEING ABLE TO HAVE
ONE'S LOCKS CHANGED FOR PEOPLE
WHO DON'T WANT TO LEAVE, WHO
DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BREAK
THEIR LEASE EARLY, IT SHOULD
HAVE ANOTHER OPTION FOR SAFETY.
AND SO THIS JUST SAYS THAT THAT
WITH DOCUMENTATION, THEY'RE ABLE
TO GET THEIR LOCKS CHANGED,
FAMILY MEMBERS ALSO WHERE THAT
PERSON MAY BE GOING, WHERE THAT
PERPETRATOR MAY HAVE HAD ACCESS
TO A KEY BEFORE, OR THEY MAY
ALSO GET THEIR LOCKS CHANGED.
AND THAT UTILIZING THIS
PROTECTION SHOULD NOT, THEN
OAN, PREJUDICE THEM GOING TO
FIND ANOTHER APARTMENT OR BEING
HELD AGAINST THEM, WITH ME HERE
TODAY IS TAYLOR TAYLOR, RICKY
TAYLOR AND RICKY TAYLOR AND
RICKY. OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. THANK
YOU. FLOOR IS YOURS. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RICKY BROWN,
AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE SAN
DIEGO CHAPTER OF CRIME SURVIVORS
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE. OUR
FLAGSHIP PROGRAM, CRIME
SURVIVORS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE, REPRESENTS A NETWORK OF
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE LOST
LOVED ONES TO VIOLENCE AND WHO
OFTEN DID NOT RECEIVE THE CARE
THEY DESERVED IN THE AFTERMATH.
I'M HERE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF SB
1051, I CAME TO BE A MEMBER OF
CRIME SURVIVORS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE DUE TO THE MURDER OF MY
SON, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS
BILL. I'M A PROPERTY MANAGER WHO
HAS EXPERIENCED WITH PIECES OF
THIS LEGISLATION. AS A PROPERTY
MANAGER, I JUST MENTIONED ONE OF
MY RESIDENTS, A FEMALE, WAS A
VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SHE
CALLED THE OFFICE REQUESTING
THAT WE CHANGE HER LOCKS, BUT
BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE
PROPER DOCUMENTATION, WE
COULDN'T GRANT HER REQUEST. SB
1051 WILL MAKE SURE SURVIVORS
AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECT
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE CAN HAVE
THEIR LOCKS CHANGED. CURRENTLY,
ONLY SURVIVORS OF GENDER BASED
VIOLENCE ARE ELIGIBLE, BUT
SURVIVORS ARE ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR
THIS IF THEY HAVE A COURT ORDER
OR POLICE REPORT. THIS BILL
WOULD ALLOW SURVIVORS TO USE
ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENTATION AND
EXPAND PROTECTION TO SURVIVORS
OF ANY VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION
EXPERIENCES AND THEIR LOVED ONES
. THIS BILL WILL ALSO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR SURVIVORS TO SECURE
HOUSING AFTER THEY ESCAPE ABUSE
OR VIOLENCE. REDUCING HOUSING
INSTABILITY AND INCREASING
SAFETY. ONE BARRIER SURVIVORS
FACE WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO
RELOCATE TO SAFE HOUSING IS THAT
THEIR RENTAL APPLICATIONS CAN BE
REJECTED BECAUSE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THEIR
VICTIMIZATION OR DISCRIMINATORY
PERCEPTIONS THAT SURVIVORS ARE
RISKY TO RENT TO SURVIVORS, AND
SURVIVOR ADVOCATES IN CALIFORNIA
AGREE THAT PROHIBITING LANDLORDS
FROM REJECTING RENTAL
APPLICATIONS BECAUSE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING A
VICTIMIZATION WOULD HELP MORE
SURVIVORS SECURE HOUSING. AND AS
A PROPERTY MANAGER, THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE BEING ABLE TO
REJECT AND APPROVE RENTAL
APPLICATIONS IS VERY RISKY IF
THEY HAVE PROBLEMS THAT SHOWS UP
ON THEIR REPORT, THIS BILL WILL
STRENGTHEN SURVIVORS ACCESS TO
SAFE HOUSING AND REDUCE HOUSING
INSTABILITY AND ABUSE. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT
ON SB 1051. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
TAYLOR CAMPION AND I'M A SENIOR
MANAGING ATTORNEY OF THE FAMILY
VIOLENCE APPELLATE PROJECT.
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
PROGRAM. FAMILY VIOLENCE
APPELLATE PROJECT IS A
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL AND A
LEGAL AID SUPPORT CENTER THAT
ADVOCATES FOR SURVIVORS
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. I'VE
REPRESENTED TENANTS LOOKING FOR
HOUSING AND HAVE BEEN A
LANDLORD. CALIFORNIA LAW ALLOWS
SOME SURVIVORS TO STAY SAFE FROM
ABUSE BY LETTING THEM CHANGE
THEIR RENTAL UNIT LOCKS AND
PROTECTS MANY PEOPLE LOOKING FOR
HOUSING FROM DISCRIMINATION.
HOWEVER CURRENT LAW DOES NOT
PROTECT MANY SURVIVORS OF ABUSE
IN CRIME BECAUSE IT HAS LIMITED
REACH AND FAILS TO CONSIDER
SURVIVORS REALITIES, GIVING THAT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A LEADING
CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS, AND
SURVIVORS OFTEN STRUGGLE TO
OBTAIN HOUSING AFTER BECOMING
HOMELESS. CLARIFYING AND
STANDARDIZING SURVIVORS
PROTECTIONS WILL BENEFIT ALL
CALIFORNIANS. SB 1051 PROTECTS
MANY SURVIVORS OF ABUSE AND
VIOLENCE BY INCREASING THEIR
ACCESS TO LOCKS, CHANGES, AND
CLEARLY PROHIBITING HOUSING
PROVIDERS FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST SURVIVORS BECAUSE OF
THEIR VICTIMIZATIONS. IT DOES SO
BY INCREASING THE TYPES OF
SURVIVORS WHO CAN CHANGE THEIR
LOCKS AND THE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS
THEY CAN THAT QUALIFY THEM FOR
THEIR LOCKS, CHANGE THESE
UPDATES WILL ENSURE THE SAME
TYPES OF SURVIVORS WHO CAN
ACCESS CALIFORNIA'S EARLY
TERMINATION LAW, AND CALIFORNIA
SURVIVORS EVICTION PROTECTION
MAY ALSO CHANGE THEIR LOCKS. SB
1051 ALSO PROTECTS SURVIVORS
FROM BEING DENIED HOUSING AS A
RESULT OF PAST VICTIMIZATIONS.
FREQUENTLY, SURVIVORS STRUGGLE
TO FIND HOUSING BECAUSE
LANDLORDS MISTAKENLY VIEWED THE
RESULT OF THEIR VICTIMIZATION
UNFAVORABLY. FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY'RE DENIED HOUSING BECAUSE
AN EVICTION ON THEIR RECORD THAT
WAS CAUSED FROM ABUSE BY
INCREASING LOCKS CHANGES AND
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION. THIS
BILL WILL ENSURE MORE SURVIVORS
HAVE SAFE HOUSING, INCREASING
HOUSING STABILITY, AND SURVIVORS
CHANCE OF ESCAPING ABUSE.
THEREFORE I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS ARE IN SUPPORT. PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND SENATORS
ANTHONY DIMARTINO, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND CRIME SURVIVORS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE, WE ARE CO
SPONSORS OF THE BILL, THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS SANDRA
GONZALES AND I'M WITH, CRIME
SURVIVORS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. AND I AGREE WITH THE
BILL. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT PLEASE APPROACH SEEING
NO ONE ELSE APPROACHING, LET'S
TURN NOW TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE EXCUSE ME, IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO SB 1287, PLEASE
APPROACH SEEING NO ONE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE, LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
SEEING NONE. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR
EGGMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK
THE FOLKS ARE COMING UP AND
SUPPORTING THIS TODAY, AND I ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I EXPECT A MOTION, AND
THEN WE'LL CALL THE ROLL. THANK
YOU, SENATOR GLAZER, SENATOR
GLAZER IS NOT HERE, HE'S HE'S ON
HIS WAY. SO IT WILL NOW BE A
FOOT RACE BETWEEN SENATOR GLAZER
AND ANY OTHER SENATOR WHOSE BILL
HAPPENS TO BE UP TODAY BEFORE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I
MEAN, YOU HAVE SOME BILLS, DON'T
YOU? YEAH I'M GONNA WAIT,
THOUGH. YEAH HOW ARE YOU
FEELING? I'M NOT FEELING GREAT.
STEP ASIDE
.
SENATOR GLAZER. THANK YOU,
SENATOR GLAZER, PLEASE APPROACH.
WE'VE GOT THREE BILLS BY SENATOR
GLAZER. SENATOR GLAZER, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO START WITH ITEM
NUMBER SIX? SB 1287? GREAT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CHAIR.
HONORABLE MEMBERS. FIRST, I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL, AND I'M
HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. SB 1287 AFFIRMS THE
ROLE THAT CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MUST
TAKE TO ENSURE THAT STUDENTS CAN
EXERCISE THEIR FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS AND EXCHANGE VIEWS
RESPECTFULLY. IN RECENT MONTHS
AND WEEKS, WE'VE WITNESSED AN
ALARMING TREND OF ESCALATING
HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION AND
VIOLENCE TARGETED AT
MARGINALIZED GROUPS ON OUR
CAMPUSES. THIS OBVIOUSLY
THREATENS THE SAFETY AND
WELL-BEING OF OUR STUDENTS,
FACULTY, AND STAFF. IT THREATENS
THE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT, AND
IT THREATENS THE FREE EXCHANGE
OF IDEAS. A RESULT OF THIS
ONGOING UNREST, THE FEDERAL
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS HAS
OPENED INVESTIGATIONS INTO
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
SHARED ANCESTRY AT TEN DIFFERENT
CALIFORNIA CAMPUSES. OUR
COLLEGES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROMOTE FREE SPEECH WHILE
PREVENTING DISCRIMINATION AND
HARASSMENT. THE AMENDMENTS THAT
I'M COMMITTED TO TAKING
SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESS FIRST
AMENDMENT SCRUTINY, ESPECIALLY
FOR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WHOSE
STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT INCLUDES
SUCH PROVISIONS, ENSURE ENSURING
THAT THEY ARE FIRMLY ROOTED IN
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. IN
ADDITION, CASE LAW HAS AFFIRMED
THAT COLLEGES NEED NOT TOLERATE
SPEECH THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THEIR BASIC EDUCATIONAL MISSION.
THIS BILL ALIGNS WITH THIS
RESPONSIBILITY BY REQUIRING
CAMPUSES TO INSTITUTE POLICIES
THAT EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT
VIOLENCE, HARASSMENT,
INTIMIDATION, AND
DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING CALLS
FOR GENOCIDE. SB 1287 ALSO
REQUIRES UNIVERSITIES TO DEVELOP
PROGRAMS TO EDUCATE STUDENTS ON
HOW TO EXCHANGE VIEWS
RESPECTFULLY BY FOSTERING
RESPECT, CIVILITY, AND
INCLUSIVITY, WE CREATE A
SUPPORTIVE ATMOSPHERE WHERE ALL
MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY CAN THRIVE. WITH THAT,
I RESPECT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL TODAY.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. BERG. I
ASSUME YOU'RE HERE IN SUPPORT,
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. MIKE. MIKE
WORKING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. CLIFF BERG HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE JEWISH PUBLIC
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA,
WHICH IS THE LARGEST SINGLE
STATE COALITION OF JEWISH
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NATION, WE,
WE AND ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS,
THAT SIGNED OUR LETTER OVER AND
JPAC IS MADE UP OF OVER 36
DIFFERENT STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS IN CALIFORNIA, ARE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1287, WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION TO UPDATE AND
ENFORCE PROVISIONS IN THEIR
STUDENT CODES TO PREVENT
INSTANCES OF INTIMIDATION,
HARASSMENT, AND VIOLENCE ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES, IT IS IRONIC
THAT WE BE WE IN THE JEWISH
COMMUNITY, BEGAN TO CELEBRATE
THE FIRST NIGHT OF PASSOVER LAST
NIGHT, WHICH IS THE STORY OF THE
EXODUS AND THE FREEDOM OF THE
JEWISH PEOPLE FROM SLAVERY IN
EGYPT. YET JEWISH PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES
TODAY FACE MORE HARASSMENT,
INTIMIDATION AND THE THREAT OF
VIOLENCE THAN THEY HAVE SINCE
THE 1930S, IT IS INCREDIBLE THAT
IN THIS COUNTRY WE ARE FACING
THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE. WE
HAD AN EMPTY SEAT AT OUR TABLE
FOR THE HOSTAGES, WHICH STILL
HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED, IN IN
GAZA, WE URGE YOUR ONGOING
SUPPORT AND I DO ALSO HAVE A
BRIEF STATEMENT. IF I DID NOT
LOSE IT IN MY STACK FROM, ONE OF
OUR MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS, THE
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, WHICH IS
ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. AND
AND, WE'LL BRIEFLY, I THINK
SINCE I'M THE PRIMARY SUPPORT
WITNESSES, THE ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE WAS FOUNDED IN 1913, IN
RESPONSE TO AN ESCALATING
CLIMATE OF ANTI-SEMITISM AND
BIGOTRY. ADL IS A LEADING
NATIONAL ANTI-HATE AND CIVIL
RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, ACCORDING
TO ADL. RECENT LEAST RELEASED
AUDIT OF ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENTS,
ANTI-SEMITE INCIDENTS AT COLLEGE
CAMPUSES SPIKED BY A STAGGERING
321% TO 922 INCIDENTS, MOST OF
WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER HAMAS'S
OCTOBER 7TH TERRORIST ATTACK.
SINCE OCTOBER 7TH. THE
PERCENTAGE. THANK YOU, MR.
BURKE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BIRGER, I VOTE ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. OTHER WITNESSES, OTHER
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT,
SENATOR GLAZER. OTHER. OTHER
OTHER PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT WAS DOING BOTH. MR. BERG
WAS GOING TO DO BOTH. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. DEFAMATION LEAGUE WAS THE
SECOND, SO I SEE OKAY. ALL RIGHT
, IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS YOUR
SUPPORT FOR SB 1287, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GIVE US
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION AND
YOUR POSITION. MR. CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, RANDY
POLLACK, PRESIDENT OF MOSAIC LAW
CONGREGATION HERE IN SACRAMENTO
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN.
I'M BERG, BRUCE PALMER,
REPRESENT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
RELATIONS COUNCIL SACRAMENTO.
AND ALSO THE SACRAMENTO JEWISH
FEDERATION AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S NOW TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1287, PLEASE. IF YOU'RE THE
PRIMARY WITNESS, YOU MAY EITHER
TESTIFY FROM THE MICROPHONE TO
MY LEFT, OR YOU MAY COME AND SIT
AT THE TABLE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
VALENCIA. I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE WITH THE ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION. OUR
ORGANIZATION RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSES SB 1287. WE RECOGNIZE
THAT OUR UNIVERSITIES AND
COLLEGES ARE MANAGING HEIGHTENED
TENSIONS AND THREATS ON CAMPUSES
WHILE TRYING TO KEEP STUDENTS
SAFE. AND WE TAKE THESE CONCERNS
BROUGHT BY THE AUTHOR, COAUTHORS
AND THE SPEAKER TODAY SERIOUSLY.
UNFORTUNATELY, MANY INSTITUTIONS
ARE HANDLING THESE MOMENTS OF
TENSIONS BY STIFLING AND
RESTRICTING SPEECH THAT IS
PROTECTED BY BOTH THE US AND
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS. WE
HAVE REVIEWED THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, AND WE HAVE
APPRECIATED THE NARROWED BILL
LANGUAGE. BUT, AS AMENDED, THE
BILL WILL STILL RESTRICT SPEECH
BASED ON ITS VIEWPOINT OR
CONTENT, WHICH FAILS THE STRICT
SCRUTINY STANDARD REQUIRED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND STATE
LAW. EVEN THE SENATE JUDICIARY
Kò ANALYSIS HAS INDICATED THAT
STUDENTS MUST BE ABLE TO RECEIVE
A HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA
WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO WAIVE
THEIR RIGHTS TO FREE EXPRESSION
AND PEACEFUL PROTEST. TO BE
CLEAR, NEITHER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT NOR CALIFORNIA LAW
PROTECTS BEHAVIOR ON CAMPUS THAT
CROSSES THE LINE INTO TARGETED
HARASSMENT AND THREATS, OR THAT
CREATES A PERVASIVELY HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT FOR VULNERABLE
STUDENTS. EXISTING LAW ALREADY
AUTHORIZES EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS TO, FOR EXAMPLE,
ESTABLISH REASONABLE TIME,
PLACE, OR MANNER RESTRICTIONS.
EXISTING LAW ALREADY AUTHORIZES
INSTITUTIONS TO ADOPT CODE OF
CONDUCT THAT PROHIBITS UNLAWFUL
HARASSMENT. THESE EXISTING LAWS
AND POLICIES ARE APPLICABLE TO
EVERY ONE OF THE SPECIFIC
INCIDENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS. SUPPORTING
THE NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION.
BUT RATHER THAN TO WORK TO
IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
EXISTING LAW AND INCREASE
TOLERANCE OF DIVERGENT VIEWS, SB
1287 INVITES CENSORSHIP IN THE
NAME OF CIVILITY. THIS
LEGISLATION WILL LIKELY LEAD TO
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO
SILENCE A RANGE OF PROTECTED
SPEECH BASED ON VIEWPOINT ALONE,
WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
PUNISHING STUDENTS AND SPEAKERS
ON CAMPUS WHEN THEY LAWFULLY AND
PEACEFULLY EXERCISE THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREE
EXPRESSION IS WRONG AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN WHEN THE
SPEECH BEING EXPRESSED MIGHT BE
OFFENSIVE, INFLAMMATORY, OR EVEN
UNCIVIL. THIS SORT OF PUNISHMENT
IS ALSO EXPENSIVE. BUSINESS FOR
CALIFORNIA. BY DEMANDING THAT
THE INSTITUTION FOLLOW SB 1287
STRICTURES AND THREATENING
PENALTIES WHEN THEY DON'T. SO
FOR THESE REASONS, ACLU OF
CALIFORNIA ACTIONS ASK THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE NO ON SB 1287
BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR UMBERG AND
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS OMAR
AL-TAMIMI. I'M A SENIOR POLICY
COORDINATOR WITH THE COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS, OR
CARE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER. ON
BEHALF OF OUR ORGANIZATION, I'M
HERE TO RESPECTFULLY EXPRESS OUR
STRONG OPPOSITION TO SB 1287.
THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION WILL
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CENSOR AND
CHILL THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTED SPEECH OF STUDENTS ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES. AND WHILE WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TO SB 1287, WE AGREE
WITH THE ACLU THAT THE AMENDED
BILL LANGUAGE STILL ATTEMPTS TO
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICT
FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED
SPEECH. SPECIFICALLY, AS NOTED
BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. ANALYSIS. EVEN IN ITS
AMENDED FORM, PORTIONS OF THE
BILL WOULD PROHIBIT SPEECH BASED
ON ITS CONTENT OR VIEWPOINT,
WHICH FAILS THE STRICT SCRUTINY
STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. FURTHER, AS AN
ORGANIZATION SERVING AND
PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES OF CALIFORNIANS AND
THE MUSLIM CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY,
WE HAVE RECEIVED A RECORD
BREAKING NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS,
SHOWING A FAMILIAR PATTERN OF
MUSLIM AND NON-MUSLIM STUDENTS
EXPRESSING SOLIDARITY WITH
PALESTINE, FACING SUPPRESSION OF
THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES AMIDST A RISE
OF ISLAMOPHOBIA. THESE STUDENTS
ARE BEING DISPROPORTIONATELY
HARASSED, CRIMINALIZED AND
SUBJECTED DISCIPLINARY ACTION
FOR SIMPLY EXERCISING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, INCLUDING ON
APRIL 5TH AT POMONA COLLEGE,
WHICH DEPLOYED 30 POLICE
OFFICERS, SOME IN RIOT GEAR, TO
ARREST IN JAIL 19 STUDENT
ACTIVISTS EXERCISING THEIR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT BY PARTAKING IN
A PEACEFUL ON CAMPUS SIT IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA'S RECENT CANCELLATION
OF THE SCHEDULED GRADUATION
SPEECH BY MUSLIM VALEDICTORIAN
ASNA TABASSUM, GIVING IN TO
ANTI-MUSLIM AND ANTI-PALESTINIAN
VOICES. AND AS WE'RE SEEING NOW
AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, YALE AND
NOW UC BERKELEY, STUDENTS ARE
BEING SUBJECT TO NOVEL
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTINUING THE
TRADITION OF PROTESTING ON
CAMPUS, AS THEY HAD DONE FOR THE
LABOR MOVEMENT. THE CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENT, THE ETHNIC STUDIES
MOVEMENT, AND SO ON. STUDENT
PROTESTS HAVE LED TO AMAZING
MOMENTS IN OUR HISTORY AND
TURNING POINTS, AND THIS BILL
WILL ONLY FURTHER CHILL AND
SUPPRESS THE SPEECH OF MUSLIM
AND PRO-PALESTINIAN STUDENTS ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES. AND SO, FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE VOTE
NO ON SB 1287 AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, FOR THOSE OF
YOU WHO WISH TO TESTIFY, PLEASE
GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION AND YOUR POSITION.
SO PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. IF YOU'RE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1287. HI, I'M
STEVEN RAMOS, I'M A LAW STUDENT
AT UC DAVIS. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS MICHAELA AND
I'M A JD, PHD STUDENT AT UC
DAVIS. AND I ALSO STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
HELLO. MY NAME IS CðC. I'M A
POLI SCI MAJOR AT UC MERCED, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS
VALERIE MENDOZA. I'M A POLITICAL
SCIENCE MAJOR AT UC MERCED, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS HENRY
HICKMAN. I'M THE CO-CHAIR OF THE
YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF
AMERICA AT UC MERCED. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. AND ALSO THIS
BILL IS A CLEAR ATTACK ON THE
RECENT PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU CALL
FOR A RESTRICTION. YOU THANK YOU
ALL FOR GENOCIDE. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SHUT DOWN THE
MICROPHONE. THANKS PLEASE, IF
YOU CARE ABOUT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, ESPECIALLY CARE ABOUT
US. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. BIAS
ENDANGERS THEM. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS. PLEASE DO
NOT USE YOUR PERSON. AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. HI. MY NAME IS
DOMINIC KELLY. I'M A GRADUATING
POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJOR FROM UC
MERCED, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS MILES AZEVEDO. I AM A
FIRST YEAR MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE AT UC
MERCED AND I APPRECIATE THE
INTENT OF THE BILL, BUT I
STRONGLY OPPOSE IT IN ITS
CURRENT FORM. THANK YOU. HELLO.
THIS IS A STUDENT AT UC MERCED
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS EDESSA
VELEZ. I'M A CRITICAL RACE AND
ETHNIC STUDIES MAJOR AT UC
MERCED, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
SOPHIA HÌ. I'M A STUDENT AT UC
DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS AISHA MUNEER AND
I'M A LAW STUDENT AT UC DAVIS.
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS AALIYAH
SKYE. I'M A PROUD ANTI-ZIONIST
JEWISH AMERICAN, AND I AM ALSO
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE UC
STUDENT ASSOCIATION, WHICH
REPRESENTS OVER 230,000 UC
UNDERGRADUATES. YOU SHOULD SPEAK
TO YOUR STUDENTS. YOU SHOULD
LISTEN TO YOUR STUDENTS. WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. I'M
KATE HAMILTON, I AM A LAW
STUDENT AT UC DAVIS AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. HI. HI. MY NAME IS KYLE
JOHNSON. I'M THE LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR WITH THE ASSOCIATED
STUDENTS OF UC DAVIS, AS WELL AS
A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE UC
STUDENT ASSOCIATION. BOTH
ORGANIZATIONS STAND IN FIRM
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. HI. MY
NAME IS LUNA LOGAN. I'M THE VICE
PRESIDENT FOR DIVERSITY, EQUITY
AND INCLUSION FOR THE GRADUATE
STUDENT ASSOCIATION AT UC DAVIS.
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
HI, MY NAME IS SHELLY SINES. I'M
A MEMBER OF THE UTSA BOARD. I
WORK IN THE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE
AT UC DAVIS, AND I'M ALSO THE
STUDENT OBSERVER, TO THE UC
REGENTS. AND I FIRMLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HI. MY
NAME IS SHIVANI GAJAPATHI. I AM
A UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT AT UC
DAVIS, AND I'M THE LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR LOCAL AFFAIRS, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI, RUTH SOSA
MARTINEZ. I'M A MASTERS OF
PUBLIC POLICY STUDENT AT
SACRAMENTO STATE. AND HERE ON
BEHALF OF YOUNG INVINCIBLES, WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS AMARA SANTOS.
I'M AN UNDERGRADUATE AT SAN
FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY
NAME IS VALERIA MENDEZ. I'M THE
HEAD OF STAFF FOR THE EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS OFFICE AT THE ASSOCIATED
STUDENTS OF UC DAVIS. I'M ALSO
THE VICE CHAIR FOR THE UC
STUDENT ASSOCIATION, AND WE BOTH
STAND IN OPPOSITION OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME
IS WILLIAM ROBEY. I'M HERE WITH
STUDENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION
IN THE BLACK STUDENT UNION AT
SACRAMENTO STATE UNIVERSITY, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MICHAEL LEE CHANG,
SAC STATE STUDENT ON BEHALF OF
STUDENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION,
OR SRC AT SAC STATE, WE OPPOSE
THIS BILL IN THE NAME OF THE
THIRD WORLD LIBERATION FRONT.
THANK YOU. AMAYA TERRY, SECOND
YEAR STUDENT. I'M HERE WITH WITH
STUDENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION
AND BSU, AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL
AS IT WILL ALSO STIFLE BLACK
VOICES ON CAMPUS. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS SONI CHATURVEDI AND I'M
A LAW STUDENT AT UC DAVIS, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS MADELINE
RONDEROS. I'M ALSO A LAW STUDENT
AT UC DAVIS, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS STANFORD MCCONAUGHEY.
I'M A THIRD YEAR LAW STUDENT AT
KING HALL, UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF
LAW, A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
LAWYERS GUILD, AND ON BEHALF OF
THE UC ON BEHALF OF THE DAVIS
GRADUATE MEDICAL, VETERINARY AND
LAW STUDENTS FOR PALESTINE. WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SEEING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE,
LET'S BRING IT BACK HERE TO
COMMITTEE, QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE. OH, YES. SENATOR
NIELLO. THANK YOU, JUST A
COMMENT. THIS IS NOT IN THE
DOCUMENTATION HERE, BUT I'M A
COAUTHOR OF THE BILL AND, I
UNDERSTAND THE, THE, STATE OF
THE OPPOSITION, BUT I DON'T SEE
THIS AS A VIOLATION OF FREE
SPEECH, WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR
COUNTRY RIGHT NOW IN REACTION TO
, THE FAR EAST, I FIND
INCREDULOUS, THE, STEREOTYPING
OF ALL, ALL JEWS IN THIS COUNTRY
AS SUPPORTING ISRAEL, WHICH I'M
NOT SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T. BUT
THERE'S AN AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION
JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE JEWISH, AND
WHAT THIS BILL DOES DOESN'T
RESTRICT SPEECH, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, VÆ THE BEHAVIOR
ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, AS WE'RE
SEEING IN COLUMBIA AND YALE
RIGHT NOW. SO, GOES WAY BEYOND
JUST SPEECH AND INVADES INTO THE
TERRITORY OF INTIMIDATION AND
PHYSICAL THREATS, AND IT HAS TO
STOP. AND WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW
THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR GLASER
, AS AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE, THIS
IS A CONTROVERSIAL BILL, AND
THIS IS A BILL THAT HAS FIRST
AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS. AND WHAT
WE DO HERE TODAY, ALSO HAS
PERHAPS SOME IMPLICATIONS IN
TERMS OF HOW THIS IS GOING TO
BE, VIEWED BY THE COURTS. MY
GUESS IS THAT SOMEONE MAY
CHALLENGE US IN COURT. AND SO I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT HERE,
WITH THE BILL AND IN PARTICULAR
WITH THE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO
THE BILL, THE RECENT AMENDMENTS,
CALL FOR DEFINING, CALLING FOR
GENOCIDE AS A VERBAL OR
NONVERBAL ACT THAT ARE BOTH. AND
LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT BOTH
INTENDED TO AND REASONABLY
UNDERSTOOD AS CALLING FOR
GENOCIDE IS THAT IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING? YES. THE BILL IS
CONTENT NEUTRAL, A CONTRARY TO
SOME OF THE WITNESSES TESTIMONY.
IT SPEAKS TO THE ADVOCACY OF
GENOCIDE, AND THAT COULD BE
GENOCIDE AGAINST ALL DIFFERENT
PROTECTED CLASSES AND PEOPLES
THROUGHOUT THE OUR STATE, OUR
COUNTRY, THE WORLD. SO JUST TO
UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND I'M TO
SOME DEGREE GILDING THE LILY
HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE MAKE IT CLEAR IN TERMS
OF YOUR INTENT. THE SPEAKER ONE
HAD TO INTEND TO CALL FOR
GENOCIDE, AND THE PERSON HEARING
IT, THE STATEMENT HAD TO
REASONABLY UNDERSTAND THE
STATEMENT IS A CALL FOR
GENOCIDE. IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING? THAT'S CORRECT,
THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT HAS TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH SUPREME COURT
INTERPRETATION OF FIRST
AMENDMENT AS BEING LIMITED TO
SITUATIONS IN WHICH SPEAKERS
SEEK TO COORDINATE THEIR
ADVOCACY WITH THOSE ENGAGED IN
GENOCIDE. AND I KNOW WE'VE GOT A
NUMBER OF LAW STUDENTS HERE, AND
SO THEY'LL UNDERSTAND THE
CONCEPT OF SPECIFIC INTENT THAT
THE PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED IN
CALLING FOR GENOCIDE HAS TO HAVE
THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO CALL FOR
GENOCIDE, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S
CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. ALL
RIGHT. LET ME LET ME JUST
UNDERSTAND THAT. SO TO THE
EXTENT THIS BILL REQUIRES CSUS
AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO ADOPT
A POLICY PROHIBITING CALLING FOR
GENOCIDE, THESE POLICIES CAN
ONLY APPLY TO THIS NARROW
CATEGORY OF STATEMENTS WHERE THE
SPEAKER SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO
CALL FOR GENOCIDE AND THE HEARER
UNDERSTOOD THE STATEMENT TO BE
CALLING FOR GENOCIDE. IS THAT
RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANKS. NO
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE DO
NOT HAVE A FULL COMMITTEE AT
THIS POINT IN TIME WHEN WE DO
HAVE A FULL COMMITTEE AND WE
HAVE A QUORUM, I EXPECT THAT
THERE WILL BE A MOTION. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, SENATOR
GLAZER, THANK YOU FOR TO YOU AND
YOUR STAFF FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL TODAY.
THERE'S A LOT OF TROUBLING
INCIDENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING
AROUND OUR COUNTRY ON COLLEGE
CAMPUSES. THIS IS A BILL THAT'S
NARROWLY CRAFTED TO TRY TO
PROTECT OUR STUDENTS AND THEIR
FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AND TO
PROHIBIT VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION,
HARASSMENT, AND THE CALLING FOR
GENOCIDE OF ALL PEOPLE. ALL
RIGHT. THAT I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE TODAY. ALL RIGHTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPROPRIATE
TIME WILL TAKE THE BILL UP FOR A
VOTE, LET ME NOW TURN TO YOUR
NEXT BILL, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN. SB 1462. SENATOR GLAZER,
SB 1462. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CHAIR. QUITE AS CONTROVERSIAL,
MEMBERS, THERE ARE PRACTICALLY
NO NEW CONDOS BEING BUILT IN
CALIFORNIA DESPITE OUR HOUSING
CRISIS, BETWEEN 2011 AND 2021,
CONDOS MADE UP JUST 3% OF ALL
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, 3. IF
YOU LOOK AT ANOTHER COUNTRY LIKE
CANADA, THEY'RE BUILDING MORE
THAN 30% OF THEIR HOUSING STOCK.
ARE CONDOMINIUMS. SO THIS IS A
THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM
BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENTRY LEVEL
MARKETPLACE FOR MANY PEOPLE,
HOME OWNERSHIP BEGINS SOMETIMES
WITH, CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP. SO
THIS BILL INTENDS TO INCREASE
CONDOMINIUM PRODUCTION STATEWIDE
BY ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO USE A
BUYER'S DEPOSIT ON THE UNIT
TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION, ALLOWING
DEVELOPERS TO USE MORE CASH AS
OPPOSED TO LOANS WITH HIGH
INTEREST RATES WILL REDUCE THEIR
RISK AND LOWER THEIR COSTS. THIS
BILL INCLUDES, IMPORTANTLY, SOME
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS BY
REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO POST A
BOND OR OTHER SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
REAL ESTATE. IF THE BUYER EXCUSE
ME, IF THE DEVELOPER DOES DOES
NOT COMPLETE THE CONDOMINIUM, MY
INTENTION IS THE BOND WILL KICK
IN TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT OR
REFUND THE BUYER. I WANT TO
REITERATE THIS POINT AS
OPPOSITION MAY RAISE IT. I WILL
WORK THROUGH ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE BOND TO ENSURE CONSUMERS ARE
PROTECTED. ADDITIONALLY I
UNDERSTAND THE DEPARTMENT OF
REAL ESTATE MAY NOT BE THE BEST
DEPARTMENT TO ADMINISTER THE
BOND. I'LL EXPLORE WHAT
DEPARTMENT CAN BEST DO THAT IF
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD TODAY IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE
PROTECTING CONSUMERS, WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
JORDAN PENA CARBAJAL FROM
CALIFORNIA, YIMBY, ALONG WITH
DAVID MARSHALL FROM THE WEST
BANK. WITH THAT, THE APPROPRIATE
TIME RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. FLOOR IS
YOURS. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JORDAN CARVAJAL,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
CALIFORNIA. YIMBY HERE TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1462.
CALIFORNIA IS A STATEWIDE
ORGANIZATION OF OVER 80,000
MEMBERS DEDICATED TO MAKING OUR
STATE AN AFFORDABLE PLACE TO
LIVE, WORK, AND RAISE A FAMILY
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS.
CONDOMINIUMS ARE OFTEN ENTRY
LEVEL HOMES FOR FIRST TIME HOME
BUYERS, AVERAGING 2.7 TIMES LESS
THAN THE STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY
HOME, MAKING HOMEOWNERSHIP MORE
AFFORDABLE TO WORKING FAMILIES.
DESPITE THIS, ONLY 3% OF NEW
HOMES IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN 2011
AND 2021 WERE CONDOS. ONE OF THE
MAIN REASONS CONDOS PRODUCTION
REMAINS LOW IN CALIFORNIA IS THE
STATE'S LIMIT TO ON DEVELOPERS
UTILIZING HOME BUYERS DEPOSIT
WHEN CONSTRUCTING CONDO
PROJECTS, SB 1462 WILL ALLOW
CONDO DEVELOPERS TO USE DEPOSITS
MADE BY BUYERS TO COVER
CONSTRUCTION COSTS, WHILE
UPHOLDING PROTECTIONS TO ENSURE
THE BUYER IS REFUNDED IF THE
PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED. TO
CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES IN
CALIFORNIA, WE MUST REDUCE THE
COST AND RISK FOR DEVELOPERS,
SUCH AS INCREASING THE
AVAILABILITY, AVAILABILITY OF
INTEREST FREE FINANCING WHILE
STILL REQUIRING STRONG CONSUMER
PROTECTION. IT'S FOR THESE
REASONS CALIFORNIA RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTS YOUR SUPPORT FOR SB
1462. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, AND THANK
YOU TO THE COMMITTEE AND CHAIR
FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK HERE
TODAY. MY NAME IS DAVID MARSHALL
AND I WORK FOR A PROMINENT HIGH
RISE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPER IN
NORTH AMERICA AND ASIA. WE HAVE
MANY ENTITLED PROJECTS IN
CALIFORNIA, NONE OF WHICH ARE
ENTITLED FOR CONDOS. DESPITE OUR
PREFERENCE, EXPERIENCE AND
DISPOSITION TO DO SO. THE REASON
WE CHOSE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH CONDO IS FOR ONE SIMPLE
REASON IT DIDN'T UNDERWRITE. BUT
THIS ISN'T A HOUSING ISSUE. MANY
OF OUR PROJECTS ARE RENTAL,
RESIDENTIAL. IT IS SIMPLY A
CONDO ISSUE TO BREAK IT DOWN.
THERE ARE TWO KEY
CHARACTERISTICS THAT THIS BILL
HELPS TO UNDERWRITE CONDOS THAT
ALIGN BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND THE
BUYER. FIRST, THIS BILL PROVIDES
CERTAINTY A DEVELOPER BONDING
AGAINST AND USING THE DEPOSIT
FUNDS GIVES GREATER CERTAINTY TO
THE BUYER THAT THEIR HOME WILL
BE BUILT, AND TO THE DEVELOPER
THAT THE FUNDS ARE THERE TO
CONSTRUCT. CURRENTLY, THE LAW
ESSENTIALLY CREATES A 3% OPTION
CONTRACT SHOULD THE MARKET GO UP
. GREAT. THE BUYER JUST BOUGHT
THE VALUE INCREASE FOR 3. SHOULD
THE MARKET GO DOWN, THE BUYER
CAN TERMINATE AND LOCK IN THEIR
DOWNSIDE FOR 3. GIVEN HOUSING
PRICES IN CALIFORNIA, THIS IS
HEAVILY FAVORING THE BUYER.
IMPORTANTLY, I ASK THE COMMITTEE
TO NOTE THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT
PROVIDE THAT BUYERS MUST MAKE
THEIR ENTIRE DEPOSIT UP FRONT.
BUYERS WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE
THEIR DEPOSITS THROUGHOUT THE
DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW
BUYERS OF DIFFERENT INCOMES.
SECOND, FINANCE ABILITY
FINANCING IS AIDED BY A HIGHER
PRE-SALES AND LESS DEBT. THIS
BILL ENCOURAGE PRE-SALES BY
BOLSTERING THE DEPOSIT CEILING
TO BETTER ALIGN THE DEVELOPER
AND BUYER TO EVEN THE RISK OF
THE TRANSACTION. THE BONDING
COMPONENT OF THIS BILL PROVIDES
FINANCING FOR A PROJECT, AS WELL
AS OVERSIGHT TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS AND ENSURE COMPLETION.
ADDITIONALLY THE ABILITY TO BOND
AGAINST DEPOSITS WILL PROVIDE A
BACKSTOP FOR FINANCIAL MARKET
VOLATILITY, WHERE DEVELOPERS
WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO THIS
CHEAP DEBT. GIVEN THAT FINANCING
COSTS ARE SUCH A LARGE PORTION
OF THE COST TO CONSTRUCT RIGHT
NOW, BONDING HIGHER DEPOSITS
DIRECTLY DECREASE THE COST TO
CONSTRUCT AND LOWERS THE PRICE
POINT THAT A DEVELOPER MUST HIT
TO UNDERWRITE THEIR PROJECTS
NATURALLY, CREATING MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO VIEW SAN FRANCISCO
OR SAN DIEGO AS AN EXAMPLE OF
THIS ISSUE. WHAT ARE THE TYPES
OF CONDOMINIUMS THAT ARE BEING
CONSTRUCTED? IT'S ALL ULTRA
LUXURY. THIS IS UNLIKE WHAT WE
ARE SEEING IN MULTIFAMILY
RENTAL. THIS IS BECAUSE THE
DEVELOPER CAN ONLY UNDERWRITE A
PROJECT WITH A HIGH ENOUGH
MARGIN TO MAKE THEM MUCH HIGHER
RISK. APPETIZING, TO PUT IT
BLUNTLY, WOULD YOU ACCEPT MORE
RISK FOR LESS REWARD? THANK YOU.
COULD YOU WRAP IT UP, PLEASE?
THANK YOU. I ASKED THE COMMITTEE
TO CONSIDER THIS AS AN INTUITIVE
OPTION FOR DEVELOPERS TO CREATE
FOR SALE HOUSING DURING THIS
CRISIS, AS COMMUNITIES ARE
STRONGEST NOT ONLY WITH RENTERS
BUT WITH HOMEOWNERS AND INVEST.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1462, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. CATHERINE CHARLES
HERE ON BEHALF OF HOUSING ACTION
COALITION SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
SEAMUS GARRITY FROM LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN SUPPORT
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
THE MICROPHONE. YES, I DECLINED
I FORGOT TO MENTION AT THE
BEGINNING I'M ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. I WANTED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE
RECORD. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE.
I THINK WE'VE IMPROVED THE BILL
ALL RIGHT. SO OTHERS WHO MAY BE
OPPOSED TO SB 1462, PLEASE
APPROACH. YOU MAY APPROACH
EITHER THE MICROPHONE TO MY LEFT
OR COME TO THE TABLE, WHICHEVER
YOU CHOOSE. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS
ANNA BUCK. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, WE'RE HERE
REPRESENTING NEARLY 200,000 REAL
ESTATE LICENSEES IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL TODAY. THIS BILL,
WELL, IT IS TRULY
WELL-INTENTIONED TO ATTEMPT TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS WE'RE
FACING HERE IN CALIFORNIA HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO FINANCIALLY
DEVASTATE POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS.
SB 1462 NOT ONLY ELIMINATES THE
STATE'S LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CAP
FOR NEW CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENTS, BUT ALSO ENABLES
DEVELOPERS TO USE THE BUYER'S
GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT TOWARDS ANY
COSTS OF THE PROJECT
EFFECTIVELY. SB 1462 ALLOWS
DEVELOPERS TO KEEP THE BUYERS
ENTIRE DEPOSIT, REGARDLESS OF
THE PERCENTAGE OF THE SALES
PRICE. ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO
USE BUYER FUNDS IN THIS WAY IS
EFFECTIVELY LENDING DEVELOPERS
BUYERS HARD EARNED DOWN PAYMENT
FUNDS AT 0% INTEREST. IF
DEVELOPERS CAN'T BE IN A
POSITION TO BE FUNDING BASIC
CONSTRUCTION, PERHAPS THEY
SHOULD NOT BE IN BUSINESS, THIS
BILL REQUIRES OR THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS REQUIRE AN INFORMED
CONSENT WARNING TO CONSUMERS, AS
WELL AS A BOND TO BE PUT IN
PLACE. HOWEVER, THESE TYPES OF
BONDS DO NOT CURRENTLY EXIST IN
OUR MARKET, AND WE'VE SEEN NO
INDICATION FROM, BOND BONDING
COMPANIES THAT THAT WOULD BE THE
CASE. HAVING A HOME PURCHASE
WHERE A BUYER IS WARNED, WHERE
THAT THEY MAY NOT GET A HOME
THAT THEY SACRIFICED TO AFFORD
BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT
COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND MAY NOT
GET THEIR MONEY BACK, IS
UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR STATE, AND
IT'S CONTRARY TO CALIFORNIA'S
LONG HISTORY OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION. AND REALLY, IT'S
JUST SIMPLY WRONG. REGARDLESS OF
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, THE
INFORMED CONSENT PROVISIONS THAT
ARE BEING ADDED TO THE BILL,
CALIFORNIA IS 3.5 MILLION UNITS
SHORT OF HOUSING AND HOME BUYERS
ARE DESPERATE. THIS BILL CREATES
A SITUATION WHERE THESE
POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS WOULD BE
HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO ENTERING
INTO THESE PREDATORY CONTRACTS,
AND THEREFORE, WE MUST OPPOSE
THIS BILL TODAY. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION,
MR. CHAIR AND SENATORS CLIFF
COSTA, TODAY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ESCROW ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING ESCROW OFFICERS WHO
ARE PREDOMINANTLY IN TITLE
COMPANIES AND IN INDEPENDENT
ESCROW COMPANIES. WHILE WE
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS
ACCEPTED TODAY AND DO THINK IT
IMPROVES THE BILL, UNFORTUNATELY
WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL
IS NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH.
FUNDAMENTALLY, OUR ESCROW
OFFICERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
LACK OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
THAT ARE IN THE BILL,
SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO
THE PURCHASERS DEPOSIT AND THE
REMOVAL OF THE 3% LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES CAP. SPECIFICALLY, THE
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY ABOUT
WHETHER THE ACCESS TO THE
DEPOSIT FUNDS ACTUALLY REDUCE
THE PRICE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
AND THE USE OF THE BONDS AS A
MECHANISM TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
IS TROUBLING. OUR MEMBERS HAVE A
LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE
BONDS WOULD BE PROPOSED TO WORK.
WOULD IT BE ABLE TO COLLECT ON
THE BONDS? WOULD CONSUMERS BE
ABLE TO COLLECT ON THE BONDS? WE
HAVE SEEN AND I'VE HEARD OF
SITUATIONS IN FLORIDA AND HAWAII
WHO HAVE SIMILAR STATUTES WHERE
THERE'S A LOT OF LITIGATION. WE
ARE LOOKING FURTHER INTO THAT,
BUT THAT RAISES A LOT OF
CONCERNS FOR US. ADDITIONALLY,
MENTIONED IN THE BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE ANALYSIS,
THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
DFP AND CDI ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
AGAINST ESCROW OFFICERS WHO WORK
IN INDEPENDENT ESCROW COMPANIES
AND TITLE COMPANIES FOR
COMPLYING WITH THIS BILL. WE
HOPE THAT FUTURE AMENDMENTS WILL
ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. OVERALL,
THIS BILL, WE BELIEVE THIS BILL
TURNS HOME PURCHASERS INTO
INVESTORS BY ALLOWING THEIR
DEPOSIT, WHICH THEY COULD BE
PAYING INTEREST ON, TO FUND
DEVELOPERS IN THE HOPE, IN THE
HOPE THAT THE HOME IS
CONSTRUCTED AND HOPEFULLY AT A
REDUCED PRICE, COUPLED WITH THE
REMOVAL OF THE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES CAP. WE THINK THIS IS
TOO RISKY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR
MOST CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE
DESPERATE FOR HOME OWNERSHIP.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. GIVE US YOUR NAME,
YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS. CARLOS
GUTIERREZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
INSTITUTE, CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE, IN
OPPOSITION, THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. LET'S
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. QUESTIONS
SEEING. YES, SENATOR CABALLERO.
SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT I THINK
THIS IS REALLY A UNIQUE,
PROPOSAL, AND VERY CREATIVE. I
HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY
BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE YOU'RE
YOU'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. BUT, I'M CONCERNED
WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION. AND, AS YOU KNOW,
IF, IF ATTORNEYS GET MONEY
THAT'S NOT THEIRS, THEY HAVE TO
HOLD IT IN A TRUST ACCOUNT. AND
SO THE ABILITY TO KEEP IT SAFE
AND IN AN ACCOUNT THAT IS CANNOT
BE USED FOR DAY TO DAY,
PURPOSES, IS, IS GOING TO BE
REALLY IMPORTANT SO THAT THE
MONEY IS PROTECTED. AND THEN I
DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A
MAXIMUM DOWN PAYMENT IN TERMS
OF, I'D BE REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE
IF PEOPLE WERE PUTTING DOWN
$50,000. AND LET ME TELL YOU
WHY. DURING THE MORTGAGE
MELTDOWN, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT
PEOPLE BEALL AS THE INCREASE IN
HOMES ESCALATED, PEOPLE GOT
DESPERATE TO GET INTO HOMES. AND
SO WHAT THEY DID IS THEY BEGGED
AND THEY BORROWED FROM FAMILY
MEMBERS. AND IN ORDER TO HAVE
ENOUGH DOWN PAYMENT AND THEY
ENDED UP DOING IT AS A GROUP. SO
4 OR 5 PEOPLE WOULD BUY A HOUSE,
IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD
THE PAYMENT AND HAVE THE CREDIT
THAT THEY NEEDED. AND SO I DON'T
WANT TO SEE US RUN INTO A
SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE
BEGGING AND BORROWING TO COME UP
WITH A BIG DOWN, BECAUSE
FINALLY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO GET INTO A HOUSE THAT
THEY OWNED OR A CONDO THAT THEY
OWN, AND THEN THEY LOSE IT
BECAUSE THE, THE CONTRACTOR
MISCALCULATED, STOLE THE MONEY,
DID SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT, SO
IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AT LEAST
A MAXIMUM AND THEN A TIMELINE SO
THAT THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T GET
GET THESE DEPOSITS AND THEN SIT
SIT ON THEM, THERE'S, THERE
THERE ARE PROJECTS IN THE
COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT THAT
HAVE BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE PAST
15, 20 YEARS BECAUSE THEY JUST
DON'T PENCIL OUT FOR WHATEVER
REASON IN TODAY'S MARKET. AND SO
I THINK THAT'S ALL OF THAT IS
GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT. IF
WE'RE GOING TO REALLY PROTECT
CONSUMERS, AND, AND THAT'S MY
GOAL IS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
AND, AND TO BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. THIS HAS BEEN MY NUMBER
ONE ISSUE SINCE WAY BACK WHEN.
SO I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHT THAT'S GONE INTO THIS.
AND I DO THINK WE NEED TO GET
CONDOS AND SMALLER, SMALLER LOT
DEVELOPMENTS GOING IN ORDER FOR
TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO
AFFORD THEIR STARTER HOME. THANK
YOU, SENATOR CABALLERO. OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SENATOR
NIELLO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
SENATOR GLAZER, I APPRECIATE YOU
REACHING OUT TO ME YESTERDAY AND
EXPLAINING, AMENDMENTS. BUT I
CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I'M
NOT SURE THAT THERE'S ANYTHING
THAT COULD BE DONE TO I'LL USE
THE TERMS VIOLATE THE, THE
STATUS OF A OF A DEPOSIT, I JUST
THINK THAT THAT, NEEDS TO BE
PROTECTED, AND I JUST CAN'T
THINK OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
WOULD ALLOW IT TO OTHERWISE BE
USED, BE IT A ATTORNEYS DEPOSIT
AND AN ESCROW OR DEPOSIT IN
ESCROW FOR THIS OR OR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE. I JUST THINK THAT THAT,
IS A THING THAT SHOULD NOT BE
VIOLATED FOR WHATEVER GOOD
REASON MIGHT OTHERWISE MAKE
SENSE. YEAH. MAY I SPEAK ADDRESS
THAT? SURE, FIRST, I, I MEAN,
THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THAT
WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THERE HAS
TO BE A BOND TO KEEP THE
CONSUMER WHOLE. I MEAN, THAT,
AND AS THE OPPONENTS ARGUE,
THERE'S NOT A MARKET FOR IT.
WELL THERE IS NO MARKET FOR A
BOND, THEN. THIS BILL HAS NO
EFFECT. PERIOD. YOU CAN'T USE
THE DEPOSIT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
GET A BOND TO ASSURE THAT THE
CONSUMERS WILL BE MADE WHOLE IN
CASE A DEVELOPER WALKS AWAY OR
DOESN'T FOLLOW THE AGREEMENT. SO
THAT REALLY IS THE HEART OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION, SUGGESTIONS
FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I THINK I'M OPEN TO,
TO, TO INCORPORATING. BUT HERE'S
THE DILEMMA, SENATOR. WE HAVE A
HOUSING CRISIS AND YOU SAY,
OKAY, WHY IS THAT? AND PEOPLE
CAN POINT TO SEQUA OR THEY CAN
POINT TO LOTS OF DIFFERENT
THINGS, BUT THE HEART OF IT FOR
THE CAPITAL MARKETS IS THAT THE
INVESTMENT, THE RISK IS TOO HIGH
FOR THE RETURN, THAT THE COST OF
BUILDING IS TOO GREAT TO FOR ANY
RETURN THEY COULD EXPECT. AND SO
THIS GOES AT THE HEART OF WHAT I
THINK IS CREATING THIS, THIS
PROBLEM IN OUR MARKETPLACE,
WHICH IS THAT A DEVELOPER THAT
ATTEMPTS TO LOWER THE COST OF
MONEY, IT'S TRUE. IT IS A NÓ
INTEREST, OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE
THAT DEPOSIT MONEY AND USE IT.
MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT A BANK
WOULD CHARGE. THAT'S ALL TRUE,
BECAUSE THAT CHANGES THE
EQUATION FOR A DEVELOPER WHERE
THEY SAY, HEY, I CAN MAYBE
AFFORD TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN NOW
BECAUSE INSTEAD OF PAYING 8%
INTEREST, I HAVE A 0% INTEREST
PLUS THE COST OF THIS BOND AND
THE OBLIGATION IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WHAT I SAY TURNS OUT TO BE
TRUE AND COVERS THE RISK OF THE
OF THE PERSON PUTTING THE
DEPOSIT DOWN. AND THAT THAT GAP
OF THAT 0 TO 8 PLUS THE COST OF
THE BOND IS, AS YOU'VE HEARD
FROM WITNESSES, A MATERIAL
EFFECT ON THEIR ABILITY TO SAY,
I COULD BUILD THAT PROJECT. WE
HAVE A LOT OF CONDOMINIUM
PROJECTS, HOUSING PROJECTS THAT
HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE STATE,
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UNITS.
AND YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF THE
QUESTION, WHY AREN'T THEY NOT
BEING BUILT AT? AND YOU KNOW,
AND I KNOW IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT
RISK QUESTION AND THE REWARD
QUESTION AND IT'S ABOUT COSTS.
NOW CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT
LABOR COSTS OR LAND COSTS OR
SUPPLY COSTS? IT'S TOUGH FOR US
TO LEGISLATE IN THOSE PLACES.
BUT WHAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING
TO DO WITH IS FINANCING COSTS.
THIS ATTEMPTS TO GO IN THAT
SPACE TO SAY WE CAN HAVE SOME
EFFECT ON LOWERING THE COST OF
FINANCING. OTHERWISE, WHY DO WE
THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET
OURSELVES OUT OF THIS HOUSING
PROBLEM? THAT'S THE DILEMMA THAT
I'M TRYING TO HELP SOLVE WITH
THIS MEASURE, AND IT'S WHY THE
BOND IS INTEGRAL TO ITS
ADVANCEMENT, BECAUSE IT HAS TO
BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER
AND MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU HAVE A
DEVELOPER WHO, FOR WHATEVER
REASON, STEPS AWAY, THAT THAT
CONSUMER MUST BE PROTECTED. AND
SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS SENATOR CABALLERO
SUGGESTED, I'M OPEN TO DOING AS
WELL. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. IF SENATOR
COULD, THE CHALLENGE WITH
BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS IN
PARTICULAR IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT THAN THE CHALLENGE OF
BUILDING OTHER HOUSING UNITS.
AND I THINK THAT, THERE'S AN
ASPECT OF, OF LIABILITY, ONGOING
LIABILITY THERE WITH CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENTS. BUT BUT AT THAT
POINT ASIDE, IF WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE COST OF BUILDING
HOUSING, PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO
TAKE A LOOK AT REGULATED COSTS
OF BUILDING HOUSING. YOU
MENTIONED SEQUA, BUT THERE'S
MORE THAN SEQUA. THERE ARE
THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED, ON
HOUSING UNITS THAT ADD TO THE
COST, THE BENEFIT OF WHICH CAN
BE QUESTIONED. AND, AND WE TEND
NOT TO QUESTION THE RELATIVE
COST OF THOSE BENEFITS. AND I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT
PARTICULAR, POLICY, EXPLORATION,
COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER
IMPACT ON THE COST OF HOUSING
AND THEN THEREFORE SUPPLY THAN
THIS PROPOSAL. NO DOUBT THERE
ARE OTHER PROPOSALS. THANK YOU,
SENATOR NEIL. ALL RIGHT, OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. NO. SO A
COUPLE COMMENTS. FIRST OFF,
SENATOR GLASER, THE DEVELOPER
MAY NOT USE THE DEPOSIT UNLESS
THERE IS CONSENT BY THE
DEPOSITOR. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT
IS CORRECT. INFORMED CONSENT IS
A PART OF THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS THAT I'VE ACCEPTED.
AND IN TERMS OF THE INFORMED
CONSENT, I WELCOME OTHER,
LANGUAGE FROM THE OPPONENTS. I
THINK THE INFORMED I PERSONALLY
THINK THE INFORMED CONSENT,
PROVISION AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'VE
ACCEPTED ARE FAIRLY ROBUST. AND
I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE SMART
ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
INFORMED CONSENT MEANS IN OTHER
WORDS, THAT THEY HAVE TO KNOW
THE RISKS, IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? THAT IS.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK
OPPOSITION FROM THE ESCROW
OFFICERS SHOULD BE RESOLVED,
BECAUSE THERE'S CLEAR DIRECTION
IN THE WORK THAT THEY DO.
THERE'S INFORMED CONSENT FOR THE
ACTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE.
THE SECOND POINT IS, IS IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING OF BONDING
COMPANIES, BONDING COMPANIES
ACTUALLY DO SCRUTINIZE THE
ENTITY THAT THEY'RE BONDING, AND
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT
SECURITY TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT
SHOULD THEY HAVE SHOULD SOMEONE
ACTUALLY TRY TO RECEIVE PART OF
THE PART OR ALL THE PROCEEDS OF
THE BOND? IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? THAT IS
CORRECT. AND ALSO WHY WE'VE
ADDED ANOTHER LAYER OF
PROTECTION BY REQUIRING, IN THIS
CASE, THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL
ESTATE TO BLESS THAT BOND, TO
HAVE ANOTHER SET OF EYES AND
EARS EXACTLY ON THE SAME
ANALYSIS THAT ANY BOND COMPANY
WOULD ENGAGE IN. SO NO BOND, NO
DEAL. CORRECT, SIR. ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN THIRDLY, SENATOR
CABALLERO RAISED THE POINT ABOUT
TIMING, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A
GOOD POINT, AND ASKED THAT YOU
CONSIDER AS THIS BILL MOVES
ALONG, THAT THE USE OF THAT
DEPOSIT NOT BE INDEFINITE, THAT
THERE BE SOME SORT OF TIME
CONSTRAINT ON, ON HOW QUICKLY
THEY CAN USE THAT DEPOSIT. IS
THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD
CONSIDER IT IS YOU ALSO RAISED
AN ISSUE OF A CAP ON THE DOWN
PAYMENT. AND I'M OPEN TO
CONSIDERING THAT AS WELL. ALL
RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SENATOR GLASER, SEEING NO OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, WE ARE A
SUBCOMMITTEE. AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. I EXPECT THERE TO BE A
MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW OF THE
BILL TODAY. RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS SB 1482
BY SENATOR GLASER. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT. THANK YOU. MEMBERS. THIS
IS A BILL THAT'S GOING TO LOOK
VERY FAMILIAR TO YOU BECAUSE YOU
PASSED A VERY SIMILAR BILL LIKE
IT ON A 10 TO 0 VOTE EARLIER
THIS YEAR, THAT BILL WAS HELD UP
IN APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH IS WHY
WE'RE BACK AGAIN, AS SMALL
BUSINESS BORROWERS HAVE
INCREASINGLY STRUGGLED TO ACCESS
TRADITIONAL BANK LOANS, THEY'VE
RESORTED TO ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF
FINANCING TO START, MAINTAIN AND
GROW THEIR BUSINESSES.
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING PRODUCTS
INCLUDE SALES BASED FINANCING
LIKE MERCHANT ADVANCES,
FACTORING, LEASE FINANCING, ALL
OF WHICH ARE STRUCTURED IN A WAY
THAT MAKE THEM DO. THEY
BASICALLY ARE LOANS.
UNFORTUNATELY, GAPS IN
CALIFORNIA'S COMMERCIAL
FINANCING LAW HAVE ALLOWED SMALL
SOME BAD ACTORS TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF SMALL BUSINESS
BORROWERS. OFTEN UNSCRUPULOUS
ACTORS STEER SMALL BUSINESS
BORROWERS INTO HIGHER COST
FINANCING SO THEY CAN GET A
BETTER COMMISSION. BORROWERS ARE
ALSO ENCOURAGED TO SIGN
FINANCING CONTRACTS WITH CLAUSES
THAT WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO LEGAL
REPRESENTATION AND PROPER COURT
PROCEDURE, SO THIS BILL
REGULATES THAT PREDATORY
PRACTICE, SUCH AS BROKERS ACTING
AS MERCHANT CASH. ADVANCE MILLS
FOCUSES ON PLACING THAT FOCUSES
ON PLACING APPLICANTS INTO HIGH
RATE FINANCING. THIS BILL ALSO
CLOSES LOOPHOLES IN OUR CURRENT
LAW BY PROHIBITING ANY ACTION
THAT BE CONSTRUED AS A QUOTE,
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, UNQUOTE,
AND AS MANY OF YOU KNOW,
CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT PROHIBIT
BORROWERS FROM LEGAL
REPRESENTATION IF THEY DEFAULT
ON A LOAN. THE AMENDMENTS I MADE
RECENTLY RESOLVED A PENDING
ISSUE WITH OPPOSITION. IT
REMOVED THE REQUIREMENT THAT
BROKERS DISCLOSE THE LOWEST
APPROXIMATE APR A BORROWER COULD
POTENTIALLY QUALIFY FOR. WITH ME
TODAY, I HAVE LUIS PECH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS LENDING
COALITION, AND BIANCA BLOOMQUIST
WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS MAJORITY
. WITH THAT, AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THOSE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1482, THE
FLOOR IS YOURS, THANK YOU SO
MUCH, CHAIRMAN YOUNGBERG, VICE
CHAIR WILK, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS BIANCA
BLOMQUIST. I DIRECT CALIFORNIA
OPERATIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS
MAJORITY, A NATIONAL NONPROFIT
NETWORK OF 100,000 SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS WITH A HISTORIC
PRESENCE HERE IN CALIFORNIA WERE
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1482, SB
1482 PROMOTES RESPONSIBLE SMALL
BUSINESS LENDING PRACTICES IN
THREE KEY WAYS. FIRST, IT
REGULATES PREDATORY PRACTICES BY
BROKERS. THE BILL ENFORCES
TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICAL
BEHAVIOR IN LENDING PRACTICES,
PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
FROM UNFAIR TERMS AND HIDDEN
FEES. IT LEVELS THE PLAYING
FIELD FOR LOAN AND NON LOAN
PRODUCTS BY APPLYING A
CONSISTENT RULE TO ALL TYPES OF
FINANCING. SB 1482 ENSURES THAT
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE A
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR
OPTIONS AND ENABLE THEM TO MAKE
INFORMED DECISIONS. IT ALSO
CLOSES EXISTING LOOPHOLES. THE
BILL ADDRESSES GAPS IN CURRENT
LAWS THAT ALLOW BAD ACTORS TO
EXPLOIT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
BY FIXING THESE LOOPHOLES, SB
1482 FOSTERS A FAIR AND
COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE FOR
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND
CONSUMERS ALIKE. THE STORY OF
MALIBU'S BURGERS OWNERS DARREN
AND NATASHA PRESTON OF OAKLAND,
AND THEIR STRUGGLES WITH HIGH
COST DEBT, UNDERSCORE THE URGENT
NEED FOR SB 1482. IN 2022, THEY
FILED FOR CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY,
LOSING NATASHA'S FAMILY
INHERITANCE DUE TO OPAQUE AND
UNFAIR LENDING PRACTICES. THEIR
EXPERIENCE, UNFORTUNATELY, IS
NOT UNIQUE. MANY SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS FACE EXPLOITATION IN
THEIR QUEST FOR CAPITAL TO START
OR GROW THEIR BUSINESSES BY
SUPPORTING SB 1482, YOU ARE
HELPING TO CREATE A SAFER, MORE
EQUITABLE LENDING ENVIRONMENT
FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON SB
1482. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
HONORABLE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LUIS PECH. I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PAST SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, AND GIVEN THAT I'LL BE
BRIEF, I SERVE AS THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE RESPONSIBLE
BUSINESS LENDING COALITION, AN
ORGANIZATION OF FOR PROFIT AND
NONPROFIT VOICES DEDICATED TO
RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION IN SMALL
BUSINESS FINANCING. WE REPRESENT
OVER 1000 SMALL BUSINESS GROUPS,
FOR PROFIT FINANCING PROVIDERS,
NON PROFIT CDFIS COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES, AS WELL AS TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES
THEMSELVES. THIS BILL
ACCOMPLISHES THREE THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, IT BRINGS SOME
OVERSIGHT TO THE WILD WEST OF
SMALL BUSINESS LOAN BROKERING,
WHICH NOW RESEMBLES PRE-CRISIS
SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BROKERING.
NUMBER TWO, IT ADDRESSES BAD
PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN A
BUSINESS WEEK EXPOSE ENTITLED
SIGN HERE TO LOSE EVERYTHING.
THE PREDATORY LENDING, MACHINE
CRUSHING SMALL BUSINESSES ACROSS
AMERICA. AND NUMBER THREE, IT
CLOSES A LOOPHOLE IN
CALIFORNIA'S SMALL BUSINESS
TRUTH AND LENDING FRAMEWORK, A
REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR GLASER AND OTHERS
THAT ALL VOTED FOR IT AS WELL,
BUT CURRENTLY IT ASKS BAD ACTOR
FINANCING COMPANIES TO POLICE
THEMSELVES AND SLAP THEIR OWN
WRISTS. THIS BILL WOULD FIX
THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO ACTUALLY LET ME CHECK? WE'RE
MOVING. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE
THAT WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT THE METOOS? PLEASE COME
FORWARD. HI, MY NAME IS JARED
WITH CAMEO CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION FOR MICRO ENTERPRISE
OPPORTUNITY AND WE SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HELLO, CHAIR MEMBERS DANNY
KENDALL KAISER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION AND SUPPORT VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT?
SEEING NO ONE ELSE, THE LEAD
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD,
PLEASE. IS THERE ANYBODY IN
OPPOSITION? IF. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO TESTIFY AT THE MIC OR AT THE
TABLE? THIS IS. THIS IS FINE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. PAT JOYCE, ON
BEHALF OF FORD FINANCING, A
SALES BASED FINANCING COMPANY
THAT SERVES THOUSANDS OF SMALL
BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA. WE
HAVEN'T OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED,
POSITION TO SB 1482 AND WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK THUS FAR OF
THE AUTHOR TO AMEND THE BILL,
ESPECIALLY REMOVING THAT
PROBLEMATIC PROVISION RELATED TO
BEST ESTIMATE APR DISCLOSURE. SO
WE APPRECIATE THAT, AND WE AGREE
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OVERALL GOAL
OF CREATING TRANSPARENCY IN THE
MARKETPLACE AND BRINGING
ACCOUNTABILITY TO BROKERS AND
PROVIDERS WHO ARE NOT DOING WHAT
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. AND THIS
INCLUDES WE SUPPORT ESTABLISHING
A LICENSING FRAMEWORK IN
CALIFORNIA FOR, AND THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE AND SENATE BANKING. I
THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION,
REGISTRATION VERSUS LICENSING.
WE MAY DIFFER FROM OTHERS IN THE
MARKET, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE
LICENSED. IN FACT, RIGHT NOW,
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES,
PROVIDERS DO HAVE TO REGISTER
UNDER THE EXPANSION OF UDAP TO
COMMERCIAL FINANCING, PROVIDERS
ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ANNUAL
REPORTS TO THE DEPARTMENT. THIS
INCLUDES CONTACT INFORMATION AND
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
RELATED TO TRANSACTIONS FROM THE
PREVIOUS YEAR. SO IF THE
DEPARTMENT WANTS TO GO AFTER BAD
ACTORS RIGHT NOW FOR DECEPTIVE,
UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE PRACTICES,
THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY KNOW
WHERE TO FIND THEM, I THINK THE
MAIN STICKING POINT THAT REMAINS
IS HOW TO GO ABOUT LICENSING.
THE BILL PROPOSES OVERLAYING A
NEW LICENSING FRAMEWORK ON TOP
OF THE CFL, WHICH WE DISAGREE
WITH. IT'S A VERY CONFUSING,
CONVOLUTED LAW AND VERY
DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE NAVIGATE.
OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR, THE DEPARTMENT
THROUGH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
FIGURE OUT AN ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH, SOMETHING THAT'S MORE
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLER. AND
YOU TAKE THAT AND PAIR IT WITH
SOME OF THE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN
PASSED OVER THE PAST THREE
YEARS, INCLUDING SB 1235
DISCLOSURES, WHICH IS A BIG DEAL
, THE EXPANSION OF UDAP, WHICH I
MENTIONED AS WELL AS THE
PROHIBITION OF JUNK FEES UNDER
SB 666, THESE ALL ALL THESE
THREE LAWS JUST WENT INTO EFFECT
THE PAST YEAR. SO IT'S OUR
PREFERENCE TO TAKE A BEAT, LET
THE MARKET ADJUST TO THESE THREE
NEW LAWS AND REGULATIONS, WHICH
ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE MARKET AND
PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES.
THANK YOU. MR. JOYCE. AND I WILL
CONCLUDE WITH THAT AND
APPRECIATE, A NO VOTE AT THE
TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. NAME, AFFILIATION,
POSITION. NICO MOLINA, ON BEHALF
OF CAPETUS AND RAPID FINANCE
THAN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED.
POSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
MICROPHONE. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SEEING NONE.
SO, SENATOR GLAZIER, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE BILL
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. WE'VE NARROWED THE
GAP IN TERMS OF OUR DIFFERENCES.
WE CERTAINLY ENJOY THE SUPPORT
OF THE BROADER SMALL BUSINESS
LENDING COMMUNITY, BUT WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
SOME OF THESE ISSUES OF
REGISTRATION VERSUS LICENSING.
SO IF THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD
TODAY WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR GLASER. APPROPRIATE
TIME. I EXPECT A MOTION AND
WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS
A BILL ON A VOTE ONLY I KNOW YOU
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET, BUT
CERTAINLY RESPECT AND APPRECIATE
THAT CONSIDERATION AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. YES, WE'LL
TAKE THAT UP FOR A VOTE ONLY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT I'M GOING
TO. I SEE NO OTHER AUTHORS HERE.
I'M GOING TO ASK SENATOR ASHBY
TO. SHE HAS WITNESSES TO PRESENT
ITEM NUMBER 23, SB 1498. SO IF
YOU'RE HERE ON SB 1498, I
REALIZE WE'RE TAKING IT OUT OF
ORDER. BUT BECAUSE WE WANT TO
MOVE AS ALONG AS EFFICIENTLY AS
IS POSSIBLE. SENATOR ASHBY, IF
YOU WOULDN'T MIND PRESENTING
ITEM NUMBER 23, SB 1498. THANK
YOU, CHAIRMAN UMBERG. MY SOME OF
MY WITNESSES ARE HERE FOR THE
NEXT ITEM, BUT WE'LL START WITH
1498 IF YOU'D LIKE. IT'S FINE.
OH, I'M SORRY, WHICH WHICH ITEM
WERE YOU FOCUSED UPON? NINE.
EIGHT. NINE. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN
DO NINE, EIGHT, NINE. OKAY.
THAT'S FINE WITH 989. YES WE'LL
DO NINE, EIGHT, NINE. AND THEN,
AT YOUR DISCRETION, WE CAN DO
1498, IF YOU LIKE. ALL RIGHT.
NINE EIGHT, NINE. NINE. THAT'S
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS
LISTENING AND ARE HERE
UNDERSTAND. WHAT? BILL? WE'RE ON
WE'RE ON NUMBER NINE TÍNH SB
989. THANK YOU, SENATOR ASHBY.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN UMBERG. AND THANK YOU
TO MY WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE
AND SITTING THROUGH JUDICI WITH
US. APPRECIATE YOU VERY MUCH.
CHAIRMAN, I LIKE TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THANKING THE
JUDICIARY STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
OUR TEAM SO DILIGENTLY TODAY. I
AM VERY PROUD TO PRESENT SB 989.
THIS IS THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
DEATHS ACT, SB 989 ENHANCES
INVESTIGATION PROTOCOLS
SURROUNDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RELATED DEATHS BY EMPOWERING
INVESTIGATORS WITH EVIDENCE
BASED DETECTION METHODS TO
IDENTIFY POTENTIALLY SUSPICIOUS
CASES. THIS BILL GIVES CORONERS
THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO
DEATHS THEY DEEM SUSPICIOUS AND
EXPANDS RIGHTS TO IMMEDIATE
FAMILY MEMBERS TO OBTAIN
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR DECEASED
LOVED ONES. NEARLY ONE THIRD OF
FEMALE HOMICIDE VICTIMS ARE
KILLED BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER.
ADDITIONALLY EXPERTS ESTIMATE
THAT AROUND 1200 HIDDEN
HOMICIDES OCCUR ANNUALLY, OFTEN
IN DISGUISED AS STAGED CRIME
SCENES, STAGED CRIME SCENES
CREATE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES
FOR INVESTIGATORS, LEADING TO
INACCURATE DEATH CERTIFICATES
AND CLASSIFICATIONS OFTEN DEEMED
AS SUICIDE OR ACCIDENTS.
RESEARCH HAS IDENTIFIED TEN
EVIDENCE BASED FACTORS THAT
WARRANT MORE THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION INTO SUSPICIOUS
DEATHS. SB 989 ADDS THESE
FACTORS INTO INVESTIGATION.
PROTOCOLS REQUIRING LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO CONSIDER THEM
BEFORE DETERMINING THE FINAL
CAUSE OF DEATH. THIS BILL EQUIPS
INVESTIGATORS, CORONERS, AND
FAMILIES WITH THE NECESSARY
TOOLS AND DETECTION MEASURES TO
IDENTIFY SUSPICIOUS CASES.
INSTEAD OF RULING THESE DEATHS
AS SUICIDE WITHOUT FURTHER
INVESTIGATION, THÀNH SB 989
ENSURES THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
CONDUCT MORE THOROUGH
INVESTIGATIONS INTO SUSPICIOUS
DEATHS INVOLVING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND ESTABLISHES A VOICE
FOR FAMILIES WHO HAVE LONG BEEN
SILENCED UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH ME TODAY I
HAVE TWO SUPPORT WITNESSES,
DAVID KROPP, WHO'S THE CASE
MANAGER WITH THE SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER,
AND JOE HUNTER, A FIRE CAPTAIN
WITH THE SACRAMENTO FIRE
DEPARTMENT. VIÆT, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
WHOMEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST.
GOOD MORNING. COMMITTEE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DAVID
KROPP. I AM WITH THE SACRAMENTO
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER. I ALSO
HAVE 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
WORKING IN THE AREA OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. I HAVE OVER 35 YEARS
OF EXPERIENCE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT. I'M A REGIONAL
EXPERT WITNESS IN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ON BOARD, CERTIFIED IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND I'M A
LICENSED THERAPIST. I SAY ALL
THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT I
HAVE THE CREDENTIALS TO TALK
ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. THE FIRST POINT I'D
LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT A GOOD
INVESTIGATOR SHOULD NOT ALREADY
BE DOING EVERYTHING IN THIS BILL
SHOULD BE BEST PRACTICE FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS.
SADLY, MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS SIMPLY DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STRANGULATION
OR STAGE SUICIDE SCENES.
OFFICERS SOMETIMES FAIL TO
RECOGNIZE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF FOUL
PLAY, SUCH AS A HISTORY OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CASES OF
STAGE SUICIDES ARE MORE
PREVALENT THAN WE MIGHT THINK.
THE LIONS FOR HOPE INTERNATIONAL
IS WORKING ON ABOUT 20 CASES
NATIONWIDE, AND RECENT RESEARCH
SUGGESTS THAT THERE MAY BE
THOUSANDS OF STAGED SUICIDES IN,
THIS COUNTRY. THIS IS NOT A
NONEXISTENT ISSUE. SB 989 DOES
NOT PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO UNDERSTAND
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RELATED RISK FACTORS.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SENATE BILL 989 AND THE 1984
LEGISLATION THAT CREATED PENAL
CODE SECTION 13,700, WHICH IS
LAW ENFORCEMENT'S RESPONSE TO
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I WAS A YOUNG
OFFICER BACK IN THOSE DAYS, AND
I THOUGHT TO MYSELF AT THE TIME,
WHY ARE THESE LAWMAKERS PUTTING
THEIR NOSE INTO OUR BUSINESS?
SADLY, IMPLICIT BIASES ARE ALIVE
AND WELL IN CONTEMPORARY
SOCIETY, EVEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
. OBVIOUSLY, I BELIEVE THAT
13.700 WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
IN 19. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. WRAP IT UP. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING, AS WAS STATED, MY
NAME IS JOE HUNTER. I'M
CURRENTLY A CAPTAIN WITH THE
SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT,
AND I'VE PROUDLY BEEN WITH THEM
FOR OVER 18 YEARS, SIMPLY PUT,
SB 989 WOULD ENHANCE PROTOCOL
UNDER INVESTIGATIONS WITH
SUSPICIOUS DEATHS, WITH A
HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
AND TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE
FOR EVERYONE HERE TODAY, LAST
YEAR CALLS FOR SERVICE ALONE. IN
2023, THERE WERE OVER 3555 CALLS
FOR SERVICE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
WITH A VIOLENT CRIME HISTORY.
THAT'S NEARLY TEN CALLS A DAY
FOR SERVICE IN THIS CITY ALONE.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT SB 989,
IF IT WAS IN PLAY, I WOULDN'T BE
SITTING HERE BEFORE YOU, BECAUSE
ON OCTOBER 6TH, 2011, AT 847 IN
THE MORNING, I FOUND OUT I LOST
MY SISTER TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
A BILL LIKE THIS COULD CHANGE
THE OUTCOME OF OTHER VICTIMS
LIKE HER AND BRING JUSTICE TO
JOANNA HUNTER. I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. IT'S NEEDED.
IT'S IMPORTANT AND IT CAN HAVE
IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU KEVIN,
I'M SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 989. THANK YOU.
KIM STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
AND I'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO
EXPRESS THE SUPPORT OF THE SAN
DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. ELAINE BESSETTE, SAN
DIEGO DA'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. BATHE WHITMORE,
REPRESENTING 30 FAMILY JUSTICE
CENTERS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA,
THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY JUSTICE
CENTER NETWORK IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. PATRICIA HUNTER, JOANNA
HUNTER'S MOTHER AND THE FAMILY
JUSTICE CENTER. I STRONGLY
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. KATIE
CHRISTIANSEN, TWO TIME BOARD
MEMBER OF THE SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER,
SURVIVOR, STRONGLY. WE
WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JEFF NHIÀU, REPRESENTING
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. WE
DIDN'T WEREN'T ABLE TO GET A
LETTER IN SUPPORT IN TIME, BUT
WE DO SUPPORT THE BILL.
ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE I HAVE
NO, FORMAL OPPOSITION
REGISTERED. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 989, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. YES. GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU. COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JULIO
DELEON. I'M A LIEUTENANT WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. NOT BECAUSE OF THE
INTENT OF THE BILL OR THE,
ADVOCACY FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
BECAUSE WE DO WE DO SUPPORT
THAT. HOWEVER, THIS BILL
APPROACHES THE REMEDY.
APPROACHES TO REMEDYING THESE
ISSUES GO TOO FAR AND IS PLAGUED
WITH, IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES,
USES VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN
LANGUAGE AND TERMS AND POSES
INTERGOVERNMENT MENTAL ISSUES
AND CONFLICTS FOR US. WE ARE. WE
DON'T DENY THAT STAGE SUICIDES
HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY DO. AND WE
DON'T DENY THE, POSITION THAT
THE THAT THE PROPONENTS PROPOSED
OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR OUR
PEACE OFFICERS. WE DO NOT OPPOSE
THAT. HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN OUR
EXPERIENCE THAT THESE STAGE
CRIMES ARE QUICKLY RECOGNIZED BY
OUR INVESTIGATORS OUT IN THE
FIELD DUE TO OUR CURRENT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE
HAVE IN PLACE, AND WE
INVESTIGATE ALL UNATTENDED
DEATHS OUT IN THE FIELD, ALL OF
THEM, AND WE HAVE VARIOUS
SAFEGUARDS AND FAIL SAFES IN
PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF
THESE STAGE CRIMES GO,
UNINVESTIGATED. BUT THE MOST
GLARING CONCERN WE HAVE WITH SB
99 IS THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CONFLICT IT POSES AND IS HIDDEN,
UNFOUNDED, UNFUNDED, EXCUSE ME,
UNFUNDED MANDATE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. IT ALLOWS FAMILY
MEMBERS TO MANDATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
IN THE COUNTY TO CONDUCT
INDEPENDENT REVIEWS OF DEATH
INVESTIGATIONS AND REACH OUT TO
AND HAVE OTHER AGENCIES WITHIN
THE COUNTY CONDUCT THOSE
REVIEWS. THIS PLACE IS AN
UNFUNDED MANDATE ON LOCAL
AGENCIES, TO DEDICATE
INVESTIGATORS AND INVESTIGATIVE
TEAMS TO THAT REVIEW. AND WHO
WILL PAY FOR THIS REVIEW? WILL
THE AGENCIES CONDUCTING THE
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION OR THE
REVIEWING AGENCY? WHY SHOULD
RESIDENTS OF A PARTICULAR CITY
FUND AND PAY AND DEDICATE
OFFICERS TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME
THAT WAS POTENTIALLY COMMITTED
OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION ON
ALL CLOSE, SO WE DO NOT OPPOSE
THE TRAINING COMPONENT OF THE
BILL, BUT WE DO OPPOSE THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND THE LANGUAGE
THAT'S USED IN THE BILL. THANK
YOU. YOU HAVE YOU PROVIDED THOSE
CONCERNS, SUGGESTED LANGUAGE
AMENDMENTS TO SENATOR ASHBY?
YES. WE SUBMITTED A LETTER OF
OPPOSITION LAST WEEK WITH THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AND
DEFINITIONS AND SO FORTH.
CORRECT. OKAY. GREAT THANK YOU.
OTHERS, IN OPPOSITION TO SB 989,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
THE MICROPHONE, I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. COMMENTS. NO.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ASHBY, WE'RE A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I
EXPECT THERE'LL BE A MOTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
WOULD, AND I WOULD LIKE TO
ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE THINGS.
RESPECTFULLY, WE CAN ALWAYS DO
BETTER. THIS BILL IS NOT
INTENDED TO BE AN INDICTMENT OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT. I'M A LONG TIME
SUPPORTER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, A
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNITY FROM MY CITY. SITTING
RIGHT HERE WITH ME TODAY, THE
MEMBERS OF JOANNA HUNTER'S
FAMILY WOULD DISAGREE THAT MORE
CANNOT BE DONE TO PROTECT
FAMILIES. THEY WOULD BE JOINED
BY THOUSANDS OF OTHER FAMILIES
WHOSE LOVED ONES DID NOT RECEIVE
JUSTICE IN DEATH. THEY WOULD
ALSO BE SUPPORTED BY INDIVIDUALS
WHO WERE HARMED BY BY THE SAME
PERPETRATORS BECAUSE THEY WERE
NOT INITIALLY CAUGHT IN THE
FIRST PLACE. LASTLY, AS TO COST,
ONE OF MY SPONSORS IS THE
ALLIANCE FOR HOPE INTERNATIONAL.
THEY PROVIDE THIS SERVICE FOR
FREE AND ALREADY HAVE EXISTING
RELATIONSHIPS WITH CORONERS
ACROSS THE STATE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. ALRIGHTY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ASHBY. YOU
HAVE ANOTHER BILL. WE DON'T HAVE
ANY AUTHORS. SO WHAT? I'M GOING
TO DO IS TWO THINGS. ONE, I'M
GOING TO IMPLORE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND FOR PURPOSES OF
FOLKS THAT ARE VIEWING THIS,
TODAY IS AN INCREDIBLY BUSY DAY
IN THE LEGISLATURE. AND MANY
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE ALSO
SIT, INCLUDING MYSELF, SIT ON
OTHER COMMITTEES. AND SO IT IS
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT HERE
MEANS THAT THEY'RE SITTING IN
OTHER COMMITTEES OR PRESENTING
BILLS AND OTHER COMMITTEES. BUT
HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD ASK
THE STAFF TO, BRING, BRING THEIR
MEMBERS DOWN TO COMMITTEE SO WE
CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM SO WE CAN
BEGIN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
ACTUALLY TAKING VOTES ON THESE
BILLS. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING
TO ASK SENATOR ASHBY TO GO AHEAD
IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO PRESENT SB
1498. AND THEN AFTER SB 1498, IF
WE WERE TO GO IN NORMAL ORDER,
IT WOULD BE SENATOR MENGIBAR. I
DO NOT SEE SENATOR MENGIBAR.
SENATOR MENGIBAR DOES NOT
ARRIVE. I'M GOING TO ASK SENATOR
CABALLERO IF SHE WOULDN'T MIND
PRESENTING HER BILL. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR ASHBY, ITEM NUMBER 23,
SB 1498. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN,
I'M HERE TO PRESENT SB 1498,
WHICH PROVIDES A NECESSARY
ENFORCEMENT TOOL TO ADDRESS THE
ILLEGAL MARKETING OF CANNABIS
AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS THAT ARE
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. I WOULD
LIKE TO VERY MUCH THANK STAFF
FOR YOUR STAFF, FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF ON THIS BILL. IT IS
VASTLY IMPROVED AND I AM
GRATEFUL FOR YOUR HELP. I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. CURRENT LAW REQUIRES
THAT LICENSEES ADHERE TO
REGULATIONS ON THE ADVERTISING
OF CANNABIS, INCLUDING
PROHIBITING ADVERTISING THAT IS
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. HOWEVER,
SOME CANNABIS OPERATORS CHOOSE
TO WILLFULLY VIOLATE THESE
PROHIBITIONS BY CONTINUING TO
ADVERTISE CONTENT THAT IS
ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN. THIS
LEAVES THE PROMISE OF
PROPOSITION 64 UNFULFILLED.
FAILING TO PROTECT YOUTH FROM
EXPOSURE TO CANNABIS ADVERTISING
THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO YOUNG
PEOPLE. THIS BILL, AS AMENDED,
ALLOWS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, A
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY
COUNSEL OR A CITY ATTORNEY TO
ENFORCE VIOLATIONS IN CASES
WHERE A CANNABIS LICENSEE
VIOLATES PROPOSITION 64.
CANNABIS ADVERTISING LAWS. THIS
IS AN ADDED LEVEL OF ENFORCEMENT
EXPANDING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF
CANNABIS CONTROLS. CURRENT
AUTHORITY SB 1498 SIMPLY SEEKS
TO KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE AND
ENSURE PROP 64 IS IMPLEMENTED AS
INTENDED BY THE VOTERS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATOR ASHBY, FOR WORKING WITH
THE COMMITTEE. I KNOW YOU'VE
SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON
THIS PARTICULAR BILL, THOSE
WHICH TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB
1498, IF YOU PLEASE APPROACH
SEEING NO ONE APPROACHING, IF
YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1498,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE
AND YOU MAY WANT TO BE MINDFUL
OF THE FACT THAT THE BILL IS
VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE BILL
THAT LOOK LIKE THE BILL. A
COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1498, PLEASE APPROACH SEEING NO
ONE. WELL ONE PERSON
APPROACHING, MAYBE. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
GEORGE MILLER, ON BEHALF OF
WEEDMAPS, WE'RE SCATTERED AS
YOUR MEMBERS ARE SCATTERED
MEMBERS OF OUR INDUSTRY ARE
SCATTERED. WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS. SOME
OF OUR MEMBERS, SOME OF OUR
INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS HAVE HAD
VERY CONSTRUCTIVE TALKS WITH
YOUR STAFF. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
MOVING FORWARD. WE HAVE A
SERIOUS CONCERN FROM THE LEGAL
INDUSTRY SIDE AS TO THE
IMPLICATIONS WE WOULD REALLY
LIKE TO SEE A MORE FOCUSED ON
THE ILLICIT MARKETPLACE AND THE
HEMP MARKET, ILLICIT CANNABIS
AND HEMP MARKETPLACES. BUT WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU
GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. MILLER. ALL RIGHT.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, SEEING NO
ONE APPROACHING QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE
APPROPRIATE TIME I EXPECT THAT
THERE'LL BE A MOTION. SENATOR
ASHBY. WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE
URGING. I VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. SENATOR
CABALLERO WILL KEEP YOU ON DECK.
I SEE SENATOR SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS
HERE. SENATOR SMALLWOOD. CUEVAS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT,
ITEM NUMBER 16, SB 1089, YOU MAY
DO SO. NOW, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S
A TIME FOR. REALLY? OH AND ONCE
AGAIN, I'M. I'M NOW AT THE POINT
OF BEGGING MEMBERS TO ACTUALLY
SHOW UP AT SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE SO THAT WE CAN
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SO IF YOU'RE
WITHIN, SOUND OF MY VOICE,
PLEASE ASK YOUR MEMBERS. OR IF
YOU ARE A MEMBER, TO PLEASE
APPEAR, AT LEAST FOR PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING A QUORUM. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR SMALLWOOD.
CUEVAS, ITEM NUMBER 16. SB 1089.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
COLLEAGUES, GOOD MORNING. I AM
THRILLED TO PRESENT SB 1089,
WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A
PRIORITY BILL FOR THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS
REPARATIONS BILL PACKAGE. THANK
YOU TO THE COMMITTEE AND OUR
SPONSORS FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON
THIS BILL. AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. IN 2020, THE STATE
LEGISLATURE PASSED AB 3121 TO
AUTHORIZE A REPARATIONS TASK
FORCE TO STUDY THE ONGOING
EFFECTS OF SLAVERY ON AFRICAN
AMERICANS. SPECIFICALLY, THE
TASK FORCE REPARATIONS REPORT,
CALLED ON THE LEGISLATURE TO
REQUIRE GROCERY STORES AND
PHARMACIES TO PROVIDE ADVANCE
NOTICE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AND
COMMUNITIES ABOUT THEIR STORE
CLOSURES. THE LONG STANDING
HISTORY OF REDLINING AND
DISINVESTMENT IN OUR BLACK
COMMUNITIES HAVE LEFT MANY OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH
DIMINISHED ACCESS TO GROCERY
STORES AND PHARMACIES DURING THE
SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY,
SUPERMARKETS EXPANDED THEIR
PRESENCE PRIMARILY IN THE
SUBURBS, AS A RESULT OF WHITE
FLIGHT, AND IN THE 1980S, TOP
GROCERY STORE CHAINS BEGAN TO
MERGE, COLLAPSING SERVICES IN
BLACK COMMUNITIES THAT RESULTED
IN FEWER STORE LOCATIONS IN
CITIES, FEWER LOCATED IN
PREDOMINANTLY BLACK
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND TODAY
SUPERMARKET CHAINS HAVE
CONTINUED DODD IN TERMS OF THE
RELUCTANCE TO EXPAND IN LOW
INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS OF COLOR.
ACCORDING TO THE INSTITUTE OF
THE LOCAL SELF HELP. I'M SORRY,
SELF RELIANCE SUPERMARKET CHAINS
HAVE A DEMOGRAPHIC LOCATION
PROFILE THAT PRIORITIZES
COMMUNITIES WITH A RACIAL BIAS,
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE NOT BLACK
AND NOT LOW INCOME. IN MY
COMMUNITY OF SOUTH LOS ANGELES,
WE SEE THIS IN REAL TIME. WE
ALSO SEE THE REAL HEALTH EFFECTS
OF FOOD DESERTS AND OUR MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, WHICH
HAVE EASIER ACCESS TO LIQUOR
STORES AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS
THAN GROCERY STORES. THIS HAS
CONTINUED TO ENSURE THAT
RESIDENTS IN SOUTH LA HAVE SOME
OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF
ILLNESSES, AND DIE FAR TOO OFTEN
AT DISPROPORTION RATES OF HEART
DISEASE AND DIABETES, ALL
PREVENTABLE DISEASES SIMILAR TO
FOOD DESERTS DECREASED ACCESS TO
PHARMACIES AND PHARMACIES HAVE
TURNED SOME BLACK COMMUNITIES
INTO PHARMACY DESERTS, PHARMACY
DESERTS ARE OFTEN AN OVERLOOKED
CONTRIBUTOR TO PERSISTENT RACIAL
AND ETHNIC HEALTH DISPARITIES
THAT LEAVE OUR COMMUNITIES
WITHOUT THEIR MOST BASIC
NECESSITIES. WHEN PHARMACIES
CLOSE, PRESCRIPTIONS MAY BE SOLD
TO ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT OFTEN
WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO CONSUMERS,
LEAVING THEM WITH NO
OPPORTUNITIES TO CHOOSE WHERE TO
TRANSFER THEIR MEDICATIONS. IN
SOME CASES, THESE PRESCRIPTIONS
ARE TRANSFERRED OUT OF THE
PATIENT'S NETWORK, FORCING THEM
TO PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR
TRANSFER. THEY DID NOT REQUEST
AND WERE GIVEN NO NOTICE OF.
SIMILARLY, GROCERY STORE
CLOSURES CAN BE PARTICULARLY
HARMFUL TO OUR BLACK
COMMUNITIES, WHICH ARE MORE
LIKELY TO RELY ON FOOD BENEFIT
PROGRAMS LIKE CALFRESH AND WILK,
BUT MAY NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND
COMPARABLE SERVICES OUTSIDE OF
THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SB 1089 WILL
ENSURE THAT COMMUNITIES HAVE
ADVANCED NOTICE AND ACCESS TO
THE INFORMATION THEY NEED IN
THESE SITUATIONS. THEY ALSO WILL
KNOW ABOUT JOB LOSSES,
PRESCRIPTION TRANSFERS, OR
DECREASED ACCESS TO FOOD, AND
THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
FOR COMMUNITIES THAT, RELY ON
PUBLIC TRANSIT AND NEED TO
FIGURE OUT WAYS AND ROUTES TO
GET TO THE VITAL SERVICES THAT
THEY NEED. THEY NEED TIME TO
PREPARE. OVER THE LAST WEEK,
I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE
COMMITTEE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR, I
WANT TO THANK YOU, AND THE
OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS WHILE ALSO ENSURING
CONSUMERS, WORKERS AND PATIENTS
IN BLACK COMMUNITIES HAVE ACCESS
TO THE INFORMATION THEY NEED IN
THE EVENT OF A STORE CLOSURE. SB
1089 WILL REQUIRE EMPLOYERS OF
FIVE OR MORE EMPLOYEES TO NOTIFY
THEIR COMMUNITY WORKERS AND
RELEVANT AGENCIES WITHIN 60 DAYS
OF THEIR STORE CLOSURE, AND A 30
DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR
EMPLOYERS WITH FIVE OR LESS
EMPLOYEES. THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE THAT THESE NOTICES BE
MADE AVAILABLE ON THEIR
STOREFRONTS AND THROUGH EXISTING
CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT
THEY NORMALLY USE WITH THEIR
CUSTOMERS, SUCH AS MAILERS,
TEXTS, EMAILS, AND ETHNIC MEDIA.
ADDITIONALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES
THAT WHEN PHARMACIES CLOSE, THEY
INFORM PATIENTS OF WHERE THEIR
PRESCRIPTIONS WILL BE
TRANSFERRED, AND WE TAKE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THESE
NOTICES SERIOUSLY. AND WE HAVE
REMOVED THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR THESE NOTICES AND CAP
FEES FOR NON COMPLIANCE AT
$10,000 PER CLOSURE. AND THAT
WAS THROUGH THE WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND WITH THE
COMMITTEE. I AM COMMITTED TO
WORKING ALONGSIDE STAKEHOLDERS
TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AS
THIS BILL CONTINUES TO MOVE
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
YES, THIS IS THE FIRST OF MANY
BILLS WE WILL HEAR IN THE
LEGISLATURE AS PART OF THE BLACK
CAUCUS'S EFFORTS TO RESTORE
BLACK CALIFORNIA, WHICH MEANS
REALLY RESTORING ALL OF
CALIFORNIA AND PARTICULARLY MOST
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIA TO DO
THIS, WE MUST PROTECT ACCESS TO
OUR MOST BASIC NEEDS FOOD AND
MEDICINE. NO FAMILY SHOULD BE
WITHOUT IT. JOINING ME HERE
TODAY ARE CYNTHIA AYALA, A
PHARMACY TECHNICIAN FOR RITE
AID, AND KIMBERLY ROBINSON FROM
THE BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS
PROJECT, AND MARIKO YOSHIHARA
WITH UFCW WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL, WHO WILL BE HERE TO
ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR, THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. TWO MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CYNTHIA AYALA. I AM A
PHARMACY TECHNICIAN AGAIN AT
RITE AID IN SOUTH CENTRAL LOS
ANGELES. I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 15
YEARS AND ALSO A PROUD UFCW
LOCAL 770 MEMBER AS WELL. I'M
HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 1089. I HAVE
EXPERIENCED AT FIRSTHAND THE
IMPACT THAT THE DRUG RETAIL
CLOSURES HAVE, THE IMPACT ON THE
WORKERS AND THE HARM THAT IT
CAUSES THE PATIENTS AND IN THE
COMMUNITIES ON OCTOBER 15TH,
2023, RITE AID FILED FOR
BANKRUPTCY AND HAS SINCE CLOSED
OVER 100 UNION STORES IN
CALIFORNIA. WHILE NOT
CONSISTENT, WORKERS HAVE
TYPICALLY BEEN RECEIVING TWO
WEEKS NOTICE WHEN A STORE IS
CLOSING, BUT THIS TIMELINE HAS
GOTTEN SHORTER AS MORE CLOSURES
OCCUR. LAST WEEK AT RITE AID IN
HIGHLAND PARK, WORKERS RECEIVED
A NOTICE OF THE DAY OF CLOSURE A
FEW WEEKS AGO, RITE AID IN
CERRITOS RECEIVED A 24 HOUR
NOTICE. SOME WORKERS HAVE WORKED
AT THESE LOCATIONS FOR OVER 30
YEARS AND ARE THE MAIN
BREADWINNERS FOR THEIR FAMILIES,
RECEIVING LESS THAN A DAY'S
NOTICE THAT THESE FAMILIES WILL
LOSE THEIR INCOME, THEIR HEALTH
CARE BENEFIT IS CAUSING
SIGNIFICANT TURMOIL AND LEAVES
THEM NO TIME TO PLAN FOR THEIR
FUTURES. ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE
STORE'S CLOSURES WILL ALLOW US
WORKERS TO BETTER PLAN FOR OUR
TRANSITION TO CONSIDER IF WE
WANT TO ACCEPT THESE TRANSFERS
THAT ARE FARTHER AWAY, TAKE
NIGHT SHIFTS THAT ARRANGE FOR
CHILD CARE, OR EVEN APPLY FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. WE ARE
OFTEN EXPECTED TO MAKE THESE
LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS WITHIN
24 HOURS. STORE CLOSURES ALSO
SIGNIFICANTLY, PARDON ME,
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR
PATIENTS. PATIENTS DO NOT
RECEIVE INFORMATION ON WHERE
THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS WILL BE
TRANSFERRED, CAUSING CHAOS. THE
COMPANY USED TO POST SIGNS ON
WHERE THE MEDICATIONS WILL BE
TRANSFERRED TO, BUT HAS SINCE
STOPPED. THEN THREE RITE AID'S
CLOSED NEAR MY PHARMACY. FOR
WEEKS WE WERE BOMBARDED WITH
PHONE CALLS FROM PATIENTS WHO
COULDN'T FIND THEIR
PRESCRIPTIONS. THIS IS EXTREMELY
STRESSFUL AND DISTRACTING WHEN
WE ARE DISPENSING AND VERIFYING
PRESCRIPTIONS. WE HAVE PATIENTS
WHO HAVE THEIR MEDICATION
TRANSFERRED OUT OF NETWORK
PHARMACIES, REQUIRING THEM TO
PAY HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS OUT OF
POCKET. THIS IS WHY THE
PROTECTION IN SB 1089 IS SO
IMPORTANT. NOT ONLY FOR WORKERS,
BUT FOR OUR PATIENTS IN OUR
COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. IF YOU
COULD WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING. AND THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS KIM
ROBINSON. I'M THE COMMUNITY
LIAISON WITH BLACK WOMEN FOR
WELLNESS, AND I'M READING THIS
TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF MY
COLLEAGUE, OYAMA UBYKHIA, BLACK
WOMEN FOR WELLNESS POLICY
DIRECTOR. SINCE THE ONSET OF THE
PANDEMIC, BLACK WOMEN FOR
WELLNESS HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO RUN A NOW BY WEEKLY FOOD
DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM IN LOS
ANGELES AND STOCKTON, WHERE WE
OFFER COMMUNITY MEMBERS ORGANIC,
FRESH AND DODD MEALS AND
PRODUCE. THIS HAS DEEPENED OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEVASTATING
IMPACT OF FOOD INSECURITIES ON
OUR COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY ON
BLACK MAMAS AND BIRTHING PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA. BLACK MAMAS BEAR
THE DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN OF
POOR MATERNAL HEALTH OUTCOMES,
BEING MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY
TO EXPERIENCE SEVERE INJURY AND
3 TO 4 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE
FROM PREGNANCY RELATED CAUSES AS
ACCESS TO HEALTHY AND AFFORDABLE
FOOD, WHICH IS SHAPED BY THE
PRESENCE AND TYPES OF GROCERY
STORES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE
POSITIVE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR
PREGNANT WOMEN AND BIRTHING
PEOPLE AS IT STANDS, BLACK
BIRTHING PEOPLE EXPERIENCE
INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO HEALTHY
AND AFFORDABLE FOODS, WHICH
IMPACTS THEIR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE
PROPER NUTRITION. BEFORE DURING,
AND AFTER PREGNANCY. IN FACT,
BLACK BIRTHING PEOPLE
EXPERIENCED FOOD INSECURITIES AT
A RATE 2.5 TIMES HIGHER THAN
WHITE BIRTHING PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA. FOOD INSECURITY
DURING PREGNANCY IS ASSOCIATED
WITH A GAMUT OF NEGATIVE
OUTCOMES, FROM MAMAS AND BABIES,
INCLUDING PREECLAMPSIA,
GESTATIONAL DIABETES, IRON
DEFICIENCY, POSTPARTUM
DEPRESSION, PRETUM BIRTH, LOW
BIRTH WEIGHT, AND MATERNAL AND
INFANT DEATH, JUST TO NAME A
FEW. FURTHER MORE WOMEN WHO
EXPERIENCE POORER MATERNAL
HEALTH OUTCOMES ARE AT AN
INCREASED RISK FOR REOCCURRENCES
OF THESE HEALTH OUTCOMES IN
FUTURE PREGNANCIES. IN ADDITION
TO CHRONIC DISEASE LATER IN
LIFE, THE STRUCTURAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WITH
NEIGHBORHOODS PLAY IMPORTANT
ROLES IN SHAPING THE HEALTH
BEHAVIORS OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND
FOR BLACK PREGNANT PEOPLE AND
BABIES, STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO
FOOD ACCESS LIKELY ABRUPT
CLOSURES OF GROCERY STORES HAVE
GRAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH
OUTCOMES. IF YOU WRAP IT UP,
PLEASE THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO IN
THIS BILL, FOR THOSE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY URGE THAT YOU VOTE
AYE AND THIS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT BILL, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. REBECCA CHEN SALAS
FOR THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW
AND POVERTY IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ
WITH THE MESA VERDE GROUP
REPRESENTING THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ELMER
LOZADA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SKY FOR THE
GREATER SACRAMENTO URBAN LEAGUE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1089,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT AT THE
TABLE, YOU CAN DO SO AS WELL. SO
OKAY, COULD I ASK YOUR WITNESSES
TO RETURN TO THE AUDIENCE. AND
THEN WE'LL HAVE THE OPPONENTS
TAKE THEIR POSITIONS AT THE
TABLE. THANK YOU. WHOEVER LIKE
TO GO FIRST. THANK YOU. I'LL GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS LINDSAY GOLDEN
HERE TODAY WITH THE CAPITAL
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, COMMUNITY PHARMACY
COALITION, FIRST, JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WENT INTO PRINT YESTERDAY, WHICH
WE FEEL MAKE GREAT STRIDES IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION TOWARD
MAKING THIS BILL WORKABLE, AND
ALSO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS AND SPONSORS WILLINGNESS
TO WORK WITH US. UNFORTUNATELY,
TODAY, WE REMAIN OPPOSED TO SB
1089 UNLESS IT'S AMENDED TO
ADDRESS SOME OF OUR REMAINING
CONCERNS, FIRST, ALSO, OUR
MEMBERS ARE NOT OPPOSED TO
CLOSURE NOTIFICATION, NOR DO
THEY DISAGREE WITH THE INTENT OF
THE BILL, AND WHILE WE DO
APPRECIATE THE NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS IN YESTERDAY'S
AMENDMENTS BEING REDUCED TO 60
DAYS, WHICH IS MORE CONSISTENT
WITH THE WARN ACT, OUR MEMBERS
CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE NUMBER OF NOTICES REQUIRED
AND LACK OF CLARITY AROUND HOW
THESE NOTICES SHOULD BE HANDLED,
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO
NOTIFYING PATIENTS ABOUT WHERE
THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS WILL GO IN
THE EVENT OF A CLOSURE.
PHARMACIES IN PARTICULAR ARE
LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE
BOARD OF PHARMACY AND MUST
ADHERE TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE STORAGE AND DISPENSING
OF DRUGS, PATIENT PRIVACY AND
NOTICE TO THE BOARD UPON
CLOSURE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR
PHARMACIES TO BE SELECTIVE IN
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS TO ADDRESS
PATIENT PRIVACY CONCERNS AND TO
ENSURE THE SAFE HANDLING OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS, PHARMACIES ARE
REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF
PHARMACY BEFORE CLOSURE AND
PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE
THE PRESCRIPTION INVENTORY WILL
BE TRANSFERRED. IN ADDITION, THE
PHARMACY MUST ADHERE TO PATIENT
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER OR NOT THE STORE IS
CLOSED OR IS CLOSING. AND SO THE
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IS VERY
CONCERNED THAT PROVISIONS OF
THIS BILL WILL UNDERMINE THIS
PROCESS. AND PATIENT INFORMATION
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROTECT OUR
MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO PROTECT.
AND SO WE WOULD ENCOURAGE
LOOKING TO THE BOARD OF PHARMACY
PROCESS FOR PHARMACY CLOSURES TO
ENSURE THERE ARE REALISTIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE
MOST RELEVANT TO PATIENTS AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES THAT DO NOT
IMPEDE ANY CLOSURE PROCESSES
ALREADY IN PLACE THROUGH
REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, SO AGAIN,
DUE TO THESE CONCERNS, WE REMAIN
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
RESPECTFULLY, BUT ALSO ARE
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR SHOULD
THE BILL MOVE FORWARD TODAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS PLEASE. HI GOOD MORNING,
DANIEL CONWAY. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION,
THANK YOU ALL. I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE MADE AND REALLY WANT TO
THANK THE SENATOR FOR HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION AROUND FOOD
ACCESS. IT'S THE CONVERSATION
THAT WE AT THE GROCERS ARE
ALWAYS HAPPY TO BE A PART OF.
THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE HERE
TODAY IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
1089 BECAUSE WE SEE IT AS BEING
UNNECESSARY AND REDUNDANT. AS
WAS JUST ALLUDED TO. WE HAVE
EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
THAT PROVIDES MUCH OF THE
CURRENT OR MUCH OF THE NOTICE
THAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN THIS
LEGISLATION IS ALREADY IN
STATUTE. SO WE SEE THAT THERE'S
REALLY NO NEED TO, MOVE FORWARD
WITH REDUNDANT LEGISLATION. EVEN
MORE IMPORTANTLY, GROCERY STORE
CLOSURES ARE RARE. TYPICALLY, IF
A GROCERY STORE IS CLOSING, IT'S
BECAUSE THEY'VE OPENED A NEW
LOCATION NEARBY TO SERVE THE
SAME SET OF CUSTOMERS, OR THAT
COMMUNITY HAS HAS FOR ANY NUMBER
OF REASONS, PROVEN TO BE UNABLE
TO SUSTAIN THAT GROCERY STORE IN
THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE COMMUNITY
CAN'T SUSTAIN A GROCERY STORE
EITHER BECAUSE, WELL, EITHER
BECAUSE ONE'S NEVER LOCATED
THERE OR AN EXISTING ONE CAN'T
SUSTAIN ITSELF. THOSE ARE THE
CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO BE
HAVING RIGHT ABOUT HOW DO WE
ADDRESS FOOD DESERTS AND HOW DO
WE PREVENT FOOD DESERTS? THIS
BILL, WHILE WELL-INTENTIONED,
DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE FOOD
ACCESS. IT DOES NOTHING TO BRING
GROCERY STORES INTO UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. RIGHT NOW, THERE'S
THREE OTHER BILLS MOVING,
SENATOR RUBIO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WICKS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER ERWIN ALL
HAVE FOOD. DESERT BILLS THAT ARE
GOING TO PROACTIVELY IMPROVE
FOOD ACCESS. MY CONCERN WITH
THIS BILL IS IT WILL ULTIMATELY
HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON
GROCERY STORE OPENINGS, BECAUSE
NOT ONLY WILL IT CREATE ANOTHER
BARRIER FOR STORES TO HAVE TO
CONTEMPLATE AND WHEN THEY OPEN,
BUT THEY'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
THE FACT THAT IN A COMMUNITY
THAT MIGHT BE KIND OF ON THE
MARGINS OF BEING ABLE TO SUSTAIN
A STORE, THEY MIGHT AT SOME
POINT HAVE TO HAVE AN
UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATION WITH
THAT COMMUNITY ABOUT WHY A STORE
DOESN'T WORK. AND THAT'S MY
FINAL POINT WITH THIS KIND OF,
NOTICE. AND THE SITUATION THAT
IT WOULD CREATE IF A GROCERY
STORE ISN'T ABLE TO SUSTAIN
ITSELF IN A COMMUNITY, THAT'S
THAT'S A SYMPTOM OF PROBABLY
GREATER PROBLEMS, RIGHT? AND
CHALLENGES AND NEEDS FOR AN
INVESTMENT IN THAT COMMUNITY.
AND SO IN A SITUATION WHERE A
GROCERY STORE IS CLOSING AND
HAVING TO LEAVE THAT COMMUNITY
AND ISSUE THESE TYPES OF NOTICE,
WHAT IS GOING TO TRIGGER IS
BASICALLY A 60 DAY CONVERSATION
WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS, POLICY
MAKERS ABOUT WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE TO DO BUSINESS THERE,
WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE A
CHILLING EFFECT AND MAKE IT
HARDER FOR FUTURE RETAILERS TO
COME IN. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL
RIGHT, BEFORE WE TAKE THE ME
TOO'S ON IN OPPOSITION, I WANT
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SO, MADAM
SECRETARY, IF YOU WOULD CALL THE
ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING A QUORUM, BERG
HERE. BERG HERE. WILK. ALLEN
ALLEN HERE. ASHBY. ASHBY HERE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. HERE.
RUSSO. GONZALEZ LAIRD. LAIRD.
HERE. MINH NILO. HERE. NILO.
HERE. WAHAB YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S NOW TURN TO THOSE WHO ARE
OPPOSED TO SB 1089. IF YOU WOULD
APPROACH MICROPHONE, GIVE US
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION,
YOUR POSITION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. ANNA LEE AUGUSTINE, ON
BEHALF OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
RESPECT THE AUTHOR'S AMENDMENT.
STILL AN OPPOSED POSITION TO THE
BILL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
GREAT EVENING. CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OPPOSED.
THANKS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1089, LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES, SENATOR
CABALLERO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
LET ME JUST SAY THAT, I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE, AND I APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED AND ACCEPTED, THERE'S
TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, AND I WANT
TO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR
ABOUT, ABOUT WHAT? WHAT WE'RE
DOING. I SERVED IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, AND I SERVED
COMMUNITIES WHERE WE WERE
DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET STORES
IN. AND, AND IT WAS A TOUGH NUT
TO CRACK. IT'S NOT EASY, AND SO
WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING
THAT'S GOING TO SET US UP FOR
FAILURE TO GET THOSE THOSE
STORES TO COME IN. WE WERE TOLD
YOU HAD TO ALLOW THEM TO SERVE
LIQUOR, WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
DID NOT WANT. AND THAT WAS THE
ADDITIONAL BATTLE THAT WE
FOUGHT. ANYWAY, MY POINT IS THIS
ONE IS THE ISSUE OF NOTICE TO
THE EMPLOYEES AND TO THE
COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT, EMPLOYEES HAVE
THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHEN THEIR JOB
IS GOING TO END OR THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO COMMUTE, AND, AND
THAT MAY UPEND A LOT OF THINGS
THAT THEY HAVE ORGANIZED IN
THEIR LIFE. AND SO THE I THINK
THE 60 DAY NOTICE IS, IS
APPROPRIATE. THE ISSUE OF
NUTRITION IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE
BECAUSE THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE
IS, IS TO HAVE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
, I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
MONEY, YOU BUY THE CHEAPEST
THING AND THE CHEAPEST THINGS
ARE THE WORST THINGS FOR YOU
BECAUSE THEY'RE PROCESSED FOODS.
AND SO A BIG PART OF WHAT WE
WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS FIGURE
OUT, DO WE SUPPORT THE MOM AND
POP STORES? SO THEY HAVE
REFRIGERATORS AND CAN KEEP
THINGS IN THEIR STORE THAT ARE
FRESH OR, OR, YOU KNOW, DO WE
TRY TO DO IT THROUGH THE BIG
STORES THAT, THAT ARE NOT
SENSITIVE TO MAYBE WHAT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY NEEDS?
WHAT'S BEEN THE SOLUTION IN THE
LATINO COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN THE
LATINO STORES THAT HAVE COME IN
THE AND I WON'T NAME THEM, BUT
BECAUSE WE'RE IN A SENATE
HEARING. BUT BUT IN MANY
INSTANCES THEY REPLACE THE OTHER
STORES THAT LEAVE AND, THEY COME
IN AND THEY, THEY OFFER FOOD
CHOICES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
WANTS, AND THEN THEY BECOME VERY
BUSY. AND THE, THE, THE CHANGES
IS SIGNIFICANT. SO I WANT TO
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX A LITTLE
BIT AT SOME FUTURE DATE AND SAY,
WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT THE
CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE. AND I DON'T THINK
IT'S A IT'S A BAD IDEA TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT WHAT ARE WE
MISSING, WHAT WOULD BRING YOU IN
INTO THE STORE THAT THAT APPEALS
TO, A FOOD TASTE THAT APPEALS TO
THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
TO KEEP THIS STORE? HIRING
PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
ALSO, DOING WELL. SO I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY, BUT
I THINK THERE'S I WANT TO BE
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT
SAYING BY KEEPING THESE STORES
HERE THAT THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE
IS IMPROVED, BECAUSE WHAT WE
KNOW IS THAT SOME OF THE
PROGRAMS THAT WILK DOES ARE
REALLY TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THEY TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO
COOK, FRESH, FOOD. AND FOR MANY
COMMUNITIES, THE, THE COOKER IN
THE FAMILY DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO
USE THAT. AND I CAN I CAN
TESTIFY MY MOTHER WAS A REALLY
GOOD COOK, BUT THAT THOSE
VEGETABLES WERE WHEN I WAS
GROWING UP. AND IT WASN'T. IT
WAS MOSTLY BECAUSE SHE CAME FROM
THE DESERT. RIGHT. HOW DO YOU
KNOW ABOUT LIVING IN A IN A
LATINO COMMUNITY IN THE DESERT?
SO ANYWAY, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
YOUR BILL TODAY. ALL RIGHTY.
THANK YOU. SENATOR CABALLERO.
SENATOR LAIRD, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. WE HEARD THIS BILL IN THE
LABOR COMMITTEE AND IN THAT
DISCUSSION, THÀNH, I SUGGESTED
THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN PARTS
THAT WERE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
JUDICIARY AND SORT OF SUGGESTED
THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE PRIDE OF
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. AND I
JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THE AUTHOR ADDRESSED THOSE
COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN LABOR
IN THIS COMMITTEE. SO I WILL
SUPPORT THE BILL. ALL RIGHTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR
ALLEN. YEAH, I JUST I WILL,
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LOVE TO
HEAR, FROM MR. CONWAY. HE, HE
WAS WRAPPING UP AND I JUST WANT
TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF, YOUR
SENSE OF SOME OF THESE FOOD
DESERT CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE
VERY REAL. AND WOULD LOVE TO
HEAR THE GROCERS PERSPECTIVE ON
THAT AND HOW THIS BILL INTERACTS
WITH THAT CONCERN. SURE. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD
THE, FORTUNATE EXPERIENCE OF
BEING CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE
MAYOR HERE OF SACRAMENTO. SO
I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW MUCH
COMMUNITIES REALLY FIGHT TO
BRING GROCERY STORES IN THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, NOT ONLY
HAS A REAL MATERIAL BENEFIT TO
PEOPLE JUST IN TERMS OF FEEDING
THEM, BUT IT ALSO IT'S LIKE A
IT'S A RECOGNITION THAT YOUR
COMMUNITY THAT LIKE THAT YOU'VE
GOT THIS THING. AND SO, GROCERY
STORE OPENINGS ARE A GOOD THING.
AND I THINK, ISSUES AROUND FOOD
ACCESS AND FOOD DESERTS ARE
SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS SPENT A LOT OF
TIME ON. THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS
AS WELL, AND SO RIGHT NOW, I
LOOK AT A COUPLE OF EFFORTS THAT
I REFERENCED, SENATOR RUBIO'S
BILL, WHICH WOULD USE GRANTS AND
TAX INCENTIVES TO ACTUALLY PUT
GROCERY STORES IN FOOD DESERTS.
I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF
PROACTIVE LEGISLATION THAT COULD
REALLY DO A LOT TO BRING STORES
TO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT NEED THEM.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO COMPLIMENT MY
FRIENDS AT UFC, BECAUSE THEY'RE
WORKING WITH SENATOR WICKS TO
COME UP WITH A MASTER PLAN TO
LOOK AT FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD
ACCESS. SO I THINK IT'S THINGS
LIKE THAT WHERE WE CAN COME AT
THIS BOTH COMPREHENSIVELY, BUT
ALSO BEING VERY SMART AT KIND OF
THE MICRO LEVEL AND GOING
COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY. BUT I
THINK THERE'S THINGS THAT WE CAN
DO AT THE STATE AND THE LOCAL
LEVEL THAT CAN REALLY BRING
STORES AND BRING FOOD AND BRING
ACCESS TO COMMUNITIES. MY
CONCERN WITH THIS BILL IS THAT
ULTIMATELY IT'S REDUNDANT IN
THAT THAT A LOT OF THE WARNINGS
AND THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
ALREADY EXIST IN STATUTE AND
THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO
HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON
GROCERS COMING INTO
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY'RE
GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT
HAVING A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION
ON THE BACK END. CAN I JUST ASK
THE SENATOR OR THE SPONSOR JUST
ABOUT THIS CHILLING EFFECT
QUESTION OR INCENTIVE? AND I'M
ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE
INCENTIVIZATION QUESTION,
BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE ARE DEALING
WITH VERY SERIOUS, ACCESS
CHALLENGES IN MANY PARTS OF OUR
STATE. AND, I, I HOW ARE YOU
INCORPORATING THESE KINDS OF
BUSINESS DECISIONS INTO YOUR
THINKING ABOUT THE BILL SO THAT
WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH,
YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND
THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GOOD
REASONS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW,
WORKER INFORMATION THAT MOTIVATE
THIS BILL, WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE NOT INADVERTENTLY
IMPACTING, STORE OPENINGS OR
CLOSURES, YOU KNOW, IN A LOT OF
VULNERABLE AREAS. SO HOW DO WE
I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR, YOUR
THINKING ABOUT THIS CHILLING
EFFECT. INCENTIVIZE SEEING
BALANCE AS YOU GO THROUGH THE AS
YOU WORK ON THE BILL. WELL, ONE
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND
THANK YOU TO ALL OF MY FELLOW
SENATORS FOR THEIR FOR THEIR
COMMENTS. AND I AND I THINK TO
YOUR POINT, SENATOR ALLEN, I
THINK SENATOR CABALLERO'S
MESSAGE WAS THAT THIS IS A
COMPREHENSIVE ISSUE AND IT'S
GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS FOOD
DESERTS. THEY DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN
YESTERDAY. THE RESEARCH SHOWS
IT'S BEEN PART OF THE HISTORY OF
DISCRIMINATION, THE HISTORY OF
DISINVESTMENT, THE HISTORY OF
REMOVING AND STRIPPING ASSETS
FROM URBAN CORES WHERE THE
MAJORITY OF BLACK RESIDENTS OF
CALIFORNIA LIVES AND THE RESULT
IS IN MY COMMUNITY IN L.A.
COUNTY, BLACK PEOPLE DIE 17
YEARS SOONER THAN ANYONE ELSE,
17 YEARS SOONER THAN ANYONE
ELSE. SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE
SOLUTION, IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE.
IT'S THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
VALUE OF HEALTHY FOODS. BECAUSE
IN IN SOUTH L.A, THERE ARE, I
THINK IN SOUTH CENTRAL CORE,
THERE ARE THREE RESTAURANTS THAT
YOU COULD ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND
EAT YOUR FOOD. EVERYONE ELSE HAS
THE CHECKOUT COUNTER WHERE YOU
HAVE TO STAND UP AND TAKE YOUR
FOOD TO GO. SO I SAY THIS ALL TO
SAY THAT IT'S, IT IT'S A DEEP
CHALLENGE. AND WHAT I HAVE
APPRECIATED ABOUT WORKING WITH,
THE GROCERY STORE SECTOR, WITH
BLACK COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
ADVOCATING FOR, FOR BLACK HEALTH
AND, AND FOOD ACCESS AND WITH
THE GROCERS IS THAT THIS IS THE
MINIMUM WE CAN DO IS JUST TO
SAY, WHEN A MOTHER IS COMING TO
GET FORMULA FOR HER BABY, SHE
DOESN'T COME AND FACE A CLOSED
STORE OR SENIORS COMING TO GET
THEIR VITAL HEALTH, LIFE SAVING
MEDICATIONS THAT THEY DON'T FACE
A CLOSED STORE. THE MINIMUM WE
CAN DO IN OUR PARTNERSHIP
BECAUSE THESE BUSINESSES DON'T
JUST EXIST BY THEMSELVES,
COMMUNITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED.
THEY'VE SPENT MILLIONS IN THESE
IN THESE BUSINESSES. THEY HAVE
CREATED A GOOD WORKFORCE THAT
ALSO BRINGS PROFIT TO THE
BUSINESS. SO THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT PARTNERSHIP. AND SO THIS
BILL IS ABOUT THAT. AS PARTNERS.
THE BASIC THING WE CAN DO IS TO
NOTIFY A COMMUNITY AND TO NOTIFY
THE WORKERS. SO MY BILL IS
ADDRESSING WHAT I THINK IS ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT FROM THE
REPARATIONS TASK FORCE, THREE
YEARS OF DATA STUDY AND
ANALYSIS, IS THAT THE FIRST
THING WE NEED TO DO IS TO JUST
ADDRESS THIS, THE WOUND AND THAT
IS LET'S PROVIDE REAL
NOTIFICATION AND LET'S PROVIDE A
WAY THAT INFORMATION IS SHARED.
SO THAT COMMUNITIES THAT REQUIRE
A LOT OF LOGISTICAL SUPPORT WHEN
IT COMES TO TRANSPORTATION, OAN
WHEN IT COMES TO SUBSIDIES AND,
AND, AND NEEDING TO MAKE SURE
THAT CERTAIN PROGRAMS ARE
ACCEPTED WHEN IT COMES TO
COMMUNITIES BEING ABLE TO
ACCESS, THE META TRANSIT OR
WHATEVER IT IS THAT'S NECESSARY,
THAT THAT INFORMATION IS THERE.
SO, SO WHEN YOU SO YOUR QUESTION
ABOUT HOW DO WE DEAL WITH
CLOSURES? WELL IS THAT WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, WHY THE GROCERY
STORES ARE CLOSING? LET'S
SENATOR SMALL FINISH. SO YOUR
QUESTION I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE
I'M GETTING TO THE QUESTION OF
WHY, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO
ADDRESS THE FLEEING OF GROCERY
STORES FROM OUR COMMUNITIES? HOW
DO WE ADDRESS THAT? KNOW MY BEST
UNDERSTANDING, MR. CONWAY. MAYBE
CAN CLARIFY. THE COMMENT THAT
WAS MADE WAS A POTENTIAL
CHILLING EFFECT ON NEW
INVESTMENT BY GROCERY SECTOR
INTO TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE THEY'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW,
ABOUT ABOUT ABOUT THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THIS BILL
MIGHT IMPOSE IN A WAY THAT WOULD
GIVE THEM SECOND THOUGHT BEFORE
MOVING INTO, YOU KNOW,
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE'S
ALREADY, YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER
REASON, BEEN A LACK OF
INVESTMENT. WELL, I WILL LET THE
MY, THE SPONSORS ANSWER THE MORE
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT
TO SAY THE GROCERY STORE
INDUSTRY HAS CREATED A CHILLING
EFFECT IN OUR COMMUNITIES AS
HUNDREDS OF STORES HAVE CLOSED.
CRENSHAW BOULEVARD IS A WIDE AND
VIBRANT BOULEVARD, AND WE ARE
LEFT WITH ONE UNIONIZED GROCERY
STORE, ONE IN THIS CORRIDOR
WHERE THERE USED TO BE THREE.
AND SO I AND WE'RE SERVING,
LIVING AROUND THIS HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS. SO I
SAY THIS Ã, WE HAVE HAD A
CHILLING EFFECT, AND IT'S BEEN A
CHILLING EFFECT SINCE THE 80S AS
GROCERY STORES WENT TO THE
SUBURBS TO SUPPORT THOSE
FAMILIES AND CONSOLIDATED WHAT
WAS LEFT IN THE URBAN CORE. AND
NOW WE'RE FACING, YOU KNOW, THE
CONVERSATION THAT THAT THE GOOD
SENATOR MENTIONED, WE'RE FACED
WITH WHAT ARE THE WAYS THAT WE
CAN INCENTIVIZE THIS BILL IS A
COMMON SENSE BILL IN IT'S REAL
PARTNERSHIP, AND IT'S CARE FOR
COMMUNITIES TO GIVE
NOTIFICATION. AND I THINK THAT
THIS BILL DOES NOT CREATE
ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT, WHAT, YOU
KNOW, OUR COMMUNITIES DESERVE,
WHICH IS FAIR NOTIFICATION AND
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH
SITUATING THEIR LIVES TO BE ABLE
TO GET ACCESS TO GET CARE. YOU
KNOW, I WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH ALL OF YOU IN THE
LEGISLATURE TO ADDRESS HOW DO WE
BRING GROCERY STORES INTO OUR
COMMUNITIES? HOW DO WE CREATE
GOOD JOBS AND PROVIDE HEALTHY
FOODS? I THINK THAT IS AN
ONGOING STRUGGLE AND FIGHT THAT
WE HAVE TO COMMIT TO, BECAUSE IT
IS A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT ACCESS
IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT. AND WHEN IT IS
REMOVED, YOU ALSO MUST HAVE FAIR
NOTICE. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
IS ABOUT. AND I'LL HAND IT OVER
TO, I THINK THAT IS IT CAN BE
ANSWERED. I'M BEING YELLED. I
GOT TO GO PRESENT IN GEO. BUT,
ANYWAY, I, I TOTALLY HEAR YOU. I
HOPE THAT YOU'LL ENGAGE IN
CONVERSATION WITH THE GROCERS
JUST TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING. OKAY. BECAUSE. BECAUSE
THERE ARE. I OF, YOU KNOW, THERE
ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, RIGHT?
THERE'S THE BROADER ISSUE. THE
FOOD DESERTS, WHICH, IS A
MASSIVE ONE THAT YOU'VE
ARTICULATED. WELL, YOU KNOW, HOW
DO WE ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW,
THAT WE, THAT WE, THAT WE, THAT
WE ADDRESS THAT CHALLENGE AND
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE
WORRIED ABOUT ABOUT THIS MAY BE
EXACERBATING THAT CHALLENGE. I
UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY,
YOU KNOW, FEEL THAT WAY.
HOPEFULLY YOU'LL ENGAGE IN
DIALOG TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME SOME WAYS
TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING
ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS
BILL THAT COULD EXACERBATE THE
PROBLEM. THAT'S THAT'S MY THAT'S
ALL I'M SAYING. LET ME ASK JUST
A QUICK FOLLOW ON, I THINK
SENATOR ALLEN IS SAYING THERE'S
TWO ASPECTS. ONE, YOU DON'T WANT
STORES TO FOOD STORES OR
PHARMACIES TO CLOSE. AND TWO,
YOU WOULD LIKE MORE FOOD STORES
AND MORE PHARMACIES TO ACTUALLY
ENGAGE IN THE COMMUNITY TO
ACTUALLY BUILD STORES IN THE
COMMUNITY. IS THAT ACCURATE? I
BELIEVE THESE THINGS ARE
INTERSECTIONS. WELL, THEY'RE
INTERSECTIONAL. NOTICE NO, NO
NOTICE AND FOOD ACCESS GO
TOGETHER. BUT BUT YOU WANT
STORES. YOU WANT MORE GROCERY
STORES IN THE COMMUNITY.
ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT.
ABSOLUTELY. SO THE QUESTION I
THINK THAT SENATOR ALLEN WAS
TRYING TO RAISE IS, DO YOU THINK
THAT THIS BILL I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT IT, BUT DO YOU THINK
THAT THIS BILL CREATES A
DISINCENTIVE? AND IF NOT, WHY
NOT? NÓ. THIS BILL DOES NOT
CREATE A DISINCENTIVE BECAUSE
LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A BUSINESS
OPERATES WITH SUPPORT OF
COMMUNITY AND NOTIFYING YOUR
PARTNERS IN ANY INSTANCE IS
NECESSARY. BUT PARTICULARLY WHEN
YOUR PARTNERS ARE VULNERABLE.
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SUPPORTED
THAT BUSINESS. SO I DON'T SEE
THESE THINGS AS TWO SEPARATE. I
THINK THESE ARE INTERSECTIONAL,
AND CERTAINLY I WILL SIT DOWN
WITH ANY GROCERY STORE THAT
WANTS TO COME INTO SOUTH CENTRAL
LOS ANGELES AND PROVIDE FRESH
GROCERIES AND GOOD JOBS. THAT'S
OUR JOB. THAT'S MY ROLE AS A
LEGISLATOR. BUT MY ROLE IS TO
ALSO MAKE SURE THAT COMMUNITIES
WHO HAVE INVESTED IN THESE
BUSINESSES, THAT WE ARE PROPERLY
NOTIFIED WHEN THEY DECIDE TO
LEAVE THESE VITAL LEAVE, OUR
COMMUNITIES WITH THESE VITAL
SERVICES. SO I JUST WANT I, I
DON'T THINK THESE ARE ALL
SEPARATE. I THINK IT'S
INTEGRATED, AND ONE SUPPORTS THE
OTHER. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ASHBY,
THEN SENATOR WAHAB. SENATOR
ASHBY, THANK THANK YOU. AND YOU
OR ME. OKAY. I ASKED BEN ALLEN
TO WALK SLOW BECAUSE I HAVE TO
GET TO GO, TOO. BUT, YOU KNOW,
HIS LEGS ARE A LOT LONGER THAN
MINE. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS, THOUGH. I'M GOING TO
VOTE. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR
BILL TODAY. BUT I DO THINK THAT
AND I, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE
WITH THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE
ACTION. BUT HAVING THAT PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION REMOVED, IT
MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME TO WRAP
MY MIND AROUND. I THINK WHAT I
WANT TO TRY TO CONVEY, AND I
MIGHT ASK MR. CONWAY FOR HELP,
WHO I KNOW VERY WELL, BECAUSE
WHEN HE WAS THE CHIEF OF STAFF
TO THE MAYOR, I WAS THE VICE
MAYOR. AND HE HE I KNOW HE
REPRESENTS THE GROCERS, BUT
FORGET THAT FOR A SECOND. IT
TOOK US OVER A DECADE TO GET A
GROCERY STORE INTO DEL PASO
HEIGHTS. AND IT WASN'T A UNION
GROCERY STORE. WE TRIED AND
TRIED AND TRIED AND TRIED. AL
AND WARREN, ME, KEVIN JOHNSON,
RICK JENNINGS, WE WERE ALL
FIGHTING, FIGHTING. WE FINALLY
GOT ONE RIGHT, AND I, I DON'T
HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT YOU ARE
RIGHTEOUS 100% IN YOUR POSITION
THAT A GROCERY STORE THAT'S
ALREADY ESTABLISHED, THAT'S
GOING TO LEAVE SHOULD BE WORKING
WITH THAT COMMUNITY? ABSOLUTELY.
NOT ONLY ON THE JOBS LOST, BUT
THE PHARMACY AND THE FOOD AND
ALL OF THAT. I THINK WHAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT, WHAT I'M
HEARING FROM A FEW OTHER PEOPLE,
IS FOR A GROCERY STORE THAT'S
NOT IN YOUR COMMUNITY YET, THAT
CRENSHAW BOULEVARD THAT YOU ONLY
HAVE ONE TO GET A COUPLE MORE.
THIS BILL IS GOING TO MAKE THEM
THINK TWICE. I'M JUST GOING TO
SAY THIS. I WOULDN'T WANT THIS
BILL IN PLACE IN DEL PASO
HEIGHTS OR OAK PARK WHEN I'M
TRYING TO RECRUIT SOMEBODY
THERE, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO
SAY TO ME, IT'S EXTRA HARD
BECAUSE IF WE HAVE TO LEAVE, YOU
HAVE IN HERE THIS NÓI PIECE OF
CLOSURE WHERE I'M GOING TO HAVE
TO HAVE THIS TOUGH CONVERSATION
WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHY I
CAN'T STAY THERE ANYMORE,
BECAUSE I CAN'T WE'RE NOT MAKING
ENOUGH MONEY. I THINK
PREEMPTIVELY, BEFORE THEY EVEN
CHOOSE THE COMMUNITY. THIS BILL
MIGHT MAKE IT HARDER. IT'S AN
ADDITIONAL BARRIER. IT'S ALREADY
EXTREME, DIFFICULT IF YOU'VE
BEEN ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SOME.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM
US. LIKE, I'VE HAD THAT FIGHT.
THAT'S A HARD FIGHT. ONE MORE,
YOU KNOW, MAKING THAT HILL JUST
A FEW INCHES HIGHER, IT'S JUST
GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN HARDER TO
GET OVER TO GET THOSE STORES.
BUT I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IF
IT WASN'T A DOWN BUDGET YEAR,
I'D BE TELLING YOU, SCRAP ALL
THIS AND ASK FOR SUBSIDIES FOR
GROCERY STORES IN THESE
COMMUNITIES, WHICH WHICH I KNOW
YOU, YOU KNOW, WOULD SUPPORT,
AND PROBABLY THE GROCERS WOULD
TOO. BUT I AGREE WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING TO DEAL. IT'S NOT JUST
THE GROCERY STORES, IT'S FARMERS
MARKETS AND OPEN SPACES AND
PARKS THAT ARE SAFE. AND THE
WHOLE THING IN YOU ARE SO NOBLY
GOING AFTER ALL OF IT, WHICH IS
WHY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS
TODAY. BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO
CONSIDER, AS IT'S MOVING
FORWARD, HEARING ABOUT HOW MAYBE
YOU COULD REWORD SOME OF IT,
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE THAT FOR
EXISTING GROCERY STORES, MAYBE
IT'S NOT NEW ONES THAT COME ON,
I DON'T KNOW. BUT WHATEVER YOU
FIGURE OUT AS THE BILL MOVES
THROUGH, JUST DON'T MAKE IT
HARDER FOR YOURSELF AND FOR
THOSE LOCAL ENTITIES TO RECRUIT
SENATOR SMOKIES, YOU WANT TO
RESPOND IN YOUR CLOTHES OR RIGHT
NOW I WILL RESPOND IN MY
CLOTHES, BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE
BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO GIVE MY
OKAY TECHNICAL WITNESS TO ANSWER
SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. THESE
ARE ALL REALLY GREAT. YEAH. I
DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ON, THERE
YOU GO. SORRY I MEAN, I
DEFINITELY THINK THAT THIS FOOD
DESERT ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT
IS MULTI-PRONGED AND IT WILL
TAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENT PIECES
OF LEGISLATION TO TRY TO ADDRESS
IT. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT IN TERMS OF THE
CHILLING EFFECT, IT'S THE
CLOSURE THAT'S THE CHILLING
EFFECT. IT'S NOT THE NOTICE. THE
NOTICE PART IS REALLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE WE NEED TO MITIGATE THE
UN, THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF A
CLOSURE TO THE COMMUNITY. BUT I
DON'T SEE HOW GIVING JUST 60
DAYS PRIOR NOTICE TO THE
COMMUNITY DOES ANY MORE OF IT
HAS ANY MORE OF A CHILLING
EFFECT THAN JUST THE CLOSURE BY
ITSELF, BECAUSE THAT IN OF
ITSELF ALREADY RAISES SOME, SOME
NOTICE TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT
WHY IT MIGHT BE HARD TO SURVIVE
THERE, SO AGAIN, THIS BILL
SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO MITIGATE
THE HEALTH IMPACTS ALREADY IN A
FOOD DESERT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN
PEOPLE ARE RELYING ON
PRESCRIPTIONS. POTENTIALLY IT'S
THEIR ONLY SOURCE TO FIND FRESH
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. THEY NEED
TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PLAN FOR
WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR
NEXT PRESCRIPTION, WHERE THEY'RE
GOING TO GET THEIR THEIR NEXT
GROCERY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR,
YOU DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE A
FACTOR, FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, A
GROCERY STORE CHAIN OR A
PHARMACY CHAIN IN DECIDING WHERE
TO LOCATE, YOU DON'T THINK THIS
WILL IMPACT THEIR DECISION? CHEN
I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD HAVE
ANY IMPACT. THEIR DECISION, ANY
MORE THAN JUST THE CLOSURE
ITSELF. I SEE. OKAY, LET ME IN,
MR. CONWAY. YOU'LL GET A CHANCE
HERE IN A SECOND. LET ME TURN TO
SENATOR WAHAB AND LET ME BEFORE
WE TURN TO SENATOR WAHAB, JUST
MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. I KNOW
THAT WE'VE HAD AT LEAST ONE
AUTHOR, POP IN AFTER THIS BILL
WILL ASSUME THIS BILL WILL COME
TO A VOTE, AND THEN WE WILL
BREAK UNTIL 13, 130, AND THEN
WE'LL COME BACK AND CONTINUE
WITH OUR SCHEDULE. SENATOR WAHAB
. THANK YOU, SO I WAS TALKING TO
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND HAVING
SERVED ON LOCAL CITY COUNCIL, SO
I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GIVE A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON HOW
THINGS HAVE GONE, JUST IN REAL
LIFE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A SMALL
TO MEDIUM SIZED CITY, IN THE BAY
AREA THAT'S LARGELY A BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITY, LARGELY A LESS
AFFLUENT CITY. AND IN FACT,
PROBABLY THE LEAST AFFLUENT IN
MY ENTIRE DISTRICT, AND THEY'VE
ALWAYS THE COMMUNITY HAS ALWAYS
WANTED A HEALTHY FOOD STORE
OPTION, LIKE A TRADER JOE'S OR A
WHOLE FOODS OR SOMETHING. RIGHT
AND HISTORICALLY, THEY WERE
NEVER ABLE TO GET IT. ONE OF THE
ARGUMENTS IS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF
LABOR WANTS A FOOD STORE THAT IS
UNION, AND THAT WAS A BATTLE TEN
YEARS PRIOR TO ME GETTING ON
COUNCIL AND SO FORTH. AND I
SERVED ON THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, WHICH IS
THE WHOLE GOAL, IS TO TRACK AND
SEE WHAT TYPE OF INCENTIVES AND
WHAT WORK CAN WE DO AS A CITY
COUNCIL TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES.
HAVING HAD THE CONVERSATIONS
WITH A LOT OF GROCERY STORES AND
WHAT MAKES IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO
A STORE TO COME INTO THE TOWN,
YOU KNOW, A NEIGHBORING CITY,
THE CITY OF FREMONT, THE LARGEST
IN MY DISTRICT, IS FAR MORE
AFFLUENT, RIGHT, AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLD IS OVER SIX FIGURES IN
INCOME AND SO MUCH MORE. THEY
HAD A SPROUTS, A WHOLE FOODS AND
A TRADER JOE'S. RIGHT. AND YOU
THINK ABOUT, OKAY, WHY, WHEN
WE'RE NOT EVEN THAT FAR APART?
THE BARRIER IS A VERY REGIONAL,
AREA. SO IT'S VERY CLOSE
TOGETHER, CLOSE KNIT IN A LOT OF
WAYS. AND THE, THE STORES, THEIR
RESPONSE WAS THAT WHEN THEY LOOK
AT A CITY OF TO WHERE THEY'RE
GOING TO GO, THAT THEY'RE
ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE
EDUCATION LEVEL, NOT NECESSARILY
INCOME LEVEL, NOT NECESSARILY
DEMOGRAPHICS IN RACE OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT, BUT EDUCATION LEVEL,
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, LESS
AFFLUENT INDIVIDUALS ARE USUALLY
ON THE GO, HAVE MULTIPLE JOBS
AND USUALLY HAVE TO PURCHASE
SOMETHING PRETTY QUICK TO GET TO
THEIR NEXT JOB OR THEIR NEXT
ACTIVITY, AND THAT WAS KIND OF
DISAPPOINTING TO SEE, RIGHT. AS
TO THAT'S HOW THEY MEASURE WHAT
MAKES A CITY MORE ATTRACTIVE, WE
ALSO IDENTIFIED TO SEE WHETHER
OR NOT WE HAD FOOD DESERTS.
RIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, THE FOOD
DESERT DEFINITION IN PARTICULAR
OF ROUGHLY A MILE AWAY OF LIKE,
IS FOOD ACCESSIBLE TO FOLKS? AND
YOU HAVE STORES THAT ARE THESE
BIG CHAINS LIKE TARGET THAT NOW
SELL, YOU KNOW, TOMATOES AND
MILK AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE
BASIC NECESSITIES THAT ANY
FAMILY NEEDS, AND YOU'RE SEEING
THESE EFFORTS NOW, I FULLY AGREE
WITH THE FACT THAT, BUSINESSES
NEED TO ANNOUNCE WHEN THEY'RE
GOING TO BE CLOSED BECAUSE PART
OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE, WE KNEW, HEY, WE'RE
IN TALKS THIS BUSINESS IS GOING
TO CLOSE FOR X, Y OR Z. MAYBE
THEY HAD A LOT OF ISSUES. MAYBE
THEY'RE TRANSITIONING TO INSTEAD
OF BRICK AND MORTAR. THEY'RE
TRYING TO TRANSITION TO
E-COMMERCE. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
DELIVERING FOODS. THEY DON'T
EVEN WANT TO GO TO THE STORE. SO
THERE'S A LOT THERE. NOW, I
AGREE WITH THE FOCUS OF THE
BILL, AS TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND
SO FORTH, BUT I ALSO THE PIECE
THAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT,
ESPECIALLY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE
OF A SMALLER TOWN THAT LITERALLY
IS STRUGGLING TO COMPETE WITH
OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES. AS I
MENTIONED. RIGHT, TO ANNOUNCE
EXACTLY WHY WHY THEY HAD TO SHUT
DOWN SOMETIMES. CAN BE USED
NEGATIVELY IN THE SENSE THAT
ANOTHER BUSINESS WILL NOT ENTER
THAT AREA. RIGHT? AND THAT'S NOT
WHAT WE WANT EITHER. SO FOR
EXAMPLE, EVEN IN OUR DOWNTOWN
TOWN THAT HAD A LOT OF CRUMBLING
BUSINESSES AND SO FORTH, WE AS
THE CITY INVESTED HEAVILY ON
INFRASTRUCTURE, ON PIPING AND
SEWAGE, ON YOU NAME IT, TO MAKE
IT MORE DESIRABLE TO ALSO INVEST
IN FIBER OPTICS, TO SAY, OKAY,
WE'RE GOING TO INVEST IN, YOU
KNOW, 21ST, BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
AND SO FORTH. SO I, I SUPPORT
THIS BILL AND I'M GOING TO MOVE
THIS BILL. SO IN DUE TIME,
WHENEVER APPROPRIATE, HOWEVER, I
JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AS
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD, AND I
KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
EVENTUALLY DEAL WITH IT IN THE
ASSEMBLY. AND THE REST OF THE
SENATE FLOOR AND SO FORTH, I
REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE NOT REALLY
THERE YET. RIGHT THERE'S A LOT
OF CONCERNS THAT BUSINESSES HAVE
A LOT OF CONCERNS WHERE THE
SMALLER CITIES THAT ARE
LITERALLY WANTING HEALTHY FOOD
OPTIONS THAT STRUGGLE TO COMPETE
WITH THEIR NEIGHBORING CITIES,
THAT MAY BE MORE AFFLUENT, BUT
ALSO JUST ADDRESSING, BEING MORE
ATTRACTIVE TO A BUSINESS TO
BEGIN WITH. SO I JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT AS A KEY NOTE OF
LIKE SOMETHING THAT I'M
INTERESTED IN SEEING AS THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD AND I'LL MOVE
WHEN APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR WAHAB.
ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS,
SENATOR RUSSELL, THANK YOU. I
JUST WANT TO ADD ONE SHORT,
COMMENT, THIS HAS BEEN LOOKED AT
BY SOME FOLKS AS SOMETHING THAT
WOULD HURT THE COMMUNITY,
SOMETHING THAT WOULD HURT THE
POSSIBILITIES OF GROCERY STORES
OR PHARMACIES COMING IN THE
FUTURE. AND I JUST THINK IT'S
THE EXACT OPPOSITE. BUT WHAT IT
DOES IS GIVE STABILITY TO THAT
COMMUNITY. AND I THINK EVERYONE
LOOKS MORE POSITIVE ON A
COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF
INVESTMENTS WHEN THAT COMMUNITY
IS STABLE. AND IF YOU'VE
STABILIZED BECAUSE, I MEAN,
HOPEFULLY MANY MORE OTHER
BUSINESSES WOULD LOOK AT AND
SAY, OH, I COULD COUNT ON THIS
BUSINESS BEING HERE, I COULD
COUNT ON I CAN RELY ON THIS. AND
IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, WE
WOULD ALL KNOW ABOUT IT. WE
COULD ALL PLAN TOGETHER ABOUT
IT. WE WOULD NOT BE PULLED OUT
OF LEFT FIELD WITH THE DAMAGE
AND NOT KNOWING WHAT IT WOULD
DO. SO I SEE IT EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE. AND I COMMEND YOU AND
WILL SUPPORT THE BILL. ALL RIGHT
. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS.
QUESTIONS, SO, AND I PROMISE,
MR. CONWAY, WE GET A CHANCE TO
RESPOND. THE PROPONENTS SAY THIS
WOULD NOT HAVE THIS WOULD NOT BE
A FACTOR IN ANALYZING WHETHER A
STORE WOULD BE LOCATED IN A
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. YOUR
RESPONSE TO THAT? YEAH. THANK
YOU, CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU TO
THE SENATORS, BECAUSE THIS WAS A
GREAT, DISCUSSION WHERE FOLKS
SAID THINGS MADE POINTS BETTER
THAN I WAS ABLE TO MAKE THEM
MYSELF. I APPRECIATE YOU
DELINEATING BETWEEN THE OPENINGS
AND THE CLOSURES, BECAUSE I
THINK WHEN IT COMES TO CLOSURES,
I THINK THERE'S BASICALLY
AGREEMENT AROUND THE NEED TO
NOTIFY EMPLOYEES IN THE
COMMUNITY BECAUSE THAT ALREADY
EXISTS IN LAW. IT ALREADY EXISTS
IN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. SO
WE'RE NOT HERE TO FIGHT OVER
NOTICE BECAUSE IT'S THERE. AND
THAT'S WHY I KIND OF LED WITH
THE FACT THAT THAT THE NOTICE
PIECE IS REDUNDANT. BUT I THINK
THE OPENING, THE CONVERSATION
AROUND WHAT IT TAKES TO OPEN
MORE STORES IS WHAT'S CRITICAL
HERE. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE CONVERSATION. AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS,
SENATOR DURAZZO, AND SOME OF THE
THINGS I'M SORRY, SENATOR SMALL
CUEVAS AND A BUNCH OF US HAVE TO
GO. SO BASICALLY TAKE 30. WHAT
IT INCENTIVIZES IS SAFER BETS.
SO RATHER THAN LOOKING AT A
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY AND
SAYING, WELL, MAYBE WE CAN MAKE
IT WORK, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY,
YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M GOING TO
STICK TO THE COMMUNITY WHERE I
KNOW THESE STORES WILL WORK. AND
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS,
SENATOR WAHAB, ABOUT THE BROADER
FACTORS. I MEAN, WE HAVE OUR BIG
CITY MAYORS HERE TODAY TALKING
ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND
HOMELESSNESS. LIKE IF WE WANT TO
BRING STORES TO COMMUNITIES, WE
GOT TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE
FACTORS AND CREATE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THANK YOU.
JUST ONE OTHER THING TO
CONSIDER. THE POINT RAISED BY
SENATOR WAHAB IS IF A STORE HAS
TO ANNOUNCE IT'S CLOSING BECAUSE
OF PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS, JUST
ASK YOU TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR
NOT THAT HELPS OR HURTS OTHER
STORES COMING INTO THE
COMMUNITY. JUST. JUST FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. ALL RIGHT. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? IS THERE A
MOTION SENATOR WAHAB HAS MOVED
THE BILL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES,
FOR THIS DEBATE AND
CONVERSATION. AND LIKE I SAID,
WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK
THROUGH ALL OF THE, POINTS THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION, BUT REMEMBER, THIS
IS ABOUT COMMUNITIES. THIS IS
ABOUT VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
INTO THE GOOD SENATOR'S POINT,
HOW DO WE, AS A COMMUNITY HAVE
THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE NEED
AND THE TIMELINE TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, TO, ONE RALLY
BEHIND OUR BUSINESSES AND TO
MAKING SURE THAT THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY, IS ABLE TO ACCESS THE
SERVICES THAT THEY NEED IN REAL
TIME, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR
GROCERY STORES TO COME WAY
BEFORE THIS BILL. WE HAVE BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR GROCERY STORES IN
SOUTH LA FOR THE LAST TEN, 15
YEARS, AND I BELIEVE THIS BILL
IS A WIN ACROSS THE BOARD
BECAUSE IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE
IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES AND IT
ACKNOWLEDGES THE NEED FOR MORE
GROCERY STORES AND SERVICES IN
OUR COMMUNITIES. AND WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE ALREADY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
WAHAB. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 16, SB 1089. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG A UMBERG I
WILK ALLEN. ASHBY. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I RUSSELL TO RUSSELL
I. GONZALEZ LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH.
NILO NØ. NILO. NÓ. WAHAB. WAHAB
I 5 TO 1 FIVE ONE. WE'LL PUT
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING
TO BE IN RECESS NOW UNTIL 130.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 24. SB 1303.
SO HAPPY TO SEE YOU. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR CABALLERO. FILE NUMBER
24, SB 1303, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1303, AN IMPORTANT
BILL TO HELP INCREASE
ACCOUNTABILITY ON PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS. FIRST, LET ME THANK
THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL AND
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
AND AS OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS,
THE LABOR CODE GOVERNING
GOVERNING LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS MANDATES
THAT ALL WORKERS RECEIVE
PREVAILING WAGE. PUBLIC AGENCIES
MUST ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
THESE LAWS, BUT INCREASINGLY
THIS ENFORCEMENT IS DELEGATED TO
PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT THIRD PARTY
COMPLIANCE COMPANIES. IF THE
COMPLIANCE COMPANIES FIND
EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION, THEY
CAN TAKE PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST
THE CONTRACTOR BY WITHHOLDING
PAYMENTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
THE COMPLIANCE COMPANIES
FUNCTION WITH MINIMAL AND
INCONSISTENT PROCESSES, DESPITE
RECEIVING PUBLIC DOLLARS TO DO
THIS WORK. ADDITIONALLY, THE
LACK OF RULES REGARDING CONFLICT
OF INTEREST AND PRIOR
AFFILIATIONS WITH CONTRACTORS
CAN COMPROMISE ENFORCEMENT
INTEGRITY. THIS BILL WILL ENSURE
THAT IF A PUBLIC AGENCY
CONTRACTS WITH THE PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE A PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECT AND DELEGATES THE
ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR COMPLIANCE
TO A FOR PROFIT THIRD PARTY
COMPLIANCE, COMPANY LAWS ARE IN
PLACE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY
OF THE PROCESS. SB 1303 WILL
REQUIRE THIRD PARTY COMPLIANCE
COMPANIES TO DISCLOSE ANY
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO THE
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS
ENFORCEMENT TO AWARDING
AGENCIES, AND WILL PROHIBIT
THIRD PARTY COMPLIANCE COMPANIES
FROM RECEIVING CONTRACTS. IF
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST EXIST, THE
BILL WILL ESTABLISH A STRUCTURED
PROCESS FOR THIRD PARTY
COMPLIANCE COMPANIES TO FOLLOW.
IF THEY BELIEVE A VIOLATION HAS
OCCURRED, ENSURING FAIRNESS AND
TRANSPARENCY IN THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS, AND FINALLY, THE BILL
MANDATES THAT AWARDING AGENCIES
AND THIRD PARTY COMPLIANCE
COMPANIES SEEK RESOLUTION OF
DISPUTED LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS BY
CONFERRING WITH CONTRACTORS
BEFORE WITHHOLDING FUNDS AND
STALLING PROJECTS WITH ME TODAY
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL AND HELP ADDRESS ANY
QUESTIONS. IS ELMER ELMER
LIZARDI FROM THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION, AND ROB
CARRION FROM THE OPERATING
ENGINEERS LOCAL THREE AND
CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS, ELMER
LOZADA WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, THE FEDERATION
SUPPORTS EFFORTS TO ENFORCE
CALIFORNIA'S LABOR LAWS ON EVERY
WORKSITE, ESPECIALLY ON PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS WHERE PRIVATE
COMPANIES ARE RECEIVING PUBLIC
DOLLARS TO DO THIS WORK, SB 1303
WILL HELP ACHIEVE THIS GOAL BY
INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY OF FOR
PROFIT LABOR COMPLIANCE
ENTITIES, WHICH OVERSEES CERTAIN
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS UNDER
EXISTING LAW, PUBLIC AGENCIES
THAT AWARDS FUNDS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS ARE TASKED WITH
ENSURING THAT PARTIES COMPLY
WITH LABOR STANDARDS. RECENTLY,
AS SENATOR CAVALLARO HAS
MENTIONED, WE HAVE SEEN AN
INCREASE IN THESE PUBLIC
AGENCIES CONTRACTING OUT THIS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT COMPLIANCE
WORK TO FOR PROFIT THIRD PARTY
COMPANIES. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE
COMPANIES OPERATE WITH LITTLE TO
NO STATE REGULATION, AND THIS
HURTS CONTRACTORS, THE STATE AND
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO DEPEND
ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS FOR
THEIR LIVELIHOODS. FOR EXAMPLE,
ONE OF THE MAJOR GAPS IN CURRENT
LAW, AS MENTIONED, IS THAT THESE
FOR PROFIT COMPLIANCE GROUPS CAN
OVERSEE PROJECTS EVEN IF THEY
HAVE PROBLEMATIC CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST. THIS LEADS TO PRIVATE
COMPLIANCE GROUPS OBJECTIVELY
ENFORCING LAWS IN WAYS THAT
UNFAIRLY STALL PROJECTS OR
ABRUPTLY FREEZE THE FUNDING THAT
PAYS CONSTRUCTION WORKERS FOR
THEIR HARD WORK. SB 13 1303
BRINGS MUCH NEEDED
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THESE PRIVATE
COMPLIANCE GROUPS BY REQUIRING
THEM TO FULLY DISCLOSE POTENTIAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO
AWARDING BODIES. WITH THESE
SIMPLE FIXES, THIS BILL WILL
HELP ENSURE THAT THESE COMPANIES
AND THE PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT
CONTRACTS WORK TO THEM ARE FULLY
ACCOUNTABLE AND EFFECTIVELY
ENFORCING LABOR LAW TO PROTECT
PUBLIC DOLLARS AND WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT WITNESS. MIKE? YEAH, THERE
IT IS, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.
AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND ROB
CARRY ON WITH THE OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NUMBER
THREE. AND ON THEIR BEHALF AND
THE CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, WE ARE A
PROUD CO-SPONSORS OF, SB 1303,
WHICH WILL PROVIDE NEEDED
CLARITY IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH
AN AWARDING AGENCY CONTRACTS
WITH THE THIRD PARTY TO PERFORM
LABOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING ON
THEIR BEHALF. EXISTING LAW
PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTION
1726 AUTHORIZES AWARDING BODIES
OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS TO
WITHHOLD PAYMENTS FROM
CONTRACTORS IN SITUATIONS IN
WHICH THE AWARDING BODY
DETERMINES THAT PUBLIC WORKS
LAWS AREN'T BEING PROPERLY
FOLLOWED. AND I WOULD NOTE THAT
THIS IS GREAT POLICY THAT HELPS
ENSURE OUR STRONG PUBLIC WORKS
LAWS ARE BEING ADHERED TO.
HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN AN
INCREASE OF AWARDING AGENCIES
TURNING OVER THIS RESPONSIBILITY
TO PRIVATE THIRD PARTIES, WHO
THEN TAKE THE POWERFUL STEP OF
WITHHOLDING FUNDS FROM
CONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THESE THIRD PARTY FOR
PROFIT COMPLIANCE GROUPS ARE NOT
THEMSELVES PARTY TO COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND HAVE
LIMITED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ITEMS
THAT ARE COVERED IN THEM. THIS
HAS LED TO HIGH ROAD UNION
CONTRACTORS WHO ARE FOLLOWING
THE LAW, AND THE TERMS OF THEIR
CBAS, HAVING FUNDS WITHHELD FROM
THE PROJECTS THEY ARE WORKING
ON. AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED,
SB 1303 WOULD REQUIRE FOR PROFIT
COMPLIANCE GROUPS TO DISCLOSE IF
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS
AND WOULD CLARIFY THAT AWARDING
AGENCIES CANNOT UTILIZE THESE
GROUPS IN SITUATIONS OF WHICH A
CONFLICT EXISTS. THE BILL WOULD
ALSO ESTABLISH A PROCESS WHEREBY
FOR PROFIT COMPLIANCE GROUPS
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MEET WITH
PARTIES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS PRIOR TO WITHHOLDING
FUNDS, AND NOTIFY THE DIVISION
OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
OF THEIR INTENT TO WITHHOLD
FUNDS. WITH THAT BEING SAID, SB
1303 SEEKS TO PROVIDE STATUTORY
GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF FOR
PROFIT LABOR COMPLIANCE GROUPS
BY AWARDING BODIES. WE
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, ALL THOSE WHO WISH TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 1303,
PLEASE LINE UP AT THE
MICROPHONE. GIVE US YOUR NAME,
YOUR AFFILIATION, YOUR POSITION.
MY NAME IS JESSE BEAR WITH THE
OPERATING ENGINEERS AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS MIKE MONAHAN OF
THE STATE BUILDING TRADES IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, LET'S
NOW TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1303,
PLEASE APPROACH EITHER THE TABLE
OR THE MICROPHONE. I'M SEEING NO
ONE APPROACHING THE TABLE OR
MICROPHONE, LET'S TURN TO THE
COMMITTEE. IF THERE ARE
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
OR COMMENTS QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, IS THERE A MOTION?
SENATOR KABIRU, YOU I THINK
YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENTS.
IS THAT RIGHT? YOU DID. OKAY.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? WOULD YOU
LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? SENATOR
RUSSELL? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR RUSSELL HAS MOVED THE
BILL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
24, SB 1303. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER A MÀ I
WILK NOT VOTING. ALLEN ALLEN.
AYE. ASHBY. CABALLERO AYE.
CABALLERO. AYE. DURAZZO.
DURAZZO. AYE GONZALEZ. LAIRD.
MINH NILO. WAHAB 4 TO 0 FOUR
ZERO. PUT THAT ON CALL. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATOR CABALLERO. I SEE SENATOR
WIENER HERE. I DON'T THINK WE'LL
TAKE SENATOR WIENER OUT OF
ORDER. HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING
TO DO. IS IF YOU'RE AN AUTHOR
AND YOU APPEAR, WE WILL TAKE
NEXT IN ORDER BY FILE ORDER. IF
WE HAVE NO AUTHORS, THEN I'M
GOING TO LOOK TO THE COMMITTEE,
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF
AUTHORS WHO ARE ON THE
COMMITTEE, AND I'LL ASK THEM TO
START TO PRESENT THEIR BILLS.
SO, SENATOR WIENER, IS IT ITEM
NUMBER 17, SB 1037, DO YOU WISH
TO PRESENT TODAY? YES. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY,
MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR,
WORKING WORKING FOR YOU AND YOUR
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US ON SB
1037. AND I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT OUTLINED
IN THE BILL ANALYSIS. YES, I'M
PRESENTING SB 1037, A MEASURE,
SPONSORED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BONTA, COLLEAGUES, AS YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE WE'VE ALL GONE THROUGH
THIS TOGETHER IN RECENT YEARS,
WE HAVE TAKEN VERY SIGNIFICANT
AND IMPACTFUL STEPS, IN, IN
ADVANCING HOUSING PRODUCTION AT
ALL INCOME LEVELS IN CALIFORNIA
AND MAKING IT EASIER AND FASTER,
TO GET NEW HOMES PERMITTED,
ZONED FOR PERMITTED, BUILT.
WE'VE ALSO MADE SIZABLE
FINANCIAL, INVESTMENTS IN
SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THESE EFFORTS ARE BEGINNING
TO BEAR FRUIT. IT'S GOING TO
TAKE TIME, BUT WE'RE MOVING IN A
POSITIVE DIRECTION, THE A LARGE
MAJORITY OF CITIES IN CALIFORNIA
ARE EITHER COMPLYING OR MAKING
GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY
WITH STATE HOUSING LAW.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A
MINORITY, RELATIVELY SMALL
MINORITY, BUT A MINORITY OF
CITIES IN CALIFORNIA THAT ARE
NOT MAKING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS.
AND THAT ARE NOT JUST VIOLATING
STATE HOUSING LAW BECAUSE THEY
FORGOT TO DO SOMETHING OR THEY
MADE A MISTAKE, BUT ARE JUST
BRAZENLY BRAZEN, IGNORING STATE
HOUSING LAW, EITHER REFUSING TO
GRANT PERMITS FOR PROJECTS THAT
ARE CLEARLY REQUIRED TO BE
PERMITTED UNDER STATE LAW, OR
SIMPLY, REFUSING TO ENACT A
COMPLIANT HOUSING ELEMENT.
UNFORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW, THERE
ARE, VERY FEW, CONSEQUENCES FOR
THIS, THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE
LAW, ULTIMATELY, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS THE ABILITY TO FILE
A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY TO
FORCE COMPLIANCE, BUT IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FILES THAT
LAWSUIT, GOES ALL THE WAY
THROUGH THE LITIGATION AND WINS,
AND THE COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE CITY, THE CITY STILL
HAS A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME
TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND
AVOID, FINANCIAL PENALTIES. SO
THAT MEANS THAT CITIES HAVE,
THEIR ONLY INCENTIVE TO AVOID
LITIGATION IS NOT WANTING TO PAY
ATTORNEY'S FEES, BECAUSE LAWS
THEY CAN FORCE A LAWSUIT AND
FORCE AN ENTIRE LITIGATION AND
LOSE, AND THEN STILL AVOID
PENALTIES, SO THIS BILL WILL,
END THAT INCENTIVE OR THAT
INCENTIVE TO JUST GO INTO
LITIGATION BY SAYING THAT IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SUES YOU, IF
YOU GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE
LAWSUIT WITHOUT SETTLING, IF
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST YOU,
THEN THE COURT WILL IMPOSE FINES
, GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF
THE VIOLATION, THERE ARE SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION IN THEIR LETTERS
AND A TESTIMONY HAVE TALKED
ABOUT. OH, IT WAS JUST AN HONEST
MISTAKE. AN HONEST MISTAKE IS
ONE THAT GETS CORRECTED WELL
BEFORE LITIGATION STARTS. IT'S
NOT AN HONEST MISTAKE. WHEN YOU
GO THROUGH AN EXTENDED PRE
LITIGATION, PERIOD OF TIME,
LAWSUITS ARE FILED. THE ENTIRE
LITIGATION JUDGMENT. THAT IS NOT
A GOOD FAITH HONEST MISTAKE, AND
THIS WILL REMOVE THE INCENTIVE,
TO VIOLATE STATE LAW AND WILL
CREATE A BIG INCENTIVE TO AVOID
LITIGATION. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. I DO WANT TO
JUST MENTION ONE OTHER THING,
THAT THE FINES WILL BE PLACED IN
A FUND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
THAT CITY, AND SO I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE WITH ME
TODAY. TESTIFY, FROM THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. CHEN
STANFORD, AND FRANCESCA MARTY
FROM CALIFORNIA AM. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M JANICE
STANFORD. I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE FOR THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND I HAVE WITH ME ALSO
TODAY, ALEX FISH, WHO'S A
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR HOUSING, WHO'S
AVAILABLE TO HELP ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE
ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING SENATOR WIENER FOR
AUTHORING THIS BILL, WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR. AS YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA
IS FACING A SEVERE HOUSING
SHORTAGE AND AFFORDABILITY
CRISIS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
PASSED STRONG LAWS IN RECENT
YEARS TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS,
INCLUDING OVER A DOZEN
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL LAWS. BUT
THOSE LAWS WILL ONLY MOVE THE
NEEDLE TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING
CRISIS IF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOLLOW THEM. ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA HAS MADE ENFORCEMENT
OF HOUSING LAWS A TOP PRIORITY
AND HAS TAKEN ACTION AGAINST
SOME OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS
VIOLATORS, BUT THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE UNDER EXISTING LAW ARE
NOT EFFECTIVELY DETERRING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM VIOLATING THESE
LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE. DESPITE
THE MINISTERIAL APPROVAL LAWS ON
THE BOOKS, SEVERAL CITIES HAVE
BEEN RELUCTANT TO PROCESS
QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS
MINISTERIALLY, INSTEAD IMPOSING
LOCAL REQUIREMENT AND OTHER
CREATIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
THAT DEVIATE FROM THE CLEAR,
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ESTABLISHED.
THIS FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL LAWS, WHICH
IS TO STREAMLINE APPROVALS AND
BUILD HOUSING QUICKLY. AND WHILE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE TASKED
WITH PLANNING TO MEET THE NEEDS,
THE HOUSING NEEDS OF THEIR
COMMUNITIES, THERE ARE OVER 200
JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING ELEMENT
LAW. THIS NONCOMPLIANCE CONSUMES
PUBLIC RESOURCES. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL COULD DO MORE TO ADVANCE
OTHER IMPORTANT STATE HOUSING
PRIORITIES. IF EVERY
JURISDICTION PROMPTLY COMPLIED
WITH A SIMPLE BLACK AND WHITE
DEADLINE TO ADDRESS THESE
RAMPANT COMPLIANCE ISSUES, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MUST BE DETERRED
FROM VIOLATING HOUSING LAWS.
EFFECTIVE MONETARY PENALTIES
WILL SERVE AS A DETERRENT AND
STRENGTHEN THE STATE'S HAND.
WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WARNS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT THEY'RE
OUT OF COMPLIANCE, AND FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT REFUSE TO
COMPLY, WHO SHIRK THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET THEIR
FAIR SHARE OF REGIONAL AND
STATEWIDE HOUSING NEEDS, SB 1037
WOULD ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO HOLD THEM QUICKLY TO ACCOUNT.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS,
HELLO, CHAIR UMBERG.
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS FRANCESC MARTI, AND I'M
THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY
AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT
CALIFORNIA DMV, A GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION WITH OVER 80,000
MEMBERS DEDICATED TO ENSURING
THAT CALIFORNIA'S A PLACE OF
ABUNDANCE, SECURE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR ALL. I AM HERE TODAY
TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG SUPPORT
FOR SB 1037 AUTHORED BY SENATOR
WIENER, WHICH AIMS TO STRENGTHEN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S
CRITICAL HOUSING LAWS. AT
CALIFORNIA DMV, WE FIRMLY
BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSING LAWS BY
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN
RECENT YEARS ARE ESSENTIAL TOOLS
IN ADDRESSING OUR STATE'S SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. THESE
LAWS, INCLUDING MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL LAWS, WERE DESIGNED TO
STREAMLINE HOUSING PRODUCTION
AND ENSURE THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING THEIR PART
TO MEET THE HOUSING NEEDS OF
THEIR COMMUNITIES. HOWEVER, WE
HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW THE LACK
OF COMPLIANCE BY SOME LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAS HINDERED
PROGRESS TOWARDS OUR STATE'S
HOUSING GOALS. WHEN CITIES AND
COUNTIES FAIL TO PROCESS
QUALIFYING APPLICATIONS,
MINISTERIALLY UPDATE THEIR THEIR
HOUSING ELEMENT OR OR WHEN THEY
IMPOSE ADDITIONAL LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS, THEY ARE
EFFECTIVELY UNDERMINING THE
INTENT OF THESE LAWS AND SLOWING
DOWN MUCH NEEDED HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION. FURTHERMORE, THE
FACT THAT OVER 200 JURISDICTIONS
ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE
WITH HOUSING ELEMENT LAW IS
DEEPLY CONCERNING. WHEN CITIES
FAIL TO ADHERE TO THESE LAWS,
THEY IMPEDE THE STATE'S OVERALL
ABILITY TO MEET CRITICAL HOUSING
NEEDS. THIS NONCOMPLIANCE NOT
ONLY OBSTRUCTS POTENTIAL HOUSING
PROCESS, BUT ALSO PERPETUATES
INEQUALITY IN HOUSING ACCESS AND
AFFORDABILITY. IT'S A CYCLE THAT
DEEPENS THE CRISIS RATHER THAN
ALLEVIATING IT. WE BELIEVE THAT
SB 1037 IS A CRUCIAL STEP IN
ADDRESSING THESE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES AND ENSURING THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW BY
ALLOWING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
SEEK EFFECTIVE MONETARY
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, THIS
BILL WILL SERVE. THANK YOU.
WOULD YOU MIND WRAPPING IT UP?
EXCUSE ME. FURTHERMORE, THE
FUNDS COLLECTED FROM THESE
PENALTIES ARE EARMARKED TO
DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY, OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF SB, 1037, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
CATHERINE CHARLES HERE ON BEHALF
OF HOUSING ACTION COALITION AND
SUPPORT, THANK YOU FOR MEETING
DE JESUS WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF SPUR CIVIC
WEALTH, THE GREENBELT ALLIANCE
AND YIMBY ACTION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1037, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. IF
YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE TABLE,
I'LL ASK ONE OF THE PROPONENTS
TO PLEASE STAND. THANKS GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BRADY GERHARDT, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES,
FIRST WANTED TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE FOR THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ON SB 1037.
AS WELL AS THE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THESE
CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN VERY
PRODUCTIVE, AND WE APPRECIATE
THE WAY THE BILL HAS BEEN
IMPROVED WITH THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU
TODAY. WITH THAT SAID, WE STILL
MUST RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE
MEASURE AT THIS TIME. CAL CITIES
BELIEVES THAT THE MEASURE IS
HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION,
BUT WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS WITH
SECTION TWO B OF THE BILL,
SPECIFICALLY THE LANGUAGE STATES
THAT LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS OR
ACTIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO
ESTABLISHED PUBLIC POLICY OR
PROCEDURE, BE UNFAIR COULD
RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT, OVERLY
PUNITIVE FINES FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING CITIES
THAT ARE MAKING GOOD FAITH
EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH STATE
LAW. THIS LANGUAGE IS EXTREMELY
BROAD, VAGUE AND UNCLEAR IN WHAT
ACTIONS COULD ENTAIL PUNISHMENTS
FROM THE STATE AND GIVES LEEWAY
TO PUNISH GOOD FAITH ACTORS FOR
A GENUINE DISAGREEMENT OR
MISUNDERSTANDING OF STATE LAW
WITHOUT ALLOWING THEM TO CORRECT
THE VIOLATION. CAL CITIES
APPRECIATES THE EFFORTS BY
SENATOR WIENER AND THIS
COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE THAT GOOD
FAITH ACTORS ARE NOT PUNISHED
FOR THEIR EFFORTS, BUT BELIEVES
THAT FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE
LANGUAGE ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE
THESE GOALS CLEARER. IN THE
PROPOSAL, CAL CITIES LOOKS
FORWARD TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS
AND APPRECIATES THE OTHERS
AUTHOR'S WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH US IN ADDRESSING
OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU, AND I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSAL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1037, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. SEEING
NO ONE APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE, LET'S BRING IT TO
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS
BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS? IS THERE A
MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER?
SENATOR ASHBY MOVES THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
WIENER, AND I APPRECIATE YOU
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE. I
SHARE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS
ABOUT CITIES THAT ARE ATTEMPTING
TO COMPLY IN GOOD FAITH. AND
BECAUSE OF ONE REASON OR
ANOTHER, THAT THEY ARE THWARTED
IN THEIR EFFORT. AND I KNOW
YOU'VE ALSO ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS
THAT. I LOOK FORWARD TO
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IF YOU THINK
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY
. BUT THERE ARE SOME CITIES, AND
I'M FAMILIAR WITH ONE IN
PARTICULAR THAT IS IN WILLFUL
VIOLATION AND PROUD THEREOF. SO
THOSE CITIES NEED WHERE WE'RE
ENFORCEMENT IS NEEDED. THEY
SHOULDN'T GET A FREE RIDE IN
TERMS OF COST TO ALL OF US,
HAVING SAID THAT, SENATOR
WIENER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
AND WE DO APPRECIATE THE WORK ON
THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE
ACCEPTING TODAY. ARE ARE WE'RE
NOT TRYING THIS IS NOT ABOUT
PUNISHING CITIES THAT ARE REALLY
TRYING AND JUST HAVING SOME
CHALLENGES. THERE ARE AND I
ALSO, JUST TO BE REALLY CLEAR,
THIS IS ONLY AFTER THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DOESN'T RUN AROUND
FILING THESE LAWSUITS LEFT AND
RIGHT. IT'S VERY SELDOM. AND
IT'S ONLY AFTER LOTS OF EFFORT
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY HCD
TO TRY TO HELP CITIES COME INTO
COMPLIANCE. SO THIS IS A SMALL
SUBSET OF CITIES THAT HAVE GONE
NOT JUST TO LITIGATION BUT TO
COURT JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
MADAM SECRETARY, SENATOR ASHBY
HAS MOVED THE BILL. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 17, SB 1037. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER Ã
I WILK NØ. WILK. NØ ALAN ASHBY
AS ASHBY. AYE. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. RUSSELL Dð.
RUSSELL. AYE. GONZALEZ. LAIRD
MEN. NILO. WAHAB. YOU HAVE 4 TO
1, 4 TO 1. WE'LL PUT THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU, SENATOR WIENER.
I SEE SENATOR PADILLA, SENATOR
PADILLA, YOU NORMALLY WOULD NOT
GO NEXT, BUT BECAUSE YOU'RE IT
YOU'RE IT. SO, AFTER SENATOR
PADILLA, IF WE'RE CONTINUING TO
GO IN FILE ORDER, THEN IT WOULD
BE SENATOR MENGIBAR. THEN,
SENATOR SKINNER AND THEN,
SENATOR, THEN SENATOR LAIRD THEN
WE'RE DOWN TO JUST, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. SO. ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR
PADILLA. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS, I'D LIKE
TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS AND
THANKING THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH OUR STAFF ON THIS
BILL. LATER THIS YEAR, THERE
WILL BE NATIONAL ELECTIONS IN
SEVERAL IMPORTANT DEMOCRATIC
NATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE,
INCLUDING OURS. MEANWHILE,
HOSTILE, AUTOCRATIC NATIONAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE VASTLY EXPANDING
MISINFORMATION EFFORTS TO SOW
DISCORD AND INFLUENCE OUR
ELECTIONS. THE EMERGENCE OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOW
EMPOWERED HOSTILE ACTORS TO SOW
DISCORD WITH INCREDIBLY
REALISTIC FAKE IMAGES AND EVEN
VOICE RECORDINGS. AI IS AN
EXTRAORDINARILY POWERFUL TOOL IN
THE DIGITAL AGE, WHICH CAN HAVE
ENORMOUS INFLUENCE OVER OUR
PUBLIC DISCOURSE, AND
MISINFORMATION ONLINE CAN GO
VIRAL IN A MATTER OF A FEW
HOURS. THE AVERAGE CONSUMER, THE
AVERAGE PERSON, DOES NOT HAVE
CONVENIENT TOOLS AT THE MOMENT
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CONTENT
PRODUCED BY A REPUTABLE NEWS
SOURCE OR AI GENERATED
MISINFORMATION, OR, FOR THAT
MATTER, INTENTIONALLY HARVESTED
REAMS OF MISINFORMATION
DISGUISED AS NEWS. MANY ALSO
LACK THE LACK THE KNOWLEDGE OF
HOW TO IDENTIFY AI GENERATED
MISINFORMATION DUE TO HOW NEW
AND HOW IMPACTFUL THIS NEW
TECHNOLOGY IS. SB 1228 WOULD
REQUIRE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
TO REQUEST IDENTIFICATION
IDENTITY VERIFICATION FROM
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL USERS AND
INFLUENTIAL USERS. AS DEFINED IN
THE DRAFT, AND NOTE, WHENEVER
THE USER IS AUTHENTICATED OR
UNAUTHORIZED, LOCATED. THIS IS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONSUMER
OF THE INFORMATION. A RECENT
ARTICLE IN THE WASHINGTON POST
UNCOVERED THOUSANDS OF KREMLIN
DIRECTED BOTS AND WEBSITES
FLOODING EUROPE WITH
DISINFORMATION AHEAD OF EU
ELECTION MASQUERADES AS
LEGITIMATE NEWS THE NEW YORK
TIMES ALSO RECENTLY FOUND MANY
NEWS SITES WITH RUSSIAN TIES
USED TO SPREAD DISINFORMATION,
AIDED BY AI GENERATED CONTENT TO
FOOL CASUAL READERS INTO
THINKING THEY ARE READING A
GENUINE ARTICLE. NUMEROUS
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT ONLINE
ANONYMITY RESULTS IN INCREASED,
UNCONSTRAINED POSTINGS AND
AGGRESSIVENESS. MANY SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS ALREADY CONTAIN
SOME FORM OF IDENTITY
VERIFICATION. INDEED, WE ONLY
NEED TO LOOK, AS YOUR ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT, TO THE BANKING
INDUSTRY AND THE LENDING
INDUSTRY FOR SOUND, KNOW YOUR
CUSTOMER PRACTICES. I WANT TO
REITERATE THIS BILL DOES NOT
REQUIRE SOCIAL MEDIA CONSUMERS
TO BE VERIFIED, NOR DOES IT ASK,
OR SEEK TO SUPPRESS THE CONTENT
OF INFORMATION, BUT RATHER TO
PROVIDE CONSUMERS OF THE
INFORMATION OAN INFORMATION AS
TO WHETHER THE SOURCE AND USER
PUTTING OUT CONTENT IS
AUTHENTICATED OR NOT. WITH ME
TODAY, I HAVE MARIKO YOSHIHARA
WITH CITED AND DOCTOR LAURA
MATHER, A CYBER SECURITY EXPERT
AND FORMER CEO OF SILVER TRAIL
SYSTEMS. ALRIGHTY, WHO WOULD
LIKE TO GO FIRST, MISS YOSHIHARA
OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS MARIKO YOSHIHARA,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND
DEMOCRACY, ALSO KNOWN AS CITED,
CITED AS A NEW PROJECT OF
CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE SEEKING
TO ADDRESS ELECTION
DISINFORMATION THAT IS BEING
TURBOCHARGED BY SOCIAL MEDIA, AI
AND OTHER EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
REYES. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
START BY REITERATING WHAT THIS
BILL DOES NOT DO. THIS BILL DOES
NOT PROHIBIT ANONYMOUS SPEECH
ONLINE. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
PLATFORMS TO FORCE USERS TO
VERIFY THEIR IDENTITY AND IT
DOES NOT PREVENT USERS FROM
USING PSEUDONYMS OR NO NAME AT
ALL WHEN THEY'RE ENGAGING IN
ONLINE SPEECH. THIS BILL SIMPLY
REQUIRES PLATFORMS TO SEEK TO
VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF USERS
ONCE THEY'VE REACHED A CERTAIN
THRESHOLD THAT WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED, THAT WE HAVE DEFINED
AS INFLUENTIAL OR HIGHLY
INFLUENTIAL, MEANING THAT THEIR
CONTENT IS BEING VIEWED BY
HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
WITHIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF
TIME, BECAUSE THAT IS HOW MIS
AND DISINFORMATION IS SPREAD,
BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHO IS
BEHIND THE CONTENT THAT THEY'RE
VIEWING, THE CONTENT THAT
THEY'RE VIEWING, AND WHETHER
IT'S REAL OR FAKE. SO THIS BILL
IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE USERS WHO
ARE CONSUMING THAT CONTENT WITH
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO'S
IDENTITY IS AUTHENTICATED, SO
THAT THEY CAN BETTER ASSESS
WHETHER WHAT WHAT THEY'RE
VIEWING IS CREDIBLE AND
TRUSTWORTHY OR NOT. AND IT WILL
ALSO HELP MITIGATE THE SPREAD OF
UNCONSTRAINED AND FRICTIONLESS
MIS AND DISINFORMATION THAT IS
REALLY POLLUTING OUR INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEM. AND THREATENING THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND
OUR DEMOCRACY. LIKE NEVER
BEFORE. AND THAT IS OUR STATE'S
COMPELLING INTEREST. AND THIS
BILL IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO
ENSURE THAT FREE SPEECH,
INCLUDING ANONYMOUS SPEECH, IS
PROTECTED. AND FOR THESE
REASONS, WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT WITNESS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LAURA MATHER AND I AM ON THE
ADVISORY BOARD OF CITED IN
ADDITION, I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST
EMPLOYEES OF EBAY'S TRUST AND
SAFETY ORGANIZATION, AND IT WAS
MY JOB TO PROTECT EBAY USERS,
OFTEN THROUGH USER VERIFICATION.
AND AFTER THAT, I STARTED MY OWN
CYBERSECURITY COMPANY. WE
PROTECTED BRANDS LIKE CITIBANK,
BANK OF AMERICA, E-TRADE, APPLE,
MICROSOFT. I'VE ACTUALLY DONE
THE JOBS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
OPPOSITION, SO I UNDERSTAND
EXACTLY THE PLACE THAT THEY'RE
IN. MOSTLY, I WANT TO RESPOND TO
THAT OPPOSITION. YOU NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THESE COMPANIES
MAKE THEIR MONEY BY VERIFYING
PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN TARGET
THEM FOR ADVERTISING. THIS IS
WHAT THEY DO FOR THEM TO SAY
THAT THIS BILL WILL IMPEDE THEIR
ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT TO VERIFY PEOPLE. THAT'S A
LITTLE BIT IRONIC, GIVEN THAT'S
THEIR WHOLE JOB. THEY NEED TO
KNOW WHO PEOPLE ARE SO THAT THEY
CAN TARGET THEM FOR ADVERTISING.
IN ADDITION, I'VE WORKED WITH
MULTIPLE BRANDS THROUGH MY TWO
DECADES IN THIS SPACE, AND I CAN
TELL YOU THAT THESE
ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALREADY
VERIFYING THEIR USERS. THEY NEED
TO KNOW IF A USER IS A BOT. THEY
NEED TO KNOW IF THEY'RE UNDER
THE AGE OF 13. THEY NEED TO KNOW
IF YOU ALL LIVE IN SACRAMENTO.
SO AGAIN, SO THAT THEY CAN
TARGET THEM. THE FACT THAT THEY
HAVE TEAMS PERFORMING THESE
TYPES OF VERIFICATION LINES
MEANS THAT THIS IS NOT A
CHALLENGE FOR THEM. AND THEN
WHEN IT COMES TO EVEN DEEPER
VERIFICATION THAN THEY'RE
ALREADY DOING THIS AS WELL. IF
AN ADVERTISER WANTS TO POST ADS
ON THEIR PLATFORM, IF A USER
WANTS TO GET PAID FOR THEIR
CONTENT, THESE PLATFORMS ARE
ALREADY VERIFYING THEM BECAUSE
THEY DON'T WANT TO GET DEFRAUDED
BY THEIR OWN USERS. AND THEY
KNOW HOW TO DO THIS. THEY KNOW
HOW TO STORE THE DATA. SO IN
SUMMARY, HAVING WORKED IN 20
YEARS IN THIS SPACE, I CAN TELL
YOU THAT THESE PLATFORMS, THEY
KNOW HOW TO COMPLY TO THIS.
THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT IN THE
CASES THAT BENEFIT THEM. WE'RE
JUST ASKING THEM TO DO THAT. IN
THE FEW CASES THAT WILL BENEFIT
OUR DEMOCRACY. THèC THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1228, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, SEEING
NO ONE APPROACHING THE
MICROPHONE. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1228, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU
LIKE A SEAT AT THE TABLE? YES
YOU WOULD. OKAY. THANK YOU.
WHICHEVER SEAT YOU'D LIKE.
PLEASE PROCEED. CHAIR YOUNGBERG,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KARA BUNDER, TESTIFYING
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 1228. CSIA IS
AN INTERNATIONAL, NOT FOR PROFIT
TRADE ASSOCIATION WITH ABOUT TWO
DOZEN MEMBERS FROM A RANGE OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
FIRMS. WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS TO SB 1228,
THE BILL STILL RAISES
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS. FIRST, IT
IS UNCLEAR WHAT CONSTITUTES
SATISFYING THE BILL'S
REQUIREMENT TO SEEK TO VERIFY
INFLUENTIAL USERS. MANY ONLINE
SERVICES EMPLOY TOOLS AND
FEATURES TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY
OR ANONYMITY OF THEIR USERS, AND
BUSINESSES AIM TO TAILOR THESE
APPROPRIATELY TO THE NATURE OF
THE SERVICE AND ONLINE
COMMUNITY. THE SERVICE IS TRYING
TO CREATE AND FOSTER SB TWO. SB
1228 WOULD BIFURCATE THE ONLINE
POPULATION INTO AUTHENTICATED
AND NON AUTHENTICATED USERS,
WHICH COULD THREATEN ONLINE
ANONYMITY. MANY USERS OPT TO USE
PSEUDONYMS OR NO NAME AT ALL
WHEN ENGAGING IN ONLINE SPEECH.
THESE USERS MAY BE SPEAKING
ABOUT SENSITIVE TOPICS,
REPRESENT DISSIDENT OPINIONS
UNDER OPPRESSIVE REGIMES, OR BE
PART OF A MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITY. AMONG OTHER REASONS.
ANONYMOUS SPEECH IS A LONG HELD
VALUE AND TRADITION IN THE
UNITED STATES AMONG DATING BACK
TO THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
PROTECTING ANONYMITY OF ONLINE
SPEECH CARRIES FORWARD SUCH
TRADITIONS AND PROTECTIONS TO
ALLOW FOR OPEN AND FREE
EXPRESSION. THIS BILL RISKS
DISINCENTIVIZING DECENT DEVISING
ONLINE ANONYMITY, AND WOULD
SUGGEST THAT NON-AUTHENTICATED
ACCOUNTS BE VIEWED AS LESS SAFE
OR LEGITIMATE, ESPECIALLY UNDER
THE REQUIREMENT TO SHOW FOR AT
LEAST TWO SECONDS PRIOR TO THE
REST OF A POST BEING AVAILABLE.
A MESSAGE AKIN TO THIS USER IS
UNAUTHENTICATED. THIS COULD
APPEAR TO SERVE AS A RED FLAG
WARNING FOR OTHER USERS FOR ANY
AUTHENTICATED UNAUTHENTICATED
USERS CONTENT USER
AUTHENTICATION REQUIRES
ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION AND
CREATE SECURITY RISKS. THIS
INHERENTLY REQUIRES COMPANIES TO
COLLECT ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE
INFORMATION, AND UNDER THIS
BILL, A GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID.
WHILE MANY PLATFORMS IMPLEMENT
STRONG INDUSTRY STANDARD
SECURITY MEASURES, NEFARIOUS
ACTORS ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING
AND ADVANCING NEW TACTICS TO
CIRCUMVENT THESE PROTECTIONS.
BECAUSE THE EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT
TO PROVIDE A GOVERNMENT ISSUED
IDENTIFICATION THÀNH IS LIMITED
TO THE MOST INFLUENTIAL USERS,
IT CREATES A KNOWN AND
PARTICULARLY APPEALING HONEYPOT
OF INFORMATION. WRAP IT UP,
PLEASE. YEP, I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THESE COMMENTS
AND STAND READY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS. IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1228, PLEASE APPROACH. DYLAN
HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
AUSTIN HAYWORTH, ON BEHALF OF
THE INTERNET WORKS ASSOCIATION,
OPPOSE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR. THANK
YOU. GREAT EVENING ON BEHALF OF
CAL CHAMBER OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. LET'S
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SENATOR CABALLERO. SO LET ME
JUST SAY THAT, I DON'T
UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS
IN OPPOSITION. AND, AND I GUESS
I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF
THE STATEMENTS ABOUT, I MEAN,
IT'S A IT'S AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE BILL. EITHER
YOU'RE AUTHENTICATED OR YOU'RE
NOT. AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT
DON'T WANT TO AUTHENTICATE
THEMSELVES WHO JUST SAY, NO, I'M
NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO
GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION YOU
NEED TO BE AUTHENTICATED. THEN
PEOPLE CAN WONDER WHY THEY'RE
UNAUTHENTICATED AND MAYBE DOUBT
THE VERACITY OF WHAT THEY HAVE
TO SAY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT
THAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, I'M JUST
SAYING THAT'S AT LEAST AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, THIS IS A THIS IS
A SUNSHINE TYPE OF BILL. AND,
AND I GET THE DISSIDENTS AND
THE, THE NEED FOR PRIVACY FOR
SOME OF THESE AND THAT'S FINE.
BUT THEN THEY'RE AUTHENTICATED
AND I GUESS I'M JUST REALLY
STRUGGLING WITH THIS WHOLE IDEA
THAT, THAT IT'S HARD TO DO AND
THAT IT IS INTRUSIVE IN SOME WAY
IN THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
, I, IT SEEMS TO ME ONCE YOU PUT
YOUR NAME AND YOUR FACE OUT
THERE, THERE'S SOME PRIVACY LOSS
RIGHT THERE. AND I DON'T
UNDERSTAND, QUITE FRANKLY,
PEOPLE POSTING A LOT OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION, LIKE EVERYTHING
THAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR LIFE,
BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT
THEY, THEY GIVE UP THEIR PRIVACY
CONCERNS WHEN THEY DO THAT.
RIGHT. SO, ANYWAY, I'M JUST I'M,
I'M STRUGGLING. MAYBE YOU CAN
EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHY
YOU SEE THIS AS A REAL
INTRUSION. AND I, I, I, I'M ALL
FOR PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO
SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SAY.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
BECOMES TARGETED AND IT'S
HURTFUL AND IT'S, IT IS USED AS
A TOOL TO FOOL AND CONFUSE
PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHAT WHAT IT
SEEMS TO ME HAS HAS HAPPENED IN
THE POLITICAL ARENA, THE
POLITICAL AND THE SOCIAL ARENA,
BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THESE
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
AUTHENTICATING PEOPLE JUST SEEMS
TO MAKE SENSE TO ME. I DON'T
KNOW IF THERE'S A IF YOU
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, YOU
WANT TO RESPOND OR RESPOND IN
YOUR CLOSE, I CAN RESPOND IN
CLOSE. I WOULD JUST TO THE AND
MR. CHAIRMAN AND SENATOR I
APPRECIATE THE POINT AND THE
LINE OF QUESTIONING. YOU KNOW, I
DON'T THINK THAT THIS PROPOSAL
LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE ANY
CHILLING EFFECT ON THE ON THE
ANONYMITY OF DISCOURSE IN THE
PUBLIC SQUARE. I DON'T THINK IT
WOULD CHILL PEOPLE FROM
PARTICIPATING IN IT. I THINK IT
IS A TOOL, POTENTIALLY FOR THE
CONSUMER OF THE INFORMATION, TO
MAKE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL OR SOURCE OR MONIKER
OR WHATEVER, PROVIDING
INFORMATION THEY'RE CONSUMING IS
EITHER VERIFIED, AUTHENTICATED
OR NOT. AND I THINK THAT'S
VALUABLE. AND I THINK
CIRCUMSTANTIALLY, THE ONLY TOOL
THE CONSUMER HAS HERE ARE TOOLS
OR INFORMATION. IT'S THE ONLY
WEAPON THE CONSUMER HAS. NOW, IN
THE CONTEXT OF RAPIDLY EVOLVING
AI. AND FRANKLY, I WOULD JUST
REFER THE SENATOR, THE MEMBERS
AGAIN TO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS OF
PAGE FIVE, WHICH IS A GREAT
QUOTE FROM THE BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION STUDY THAT, IF I
MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST REMIND
THE MEMBERS, ONE OF THE DRIVERS
OF DECREASED CONFIDENCE IN THE
POLITICAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN THE
EXPLOSION OF MISINFORMATION,
DELIBERATELY AIMED AT DISRUPTING
THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. THIS
CONFUSED US AND OVERWHELMS
VOTERS, END QUOTE. WELL, I AGREE
WITH YOU. AND I GUESS THAT WAS
THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE
OBJECTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR ASHBY MOVES THE BILL, IS
THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT, SEEING
NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SENATOR PADILLA, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY, SENATOR ASHBY HAS
MOVED THE BILL. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
14, SB 1228. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG I UMBERG
I WILK I WILK I ALAN ASHBY.
ASHBY I CABALLERO. CABALLERO I
RUSSELL Dð. RUSSELL. I GONZALEZ.
LAIRD. MEN NILO. WAHAB 5 TO 0
FIVE ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO PUT
THAT BILL ON CALL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE
SENATOR SKINNER FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR LAIRD, FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR MINH. OH SENATOR
MENGIBAR IS HERE. OKAY. I'M
SORRY. NEXT, WE WOULD NORMALLY
HAVE SENATOR MENGIBAR. SENATOR
MENGIBAR. ITEM NUMBER 11, SB
1497. THESE ARE COMFORTABLE
CHAIRS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
BEEN THERE. I DON'T KNOW. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR MENGIBAR, SB 1497
FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. UNCOMFORTABLE CHAIR. NOT
YOU, SIR. THIS PHYSICAL CHAIR,
JUST WANTED TO NOTE I AM TAKING
A COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT I.
THAT WERE PROPOSED TO ME IN Â
C¯ WRITTEN INTO PRINT DURING
THIS COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. COLLEAGUES, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, WE'VE ALL HEARD THE
PHRASE, YOU BREAK IT, YOU BUY
IT. THAT IS EXACTLY THE APPROACH
SB 1497 IS LOOKING TO TAKE. THE
TOP POLLUTERS ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR BREAKING OUR ENVIRONMENT, SO
NOW THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
THIS BILL IS REQUIRING THE TOP
POLLUTERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CLEAN UP. THE DAMAGES THEIR
EMISSIONS HAVE COST. AND THAT
THRESHOLD WITHIN THIS BILL IS
PRETTY HIGH. WITHOUT IT,
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS WILL
CONTINUE AS THEY'VE BEEN LEFT TO
FOOT THE WHOLE BILL FOR CLIMATE
HARMS THESE POLLUTERS HAVE
CAUSED. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO
ESTABLISH A PROGRAM IN
CALIFORNIA'S EPA TO ASSESS FEES
IN THE LARGEST FOSSIL POLLUTERS,
TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF
DAMAGES FOR PRODUCTS HAVE
INFLICTED IN CALIFORNIA. A
COUPLE YEARS AGO, IN OUR BUDGET
ALONE, WE ALLOCATED $9.3 BILLION
JUST AS A RESPONSE TO WHAT WE'RE
SEEING IN RELATED TO, EMISSION
CAUSED DAMAGES IN L.A. COUNTY,
WHERE I REPRESENT, REPORTS HAVE
SHOWED THAT IN THE NEXT 15
YEARS, WE NEED TO PUT ASIDE
$12.5 BILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CAUSES.
IN FACT, THIS WONDERFUL
COMMITTEE, IN YOUR OWN ANALYSIS,
POINTED TO ADDITIONAL COST
ESTIMATES DONE BY THE NRDC AND
THE RISKY BUSINESS PROJECT. IF
WE MAINTAINED A BUSINESS AS
USUAL APPROACH. SO LET'S NOT DO
BUSINESS AS USUAL. LET'S SEEK TO
AVOID THIS AND SHARE SOME OF THE
BURDEN CALIFORNIANS ALREADY
BEAR, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BEAR
WITH THOSE WHOSE ACTIONS AND
PRODUCTS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE
OF CLIMATE DAMAGE. AND WE KNOW
FROM PUBLISHED, PUBLISHED
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH USING
COMPANIES SELF-REPORTED DATA
THAT IS TURNED INTO SEC, THAT
THERE ARE ONLY A RELATIVELY
SMALL NUMBER OF VERY LARGE
COMPANIES THAT BEAR THE GREATER
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLIMATE
CRISIS. APPROXIMATELY IN
CALIFORNIA, ABOUT 40 SCIENTISTS
ARE ABLE TO CONNECT THESE
EMISSIONS TO THE CLIMATE DAMAGES
TO OUR STATE. THINGS LIKE
EXTREME HEAT WAVES, INCREASED
WILDFIRE AND INTENSIFIED DROUGHT
AND SEA LEVEL RISES. SO WHAT
EXACTLY WILL THIS BILL DO? IT'S
GOING TO FIRST REQUIRE THE FIRST
COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE COST
STUDY LED BY EPA TO QUANTIFY
CLIMATE DAMAGE COSTS TO THE
STATE. THEY WILL THEN DEFINE THE
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES AS THOSE WHO
DID BUSINESS IN THE STATE AND
EMITTED MORE THAN 1 BILLION
METRIC TONS OF CO TWO DURING
2020 20. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
CAN'T PICTURE ONE ONE WATT TO 1
BILLION, METRIC TONS, IS TAKE A
CAR THAT HAS A 20 POUND PER 25
MILE PER GALLON CAR AND DRIVE IT
AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE
CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH 113
MILLION TIMES. THAT IS ONE WATT
WATT, 1 BILLION METRIC TONS.
LOOKS LIKE. WE WILL THEN ASSESS
AN INITIAL FEE ON RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES TO PAY THE COSTS FOR THE
STUDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
OF THE PROGRAM, AND AGAIN, FROM
CURRENT INFO AVAILABLE TODAY, WE
KNOW WHICH OF THESE TOP
POLLUTERS WHAT TOP WHICH TOP
POLLUTERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO CAL EPA WILL OVERSEE THE
PROGRAM, WILL ASSESS AND COLLECT
THE FEES DURING THE 20, 20 YEAR
PERIOD. AND WE WILL THEN
CONSIDER AND ALLOCATE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE RESULTING
FUND TO ADDRESS CLIMATE DAMAGE
AND PROJECTS FOR PROJECTS
IMPLEMENTING STATE CLIMATE
POLICY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE FUNDED PROJECTS
PROJECTS COME BACK. LET ME BACK
UP. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE
LEGISLATURE HAS A SAY IN WHAT
KIND OF PROJECTS WE WILL BE
FUNDING THROUGH THIS FUND. I
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ALL
KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT CUTTING
ANY JOBS. THIS IS NOT BRINGING
DOWN REGULATIONS. THIS IS NOT A
TAX, WHATSOEVER. THIS IS A
RETROACTIVE, COST FOR WHAT HAS
WHAT EMISSIONS HAVE CAUSED
DAMAGE TO, AND NO ENTITY WILL
HAVE TO BE WILL HAVE TO CLOSE
DOWN BECAUSE OF THIS, I'D LIKE
TO TURN OVER NOW TO MR. CHAIR,
SOME OF MY WITNESSES HERE. SINCE
I'M NOT A SCIENTIST, I DID BRING
A SCIENTIST WITH ME TO PROVIDE
SOME EXPERT TESTIMONY ALONG WITH
AS, AS AS WELL AS A DIRECTOR OF
THE CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE AT THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
THANK YOU. SENATOR, YOUR
WITNESSES, TWO MINUTES EACH. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU SO MUCH, KASSIE
SIEGEL, ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. THIS
BILL IS URGENTLY NEEDED. IT'S
FAIR, PRACTICAL AND FULLY
SUPPORTED LEGALLY, SB 1497 IS
MODELED ON EXISTING LAWS LIKE
CERCLA, THE FEDERAL SUPERFUND
LAW THAT REQUIRES POLLUTERS TO
HELP PAY TO CLEAN UP LEGACY
POLLUTION. AND FEDERAL COURTS
HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT
GOVERNMENTS CAN IMPOSE LIABILITY
FOR SUCH COSTS ON THOSE WHO
CREATED AND PROFITED FROM
POLLUTION. THE BILL IMPOSES A
FEE ONLY ON THE WORLD'S LARGEST
COMPANIES, THAT HAVE DONE THE
MOST TO CAUSE THE CLIMATE CRISIS
FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE
OIL, GAS AND COAL THAT THEY
PRODUCED. THE SIMPLICITY OF THIS
APPROACH IS A STRENGTH OF THE
BILL. THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY,
LIKE TOBACCO, LEAD PAINT AND
OPIOID MANUFACTURERS. OURS WANTS
TO BLAME OTHERS WHO USE OR SELL
THEIR PRODUCTS FOR THE DAMAGE.
BUT THIS BILL CAN AND SHOULD
HOLD THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY
THEIR PRODUCTS. CALIFORNIA'S
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING,
CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING
PREVENTION LAW IS ALSO ANALOGOUS
. JUST LIKE THIS BILL, IT
ASSESSED A FEE ON COMPANIES FOR
PRODUCING PRODUCTS CONTAINING
LEAD, AND ITS FUND HELPS VICTIMS
OF LEAD POISONING. THE LAW
IMPOSED LIABILITY ON LEAD PAINT
MANUFACTURERS, NOT THE RETAILERS
, AS A SOUND POLICY DECISION
THAT WAS UPHELD WHEN CHALLENGED.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU WRITTEN
TESTIMONY FROM FIVE OF THE
COUNTRY'S TOP ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
SCHOLARS EXPLAINING WHY SB 1497
IS CONSIDERED WITH EXISTING
PRECEDENT. I THANK COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR EXCELLENT
HARD WORK ON THE BILL ANALYSIS,
AND I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO
FURTHER DISCUSS HOW THE BILL
SATISFIES DUE PROCESS IN EVERY
REGARD OR ANY OTHER ISSUE. IT IS
FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TO EXPECT THE
LARGEST POLLUTERS TO PAY THEIR
SHARE, AND THEY HAVE THE
CAPABILITY TO DO SO. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ARADHNA
TRIPATI. I'M A PROFESSOR AT UCLA
AND A COAUTHOR OF THE FIFTH
NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ASSESSMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES
. MY KEY MESSAGE TODAY IS THAT
YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE STRONG
SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION OF THIS
BILL. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT CALIFORNIA VÀ CAN ATTRIBUTE
THE COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE HERE
TO PARTICULAR FOSSIL FUEL
POLLUTERS, AS DIRECTED BY THE
BILL. WE ALL KNOW THAT FOSSIL
FUELS ARE DRIVING THE CLIMATE
CRISIS. IN FACT, OUR GOVERNOR
CALLS THIS THE FOSSIL FUEL
CRISIS. FOSSIL FUELS ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR 90% OF HUMAN
CAUSED CO TWO EMISSIONS. AND AS
POINTED OUT, IT CAN BE TRACED TO
A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF MAJOR
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS USING
WELL-ESTABLISHED ATTRIBUTION
SCIENCE, SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR TWO DECADES HAS
BEEN USED IN HUNDREDS OF PEER
REVIEWED STUDIES. WE CAN
DIRECTLY CONNECT FOSSIL FUEL
EMISSIONS FROM THESE COMPANIES
TO CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS IN OUR
STATE, AS WELL AS TO COSTS LIKE
LIVE LOST LIVES LOST, INCOME
LOST, AND HEALTH HARMS. THE COST
THAT WE'VE HAD JUST SINCE 1980
ALONE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 100 TO
$200 BILLION. IF WE'RE
CONSERVATIVE IN OUR ESTIMATES IN
THIS STATE, THIS IS FROM 46
EVENTS. THE TYPES OF EVENTS I'M
TALKING ABOUT ARE IN SACRAMENTO,
THINGS LIKE INCREASED FLOODING
FROM ATMOSPHERIC RIVERS IN
FRESNO, MERCED, THE TYPES OF
THINGS WE HEARD ABOUT THIS
MORNING, EXTREME HEAT AFFECTING
WORKERS, CROP YIELDS AND ALSO
RESULTING IN ENHANCED SPREAD OF
DISEASE FROM DIFFERENT VECTORS.
IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
EXPLOSIVE WILDFIRES THE CAMP
FIRE ALONE ABOUT 16 BILLION. AND
SO WITH THAT ATTRIBUTION,
SCIENCE ANSWERS QUESTIONS LIKE
HOW MUCH DID THOSE EMISSIONS
INCREASE? CLIMATE HAZARDS LIKE
WILDFIRE AREA AND WILDFIRE
INTENSITY? HOW MUCH DID
EMISSIONS ACTUALLY MAKE? EXTREME
EVENTS LIKE THESE HEAT WAVES
MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR AND MORE
SEVERE VÀ. WHAT WAS THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED? WHAT WERE THE COSTS
RESULTING FROM THOSE EMISSIONS?
IN SHORT, USING PEER REVIEWED
APPROACHES BASED ON ATTRIBUTION
SCIENCE, CAL EPA CAN CONDUCT
THEIR STUDY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1497, PLEASE
APPROACH KIM STONE. STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER
WATCHDOG IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ASHTON GULLEY%
AND ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA AND
CALPIRG. WE SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU KATIE MACKINNON
PROGRAM DIRECTOR WITH 350
SACRAMENTO. WE SUPPORT, ALONG
WITH THE SUPPORT OF CLIMATE
ACTION CALIFORNIA CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA
COALITION, GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, 350
HUMBOLDT AND ELDERS CLIMATE
ACTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. NEXT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHRISTINA MOHABEER
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
TAMARA ABRAMS, MEMBER OF THE
CLIMATE SENATE GROUP OF
CONGREGATION BETHEL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1497? YES. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'VE BEEN ASKED TO
NOTE SUPPORT FROM THE CLIMATE
CENTER GREENPEACE USA, FRIENDS
OF THE EARTH, PHYSICIANS FOR
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, TÊ, LÀ,
SACRAMENTO AND SAN FRANCISCO
BAY, PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT, NRDC,
FOOD AND WATER WATCH, NEXT GEN
CALIFORNIA, SIERRA CLUB,
CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE,
CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA YOUTH VERSUS
BIG OIL, BREAST CANCER ACTION,
ALLIANCE OF NURSES FOR HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT. I'LL JUST DO A
COUPLE MORE, FOSSIL FREE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
CENTER AND ELDERS CLIMATE ACTION
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER. THERE'S MORE, BUT I'LL
RESPECT YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I
SHOULD HAVE ADDED AT THE
BEGINNING. IS, IS THAT IF YOU
WISH TO SUPPLEMENT YOUR
TESTIMONY, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION. YOU GO TO THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE AND THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. YOU CAN SEE
HOW YOU MIGHT SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION. I MENTIONED BEFORE
THAT I KNOW THE CONVENTIONAL
WISDOM IS THAT MANY OF US CANNOT
READ, BUT THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.
WE ALL CAN READ. SO ALL RIGHT,
LET'S BRING IT BACK NOW TO
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1497, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT
AT THE TABLE, WE'LL ASK THE
PROPONENTS TO PLEASE, MOVE BACK
TO THE AUDIENCE. THANK YOU. MR.
MOMENT, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM
TIMOTHY JEFFRIES WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS AND A JOURNEYMAN
BOILERMAKER, MEMBER OF THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES EXECUTIVE BOARD,
AND A PROUD MARINE VETERAN. I'M
HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF SB
1497. THIS BILL IS IF, IF
SUCCESSFUL, WOULD DRIVE UP THE
COST OF LIVING FOR EVERY WORKING
FAMILY. THIS BILL SEEKS TO
CHANGE TO CHARGE EMITTING
COMPANIES FOR THEIR SHARE OF
EMISSIONS, WHICH IS WHICH IS
EXACTLY THE BASIS OF
CALIFORNIA'S LANDMARK AND
SUCCESSFUL CAP AND TRADE
PROGRAM. DOUBLE DOUBLE DIPPING.
SO TO SPEAK, WOULD ONLY DRIVE UP
DRIVE UP THE COST OF ENERGY
PRODUCTION FOR CONSUMERS WHO
HAVE ALREADY MADE IT PRETTY
CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO
SEE CONTINUED ESCALATING COST OF
LIVING IN CERTAIN OF COST OF
LIVING OR UNCERTAINTY TAXES.
THIS IS AN EXCITING TIME. WE ARE
IN THE MIDST OF A ENERGY
TRANSITION IN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE
DEPENDENT ON EXISTING ENERGY
COMPANIES TO CONTINUE TO INVEST
IN HYDROGEN, BIOFUELS, CHEMICAL
CARBON CAPTURE AND ADDITIONAL
CLIMATE INNOVATION. IF WE ARE
EVEN GOING TO COME CLOSE TO
MEETING OUR EXISTING OR
AGGRESSIVE CLIMATE GOALS,
ASSISTING ADDITIONAL COSTS ON
THESE ENERGY COMPANIES,
ASSESSING ADDITIONAL COSTS ON
THESE ENERGY COMPANIES WHO ALSO
EMPLOY THOUSANDS OF UNION
MEMBERS, WILL ONLY CAUSE THEM TO
INVEST. INVEST ELSEWHERE. WE'VE
ALREADY SEEN AND SEEN THIS IN
OTHER SECTORS. IT BEARS
MENTIONING THAT WE WILL CONTINUE
TO BE DEPENDENT ON TRANSITIONAL
FORMS OF ENERGY AND WILL BE FOR
A DECADE, YET AS WE UNDERTAKE
THIS TRANSITION CONTINUOUSLY
OUTSOURCING CONSUMER AND
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ARE ARE
CONTINUOUSLY OUTSOURCED,
OUTSOURCING CONSUMER AND
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. WE ARE
DEPENDENT ON IS BAD BUSINESS FOR
CALIFORNIA AND A COST ULTIMATELY
BORNE BY WORKING FAMILIES. RIGHT
NOW, THE QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY
IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT AS WE
ARE SEEKING INCREASING MILITARY
STABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
CAUSING COST INCREASES FOR ALL
AMERICANS AND SECURITY RISKS FOR
OUR MILITARY. WE WHAT WE NEED IN
CALIFORNIA ISN'T MORE TAXES OR
LESS EMPLOYERS. ALRIGHTY. THANK
YOU. COULD YOU WRAP IT UP,
PLEASE? YES, I COULD, I COULD
THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE
THOUSANDS OF BLUE COLLAR
BOILERMAKERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA,
WE ASK TO VOTE NO ON SENATE BILL
1497. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HERE AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
AS THIS MEASURE IS A JOB KILLER.
FIRST, YOU KNOW, WE REMAIN
DEEPLY CONCERNED AND WOULD LIKE
TO ALIGN OURSELVES WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM THE LABOR
COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS, IN FACT,
GOING TO INCREASE ENERGY PRICES
ACROSS THE BOARD, SIMPLY PUT,
ADDED REGULATORY COSTS ARE GOING
TO INCREASE COSTS, PARTICULARLY
FOR THOSE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
AND AS NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, THAT COULD EXTEND ONTO
AIRLINES, YOU KNOW, ONTO OTHER
INDUSTRIES. THE QUESTION IS JUST
NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A TWO
PART QUESTION. THERE IS HOW MUCH
IS GOING TO INCREASE AND EXACTLY
WHO'S GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY
THAT AS WELL, TOO, IT'S BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT SB ONE TWO WOULD
ACTUALLY OFFER. THAT WAS THE
SPECIAL SESSION BILL FROM LAST
YEAR WOULD OFFER SOME PRICE
PROTECTIONS. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY
NOT THE CASE. THAT WAS A MEASURE
THAT SIMPLY FOCUSED ON
TRANSPARENCY FOR REFINING
MARGINS, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE SHIELDED FROM THIS
MEASURE. ALSO, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CERCLA,
CERCLA, AND THIS PROPOSAL. I
WOULD SIMPLY ADD THAT, YOU KNOW,
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S A
PROSPECTIVE APPROACH THAT WE
HAVE HERE IN CALIFORNIA THAT'S
UNIQUE TO CALIFORNIA AND CAP AND
TRADE, IF SB 1497 WERE TO BE
ADOPTED, OBLIGATED PARTIES, NOT
MERELY THOSE THAT ARE
CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THIS
BILL, BUT OTHER OBLIGATED
PARTIES WOULD LIKELY BE PAYING
TWICE FOR THE SAME EMISSIONS
PROFILE. AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF
THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT
IS THAT THERE'S A QUESTION OF
PROPORTIONALITY HERE AS WELL,
TOO, CALIFORNIA REPRESENTS LESS
LESS THAN 1% OF THE GHG
EMISSIONS PROFILE ON A GLOBAL
SCALE, HOWEVER, THIS BILL IS
SEEKING RECOMPENSE IN THE FORM
OF A TAX, AT A MUCH, MUCH LARGER
SCALE THAN THAT, THAT'S NOT
SIMPLY FOR THE BUT THAT'S
BASICALLY FOR ANYONE THAT DOES
BUSINESS HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
THAT SEEMS EXTREMELY
DISPROPORTIONATE TO ME AND TO
WHAT AIM EXACTLY, WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS THAT CAN
EITHER REDUCE COSTS OR REDUCE
EMISSIONS, OR PERHAPS DO BOTH.
THIS MEASURE ACCOMPLISHES
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE ASK FOR A NO
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION, AND YOUR POSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. NAOMI PADRONE, ON
BEHALF OF THE WESTERN STATES
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. MIKE
MONAHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. HI, NATALIE BOOST, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE. IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. DEAN
TALLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION OPPOSED. THANK YOU,
PETER BLOCKER AT THE CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION PARTY. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACHING MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS
SEEING US SENATOR RUSSO AND
SENATOR. OH, YEAH, FIRST, I WANT
TO THANK MY BROTHER FOR MAKING
THE COMMENTS THAT YOU DID AND
FOR, FIGHTING FOR WORKING
PEOPLE. I KNOW THAT'S AT YOUR
HEART AND SOUL, I'VE HAD SOME
CONVERSATIONS WITH WITH THE
AUTHOR, ISSUES THAT I'VE BEEN
CONCERNED ABOUT, AND IT'S, IT'S
A, SOME OF THEM ARE VERY, VERY
COMPLICATED. SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT CONCERN ME ARE. AND MAYBE
YOU COULD ANSWER THEM OR I
COULDN'T GIVE THEM ALL OUT TO
YOU. AND YOU CAN ANSWER SOME OF
WHICH WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.
BUT, ONE IS THE CONCERN ABOUT
GOING BACKWARDS IN TIME. AND,
WHATEVER. WE I DON'T KNOW WHAT
TECHNICAL TERMS YOU WANT TO CALL
IT, BUT SOME SORT OF FEE ON A
CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, ABOUT 20
YEARS, IS GOING BACKWARD AND
HAVING SOMEONE, TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT WAS DONE
SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOR A, PRETTY
LARGE PERIOD OF TIME. HOW WILL
YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT'S THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE THAT
WOULD JUSTIFY YOU DOING THAT? WE
WOULDN'T DO THAT NORMALLY WITH
ANYBODY. IF YOU'RE CHARGED WITH,
LET'S JUST SAY A CRIME, IT'D BE
REALLY HARD TO GO BACK 20 YEARS
AND, FIND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST
MORE COMPLICATED AS AT MY POINT,
AND SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH AKIN
TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A SERIOUS
AMOUNT OF MONEY, NOT GOING TO
JAIL. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO JAIL,
BUT IT'S A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF
MONEY, FOR A SERIOUS, IMPACT
THAT IT HAD ON OUR, ON OUR
COMMUNITY. BUT BASICALLY, WHAT
IS IT THAT MAKES YOU PICK THAT
PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME OUT OF
ALL THE OTHER YEARS AND OR GOING
FORWARD, ESTABLISHING A STANDARD
THAT TODAY YOU COULD SAY GOING
FORWARD, WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT
ANYMORE, OR THERE'S A DIFFERENT
THRESHOLD, THE SECOND AREA OF
QUESTIONS IS, WITH REGARDS TO,
RESPONSIBILITY, K¾T AND UP
UPSTREAM, YOU KNOW, WHO'S, WHO'S
GOING TO TAKE THE FULL
RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THINK YOU
ADDRESSED THIS, BUT I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE, ANOTHER QUESTION
IS, WHAT'S THE URGENCY, WHY DO
YOU CALL IT AN URGENCY? I KNOW,
MAYBE YOU'RE JUST DOING THAT FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE, PIECE OF IT TO
TRY TO GET THIS PASSED AND DONE,
IMPLEMENTED AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW IF
URGENCY HAS TO DO WITH SOMETHING
ELSE, BUT IF YOU WOULD ADDRESS
THAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO START. SO
I'LL START WITH YOUR
RETROACTIVE, LIKE ABILITY. AND
THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THIS, ONE
EXAMPLE IS IN THE ANALYSIS TO
SEARCH SERC, CERCLA, CRC LÀ. BUT
I'D LIKE TO GIVE A NØ A STATE
EXAMPLE, WHICH IS THE CHILDHOOD
LEAD POISONING PREVENTION LAW.
AND HERE IN THE STATE WE CREATED
THAT FUND FOR THE LEAD DAMAGES
CALLED CAUSED RETROACTIVELY, WE
ALSO AND THAT WAS PAID INTO A
FUND. AND WE USED THAT FUND TO
PAY FOR PROJECTS. SO THERE IS
PRECEDENT FOR RETROACTIVE FOR
CAUSE FOR IMPOSING, A COST
ESTIMATE ON RETROACTIVE DAMAGES.
AND WE'VE SEEN LEGISLATION
RELATED TO THAT ON TOBACCO,
OPIOIDS AND SO FORTH. THERE IS
AN OPIOID FUND AS WELL RIGHT NOW
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR,
THAT MANUFACTURES ONLY. SO
THAT'S TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION,
THAT ONLY MANUFACTURES IS PAID
INTO IT. ON THE CHILDHOOD LEAD
POISONING PREVENTION LAW. ONLY
THE MANUFACTURERS PAID INTO IT,
NOT THE STORES THAT THE
DISTRIBUTED TO, NOT THE
DISTRIBUTORS. AND SO FORTH. FOR
OPIOIDS, ONLY THE MANUFACTURERS
OF SAID DRUG PAY INTO THE FUND.
SO WE'RE REPLICATING THAT SAME
APPROACH WITH THIS LEGISLATION,
IN REGARDS TO WHY NOT MOVING?
WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON MOVING
FORWARD? WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I SAID IN MY TALKING POINTS
IS THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO
REDUCE EMISSIONS. THIS IS NOT
REGARDING REGULATIONS,
DECREASING THE EMISSIONS OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR MANDATING
REGULATIONS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE
PROGRAMS LIKE THAT WITH CAP AND
TRADE, ALBEIT THERE'S A LOT OF
THINGS I NEED TO CHANGE WITH CAP
AND TRADE, BUT THERE ARE
PROGRAMS WORKING RIGHT NOW ON
FUTURE REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW IS
A FUND, THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR US
TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGES ALREADY
CAUSED FOR THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT WE'RE HAVING TO PAY
FOR, THE FLOODING, THE FIRES
WE'RE SEEING IN CALIFORNIA. AND
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
TAXPAYERS BEING CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS, WE'RE CURRENTLY BURYING
THE BRUNT OF THIS. AND WE WANT
TO SHIFT THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND
SHARE THAT RESPONSIBILITY, WITH
THE TOP POLLUTERS. AND I'LL AND
I'LL ADD TO THAT, SENATOR, IS
THAT THE THESE AREN'T COMPANIES
BECAUSE I'M HERE FOR THE WORKING
CLASS AND THE WORKING COMMUNITY.
THESE ARE INCOME. THESE AREN'T
COMPANIES THAT WE SHOULD STILL
FEEL SORRY FOR. THESE ARE
COMPANIES THAT IF THEY DON'T
HAVE TO FIRE ANYONE BECAUSE
THEY'RE RAKING IN BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, I MEAN,
CHEVRON DURING THE 20 PERIOD
WE'RE LOOKING AT MADE 252, 77
BILLION. EXXON DURING THAT
PERIOD MADE $496 BILLION. AND
NOW THEY'RE RAKING IN HALF OF
THAT IN JUST THREE YEARS. SO
EVEN IF, HYPOTHETICALLY
SPEAKING, THERE'S A 10 BILLION
ASSESSMENT TO THIS, THAT IS
PENNIES ON WHAT THEY MAKE. NOW
SO. THANK YOU. SENATOR RUSSELL.
ANY FOLLOW ON? NÓ I'M SORRY. ARE
YOU FINISHED? I DIDN'T ANSWER
THE URGENCY. OKAY. I DON'T THINK
I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE.
ACTUALLY ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE
THE, SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF
YEARS AGO, WE EXPANDED THE
AMOUNT OF THINGS THAT NEEDED 27
VOTES, AND THIS NOW IS ELIGIBLE
UNDER THAT EXPANSION AS TO WHY I
NEED 27 VOTES. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR ASHBY, THE QUESTION.
THANK YOU. SO I THINK THIS IS A
REALLY AMBITIOUS BILL, AND I
THINK YOU KNOW THAT. AND, YOU
KNOW, YOU HAVE A TOUGH ROAD
AHEAD OF YOU HERE. I AM GOING TO
SUPPORT YOU TODAY, BUT I WANT TO
LAY OUT SOME REALLY BIG CONCERNS
I HAVE WITH THE BILL AND MAKE
SURE THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE
ARE MY CONCERNS. SO AS YOU'RE
TELLING WHERE YOUR COLLEAGUES
ARE, YOU KNOW THAT IF I STILL
HAVE THOSE CONCERNS, I MIGHT NOT
BE SUCH A SURE VOTE IN THE
FUTURE. BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU
TIME TO WORK ON IT. SO THAT'S
WHY I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I'M
GOING TO DO HERE, FIRST OF ALL,
THIS DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE
COMMENT, BUT I AM CONCERNED WHEN
THE BOILERMAKERS AND THE UNIONS
SHOW UP AND THEY'RE WORRIED
ABOUT JOBS. SO THAT'S JUST
SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS. IF
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, THEN THEN
WHY ARE THEY HERE? SECONDLY, I
AM CONCERNED ABOUT PAST OFF
COSTS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS THERE A
SINGLE COMPLAINT THAT WE HEAR
MORE THAN THE PRICE OF GAS? SO
IF WE DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THAT
PRICE GO UP, WE HAVE TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. SO WE JUST
NEED TO KEEP IT IN MIND AND THEN
HERE'S REALLY FROM A JUDICIARY
STANDPOINT, AND THIS IS LIKE A
JUDICIAL ISSUE. MY BIGGEST
CONCERN WITH THE SORT OF
LEGALITY OF THIS BILL. SO IN
2006, THAT'S WHEN THE
LEGISLATION WAS PASSED. IT WAS
AB 32 THAT ESTABLISHED CAP AND
TRADE. AND THEN AND I'VE HEARD
MORE THAN ANY OF YOU WOULD CARE
TO HEAR ABOUT CAP AND TRADE,
GIVEN MY LAST SIX YEARS WITH
MISTER STEINBERG. OKAY. SO IN
2011, HE, HE, HE CHANGED CAP AND
TRADE. AND THAT'S THE PIECE THAT
YOU'RE WORKING WITHIN RIGHT NOW.
SO IN 2012, THEN PRO TEM SENATOR
STEINBERG, HE PASSED HIS BILL,
SB 1018, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA
THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE CARB
COULD PROCEED WITH LINKS TO CAP
AND TRADE AND OTHER CARBON
MARKETS, WHICH IS SORT OF WHERE
YOU'RE HEADED AS WELL. NOW, CAP
AND TRADE OBLIGATED EMITTERS TO
PAY ABOVE THE EMISSIONS CAP. AND
THEN AGAIN IN 2016, THAT WAS
FURTHER BOLSTERED WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO PAY
IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT WERE MORE
AFFECTED, WHICH WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT TOO. SO GIVEN ALL OF THAT
2006, 2011, THEN WE COME BACK
AGAIN FOR ANOTHER BITE AT THE
APPLE IN 2016. HERE WE ARE IN
24, LOOKING RETROSPECTIVELY TO
IMPLEMENT A VERY SIMILAR,
PUNITIVE PLAN WHERE WE HAVE
ALREADY ONCE, MAYBE EVEN TWICE
USE ASKED THESE SAME EMITTERS TO
CONTRIBUTE AND SO GIVEN ALL OF
THOSE REGULATIONS THAT COVER THE
SAME OR SIMILAR PERIODS AS YOUR
BILL, DO YOU FEEL THAT THAT
MAKES THIS MORE DIFFICULT TO
IMPLEMENT OR QUITE FRANKLY, TO
UPHOLD? IF CHALLENGED? IT'S
MEANING A POST FACTO PENALTY
WHERE AN EXISTING PENALTY OR TWO
WAS ALREADY IN PLAY. SO THAT'S
MY BIG JEWISH CONCERN HERE. AND
THE REASON I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR
YOU, EVEN WITH THAT BIG CONCERN,
IS BECAUSE I WANT TO GIVE YOU
SOME TIME TO WORK ON IT, AND
POTENTIALLY THERE WOULD BE SOME
THINGS YOU COULD DO TO MITIGATE
IT, BUT YOU CAN'T BILL, IT
DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S THE
COMPANY THAT WE ALL HATE THE
MOST, OR A PERSON THAT WE ALL
LOVE. YOU CAN'T BILL SOMEONE 2
OR 3 TIMES FOR THE SAME ISSUE,
JUST LIKE SENATOR DURAZZO SAID,
YOU CANNOT CHARGE SOMEONE TWICE
FOR THE SAME CRIME, AND IT MAKES
IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO GO
BACK RETROSPECTIVELY. 20 YEARS
TO DO SO, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE
HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS DATING
BACK THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF
THOSE LAWS. DATING BACK THROUGH
ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THE
PERIOD THAT YOU'RE SEEKING TO
COVER. SO THAT IS MY CONCERN.
MR. CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO START AND
THEN TURN TO MY WITNESS FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL, IF THAT'S OKAY.
OKAY. FIRST, I'LL SPEAK ON THE
COST, BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY
LOOKING TO, ADMINISTER A FEE ON
A TINY FRACTION OF THE TOP
POLLUTERS. NOT EVERY SINGLE
POLLUTER IN CALIFORNIA IS GOING
TO HAVE THIS FEE ASSESSED ON
THEM. SO WHEN THE OPPOSITION
SAYS THAT THIS IS GOING TO
IMPACT EVERYONE, THAT IS
INCORRECT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF
YOU HAVE POLLUTER A ON ONE SIDE
OF THE STREET, WHO GETS THE FEE
AND POLLUTER B ON THE OTHER
SIDE, WHO DOESN'T GET THE FEE?
POLLUTER A IS GOING TO BE
INCENTIVIZED TO NOT INCREASE THE
COST BECAUSE POLLUTER B'S,
PRICES ARE GOING TO STAY PRETTY
STAGNANT. SO FOR THEM TO STAY
COMPETITIVE, SENATOR, IT'S GOING
TO BE IMPERATIVE FOR THEM TO
MAINTAIN THEIR COMPETITIVENESS
AGAINST POLLUTER B, WHO DOES NOT
GET ASSESSED THE FEE. NOW, ALSO,
YOU HEARD THE OPPOSITION TALK
ABOUT SB X1 TWO, WHICH WE PASSED
LAST YEAR, AND THEY ONLY FOCUS
ON THE TRANSPARENCY SIDE. BUT
THAT BILL AND WE ALL REMEMBER
THIS CONVERSATION WAS TO PREVENT
PRICE GOUGING. AND WE DID PASS
THAT LAST YEAR FOR TRANSPARENCY.
AND PREVENTING PRICE GOUGING
THAT TO ENSURE THAT, WE WILL
HOLD THE MARKET STEADY. AND IT'S
THE CC WOULD SET A MAXIMUM GROSS
GASOLINE REFINING MARGIN AND
PENALTIES FOR REFINERS THAT
EXCEED IT. SO I'M VIEWING THAT
AS TWO ITEMS THAT ARE PROTECTING
FROM CONSUMERS, GETTING THE
PRICES INCREASED, ON WHY WE HAVE
AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED TOO,
WHEN I SEE UNIONS OPPOSED TO IT,
BUT I WANT TO GIVE THIS BIGGER
PICTURE AND PERHAPS TO THE
SENATORS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE
BEFORE, THREE OF US HAVE, RIGHT.
WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT FOSSIL
FUEL, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE SOME
KIND OF CONCERN THAT THAT MEANS
THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER GOING TO
BE AT THE TABLE FOR A JUST
TRANSITION. AND THAT IS A VALID,
VALID CONCERN. AND I WILL NEVER
TAKE THAT AWAY. BUT THIS
PARTICULAR BILL HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH A JUST TRANSITION, WHICH
I AM IN FAVOR OF, HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH A REGULATION OR A
MANDATE THAT IS GOING TO ADJUST
THE WAY A COMPANY IMPACT A
COMPANY RUNS. SO NOWHERE IN MY
BILL AM I SAYING STOP EMITTING
RIGHT NOW. STOP PRODUCING FOSSIL
FUELS, BECAUSE I'M NOT WORKING
ON THAT RIGHT NOW. MAYBE DOWN
THE LINE I WILL WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION ON ISSUES LIKE THAT,
BUT NOWHERE IN MY BILL DO A DOES
A COMPANY HAVE TO CHANGE
ANYTHING. NOW AFTER READING THIS
ANALYSIS, I WAS VERY THANKFUL
THAT I'M NOT IN THIS COMMITTEE
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF JARGON
IN THIS, AND I THINK I, I, I
LEARNED A LOT FROM IT. AND YOU
THREW OUT SOME TERMS THAT I'M
NOT 100% FAMILIAR WITH. BUT THE
ANALYSIS POINTS TO THE LEGALITY
OF THIS APPROACH. THE ANALYSIS
ALSO POINTED TO THIS BEING
REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE. AND I
KNOW, SENATOR, YOU MENTIONED
THAT THIS IS A PUNITIVE
APPROACH. BUT AGAIN, THIS
ANALYSIS ALSO POINTED TO THE
FACT THIS IS REMEDIAL AND
POINTED TO A LOT OF PRECEDENT
FOR THIS APPROACH. AND IF THERE
ANYTHING I MISSED THAT YOU WOULD
ADD TO THAT. I THINK YOU DID A
GOOD JOB COVERING IT. LET ME
JUST FINISH WITH THIS ONE
THOUGHT. AND I'M REALLY JUST
TRYING TO PLANT THE SEED IN YOUR
HEAD SO YOU'LL THINK ABOUT IT
GOING FORWARD. YOU SAID NOT
EVERYONE WILL BE PENALIZED. YES,
THAT'S TRUE, BUT EVERYONE WHO
WILL BE PENALIZED HAS PREVIOUSLY
BEEN PENALIZED BEFORE, AT LEAST
ONCE. THAT'S THE PIECE I JUST
WANT YOU TO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. SENATOR, I FORGOT ABOUT
THAT, YOU SPOKE A LOT ABOUT CAP
AND TRADE AND SITTING ON Â C¯
CAP AND TRADE HAD A GREAT, GREAT
INTENT, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING THE
TRUE FRUITS TO THAT THAT
PROGRAM. AND AGAIN, CAP AND
TRADE IS FOR FUTURE TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS AND CAP AND TRADE. ALL
THESE POLLUTERS CAN JUST BUY
CREDITS WITHOUT REDUCING
EMISSIONS. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY
WHAT CAP AND TRADE IS. SO YOU
ONLY PAY INTO IT IF YOU DON'T
REDUCE EMISSIONS. SO WE'RE IT'S
NOT PUNITIVE IN THAT NATURE CAP
AND TRADE. IT'S THEIR DECISION
TO PAY INTO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE
DECIDING NOT TO REDUCE
EMISSIONS. SO THAT'S ALL I WOULD
SAY WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE IN
APPROACHES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR WAHAB. THANK
YOU. I FIRST WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERY SINGLE
HUMAN BEING TO REALLY PRIORITIZE
THE ENVIRONMENT, FIRST AND
FOREMOST, I WANT TO STATE A
COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE,
THESE BUSINESSES THAT ARE BEING
LOOKED AT RIGHT NOW ARE MIDDLE
CLASS AND MIDDLE INCOME
PROVIDERS TO A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF USUALLY UNDERSERVED
AND UNDERPRIVILEGED COMMUNITIES,
LARGELY BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES. SO I DO WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT, WHICH I THINK YOU AND
I DO AGREE UPON, THAT. YOU KNOW,
WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT AS MANY
JOBS AS POSSIBLE. WE ALSO KNOW
THAT LAST YEAR WE HAD A VERY
ROBUST DISCUSSION IN THE
LEGISLATURE REGARDING TAXES AND,
YOU KNOW, TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT
WE'RE DOING THERE AND
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS INDUSTRY OF
FOSSIL FUELS AND SO FORTH.
RIGHT, AND WE ARE ALSO, I THINK
SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
WERE BROUGHT UP FROM THIS, ROOM
IS PARTICULARLY ABOUT LOOKING
BACKWARDS FOR 20 YEARS. RIGHT?
AND IT BECOMES, YOU KNOW, WHAT
DATA IS GOING TO BE LOOKED AT.
WHERE IS THIS DATA BEING TRACKED
, HOW ARE THE ORGANIZATIONS
GOING TO BE PROVIDING THIS DATA?
DO THEY NEED TO PARTICIPATE TO
BE A PART OF THIS, OR IS THERE
ANY PUBLIC RECORDS THAT YOU GUYS
CAN GO THROUGH ALREADY, THOSE
ARE ALL THINGS THAT I THINK, YOU
KNOW, I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, I
THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO KEEP LIKE, OUR TAX
INFORMATION FOR SEVEN YEARS,
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. FOUR YEARS,
SEVEN YEARS. I DON'T KNOW THE
RULE. RIGHT? SEVEN YEARS. RIGHT.
SO YOU KNOW, I QUESTION A LITTLE
BIT OF THAT AS TO HOW HOW DEEP
AND HOW FAR BACK WE'RE GOING.
YOU KNOW, AND ESPECIALLY WITH
THE CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP CHANGE
OF BUSINESS PRACTICES, CHANGE OF
A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I
DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF
THOSE, THINGS I DO CARE LARGELY
ABOUT SOME OF THE WORKERS ISSUES
THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH. TO
YOUR POINT EARLIER IS THAT THIS
IS AN INDUSTRY THAT MAKES
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. RIGHT, AND
I WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS
IN REGARDS TO OPPOSITION. I KNOW
YOU AND I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT THIS AS WELL, IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, THE GOAL OF MOST OF THE
POLICY MAKERS IS TO PROTECT AND
CREATE MORE JOBS AND CREATE,
BETTER PAYING JOBS AND JOBS WITH
PENSIONS AND RETIREMENTS AND SO
FORTH. SO I REALLY WANT TO
PRIORITIZE THAT. AND I WOULD
LIKE FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO WORK
WITH OPPOSITION ON THIS BILL TO
ADDRESS THOSE PARTICULAR
CONCERNS. FIRST AND FOREMOST,
RIGHT, NUMBER TWO IS THAT WHEN
WE'RE LOOKING BACK 20 YEARS OR
SO, REALLY TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT
WE CAN DO TO KIND OF MAKE IT A
LITTLE BIT MORE FAIR, YOU KNOW,
DO WE NEED TO LOOK BACK 20 YEARS
BECAUSE 20 YEARS AGO, I DON'T
EVEN KNOW WHAT GRADE I WAS IN,
BUT IT WAS A VERY LONG TIME AGO.
AND I REMEMBER THE DYNAMICS
CHANGE ALL THE TIME, YOU KNOW?
OKAY. YEAH. EVEN IN CULTURAL.
YEAH SO CULTURAL, ISSUES THAT
THAT TEND TO HAPPEN. SO WE KNOW
THAT THAT'S ONE THING THAT I DO
JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AND HOW
DIFFICULT THAT IS ACROSS THE
BOARD. I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL, PRIMARILY
BECAUSE MY DISTRICT IN
PARTICULAR HAS ACTUALLY
SUPPORTED THIS IN OUR LOCAL
CENTRAL COMMITTEES AND SO FORTH,
THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF
GROUPS THAT HAVE SUPPORTED IT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I DO THINK
THAT SOMETIMES WE NEED TO
PRIORITIZE THIS. BUT I ALSO WANT
TO SAY THAT AN URGENCY MEASURE,
YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO
CALL IT A TAX OR NOT, A TAX,
DEPENDING ON THE CODE AND THE
DEFINITION AND SO FORTH, YOU
KNOW, THAT IS DEBATABLE
DEPENDING ON THE DEFINITION. BUT
I DO WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
IT IF YOU, THE AUTHOR, WOULD BE
WILLING TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION
AS THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD. I
DON'T WANT IT TO NECESSARILY DIE
IN THIS COMMITTEE, SO NO NEED TO
RESPOND, AS YOU'RE FURIOUSLY
LOOKING AT YOUR NOTES. BUT I
JUST WANTED TO SAY I WOULD LIKE
A COMMITMENT FROM YOU TO WORK
WITH OPPOSITION TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS BILL IS THE POINTS ARE
ADDRESSED AS THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD. THANK YOU. MAY I
RESPOND? YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR
HEAD. YES. IS THAT A AFFIRMATIVE
RESPONSE? YES. MAY I ADD OR NO?
YOU MAY ADD, SURE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I'M GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE
JAB TO MY MARINE CORPS BROTHER
HERE THAT WE DID HAVE A MEETING
THIS MORNING AND HE DID NOT SHOW
UP. OKAY SO I HAVE TRIED, BUT
WE'RE GOING TO TRY AGAIN, AND I
WANT TO SPEAK TO THE, THE DATA.
SO CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW WE CAN
SCIENTISTS CAN'T TEST. AND I'D
LIKE TO GIVE MY WITNESSES TO
TALK ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC
PORTION OF IT. AND ON THE DATA
COLLECTION REGARDING OF THE
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES. COMPANIES
SELF-REPORT NOW. SO WE HAVE THAT
DATA AND IT'S PUBLIC NOW ON THE
COMPANIES WHO WILL MEET MY
THRESHOLD. AND 20 YEARS BACK, 20
YEARS BACK, YOU'RE SAYING. YES.
YEAH. I'M GOING TO TURN TO MY
WITNESS, OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK
THE SCIENTIFIC PART DATA
COLLECTION IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
LET'S DO THIS THEN. WHY DON'T
YOU FINISH WHATEVER COMMENTS YOU
HAVE? THEN WE CAN TURN TO YOUR
WITNESSES. OKAY, SO COMPANIES
SELF REPORT TO SEC RIGHT NOW WHO
MEET THAT THRESHOLD. THAT'S HOW
WE KNOW WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY IN
THE 40 ISH RANGE IN CALIFORNIA.
ADDITIONALLY THERE IS A LEGALLY
BINDING METHODOLOGY CALLED THE
GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF CARBON
THAT ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT HOW WE
CALCULATE THE EMISSIONS. AND NOW
I'LL TURN TO THE, THE, THE, THE
DOCTOR HERE. THANK YOU. YEAH.
SENATOR MANJARRES SPOT ON. AND
SO I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
IDENTIFY YOURSELF ALSO. SORRY
ARADHNA TRIPATI PROFESSOR AT
UCLA CLIMATE SCIENTIST, COAUTHOR
OF THE FIFTH NATIONAL CLIMATE
CHANGE ASSESSMENT, MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL ACADEMIES BOARD OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE AND CLIMATE
AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER
FOR DIVERSE LEADERSHIP IN
SCIENCE, WHICH IS A GREEN
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN
OUR STATE. YOUR NAME? BUT OKAY,
OKAY, SO ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH,
WITH THAT WE HAVE SELF-REPORTED
DATA THAT DOES GO BACK 20 YEARS.
SO YES, FROM THE COMPANIES
THEMSELVES. SO THAT EXISTS. AND
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS I KNOW
THAT THE OPPOSITION IS HERE AND
WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA
CONVENIENCE. I ALWAYS MESS UP
THE NAMES FUELS ALLIANCE AS WELL
AS, YOU KNOW, THE CHAMBER AND
MANY OTHERS THAT ARE SPEAKING IN
OPPOSITION. AND THE GOAL
GENUINELY, I THINK, FOR THE
LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE IS ONE,
YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT BUSINESS LASTS IN
CALIFORNIA AND WE'RE NOT TRYING
TO INCREASE PRICES FOR ANY
AVERAGE CONSUMER. WE WANT TO
ENSURE THAT JOBS ARE HERE, GOOD
PAYING JOBS. AND, AND NUMBER
THREE, EVEN EVEN MYSELF, I HAVE
A BILL, YOU KNOW, IN THIS SPACE
THAT REALLY TRIES TO PRIORITIZE
ALTERNATIVE FUELS IN OUR GAS
STATIONS AND SO FORTH. RIGHT? SO
I WANT TO SAY THIS FOR THE
LARGER PUBLIC THAT, YOU KNOW,
NOT ONE SINGLE BILL IS GOING TO
SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
THAT'S THE HONEST TRUTH OF IT.
THE INVESTMENT MADE, YOU KNOW,
LIKE I REPRESENT VERY POOR
COMMUNITIES AND ALSO EXTREMELY
AFFLUENT COMMUNITIES. AND IN OUR
POOR COMMUNITIES, THEY CARE
ABOUT HOUSING AND JOBS IN OUR
AFFLUENT COMMUNITIES. THEY'RE
THE ONES THAT FOCUS ON FRESH
AIR. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE
REQUIRES FRESH AIR, CLEAN WATER,
AND MUCH MORE. SO AT A CERTAIN
POINT IN TIME, I DO WANT TO
PRIORITIZE THE EFFORT THAT YOU
ARE TRYING TO MAKE, AND I THINK
WE ALL AGREE WITH THIS AND SOME
OF THE DETAILS WE CAN DEBATE,
BUT BUT WE ALL NEED TO WORK
TOGETHER TO PRIORITIZE CLIMATE
IOT. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE IT
WHEN APPROPRIATE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I
APOLOGIZE. I KNOW BOTH SENATORS
HAVE ASKED ABOUT WHY THIS 20
YEAR PERIOD AND WE HAVE AND I'D
LIKE TO TURN TO MY WITNESS TO
RESPOND TO THAT. RIGHT. YEAH.
JUST A COUPLE OF MORE WORDS
ABOUT WHY THE COVERED PERIOD IS
2000 TO 2020 AND WHY THAT'S FAIR
. AND, YOU KNOW, THE POLLUTER
PAYS PRINCIPLE IS AT THE HEART
OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. AND THIS
BILL IS ONLY BASED ON STRICT
LIABILITY. IT'S ONLY ASKING SOME
OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO
PAY FOR THE DAMAGE THAT THEIR
EMISSIONS CAUSED DURING THIS 20
YEAR PERIOD. AND BUT, YOU KNOW,
WE, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT THE DUE
PROCESS CONCERNS, FAIRNESS IS
FUNDAMENTAL TO THAT ANALYSIS.
AND EVEN THOUGH THIS BILL IS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
LANDMARK LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT TO HOLD POLLUTERS
ACCOUNTABLE, AND NO BAD ACTION
IS NECESSARY FOR LIABILITY HERE,
THOSE ACTIONS ARE RELEVANT
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT FOR OVER
HALF A CENTURY, THE FOSSIL FUEL
INDUSTRY LIED ABOUT THE CLIMATE
SCIENCE AND BLOCKED ALTERNATIVES
TO THEIR DANGEROUS PRODUCTS AND
THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL. AND HAD
THEY NOT DONE THAT, THE WORLD
WOULD LOOK VERY DIFFERENT
BECAUSE DECADES AGO, EXXON'S
CLIMATE MODELS WERE MORE
ACCURATE THAN NASA'S AT
PREDICTING CLIMATE CHANGE. AND
WITHOUT THAT OBSTRUCTION, THINGS
WOULD BE DIFFERENT. AND SO THAT
DOES GO TO THE FAIRNESS
QUESTION. AND THE CHOICE OF THE
COVERED PERIOD FROM 2000 TO 2020
TO FOLLOW UP. SO SOME OF US
AREN'T LAWYERS. RIGHT. AND I
JUST WANT TO BE ABLE FOR, FOR
YOU TO GIVE IT TO IN A VERY
LAYMAN'S WAY, STRICT LIABILITY.
RIGHT. AND ESPECIALLY THESE
POLLUTERS WERE BASICALLY TRYING
TO FOCUS ON PEOPLE WHO KNOWINGLY
, POLLUTED OUR ENVIRONMENT.
CORRECT. YOU JUST EXPLAIN IT IN
A VERY LIKE, LET'S SAY WE'RE IN
SECOND GRADE. YEAH, YEAH. THANK
THANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I
MEAN, I SAY STRICT LIABILITY AND
THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE
DONE ANYTHING WRONG TO BE
ASSESSED THE FEE HERE. IT'S ONLY
BECAUSE BECAUSE THE FOSSIL FUELS
CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE AND CAUSED
THAT DAMAGE. IF THEY HAD HAD NO
IF THERE HAD BEEN NO BAD
ACTIONS, THIS BILL WOULD STILL
BE FULLY SUPPORTED. BUT WHEN,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS
RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION ABOUT
WHETHER DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE
VIOLATED. AND MY POINT IS THAT
EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE
ABSOLUTELY FULLY SUPPORTED
WITHOUT THOSE BAD ACTIONS, HERE
WE HAVE A INDUSTRY THAT DID ACT
VERY BADLY. AND THEY'RE TRYING,
YOU KNOW, PART OF THE
DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN THAT
WE'VE SEEN FOR DECADES ARE
TRYING TO SHIFT THE BLAME ONTO
EVERYDAY PEOPLE WHO USE FOSSIL
FUELS AND SAY, YOU CAN'T HOLD US
ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE YOU USE
FOSSIL FUELS. BUT WHAT WE KNOW
NOW FROM FABULOUS ACADEMIC
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIVE
JOURNALISM AND THESE LAWSUITS
THAT HAVE BEEN FILED IS THAT THE
FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY CREATED
DEMAND FOR THEIR DEADLY
PRODUCTS. THEY DID THAT WITH
DISINFORMATION, AND THEY DID IT
BY BLOCKING ALTERNATIVES. AND SO
WE WOULD NOT BE USING THE AMOUNT
OF FOSSIL FUELS THAT WE ARE
USING TODAY. HAD THEY HAD THEY
NOT BEEN AT THAT FOR OVER 50
YEARS, WE COULD HAVE BEEN
GENERATING CLEAN, RENEWABLE
ENERGY, SCALING THAT UP STARTING
IN THE 1970S OR EVEN EARLIER AND
ELECTRIFYING TRANSPORTATION. BUT
WE ARE WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE OF
THAT OBSTRUCTION. AND SO THIS
BILL IS SEPARATE AND
COMPLEMENTARY TO THE LAWSUITS
BROUGHT BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM,
BROUGHT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BONTA. FOR THOSE BAD ACTIONS
TAKEN, THEY DO GO TO FAIRNESS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS SENATOR.
ANYBODY ELSE? NO. ALL RIGHT, A
COUPLE QUESTIONS, THIS SEEMS TO
PUT WHAT WHAT APPEARS TO BE A
LARGE BURDEN UPON CAL EPA THAT
CAL EPA IS THE AGENCY THAT WILL
ANALYZE, WILL ASSESS, WILL
BASICALLY DECREE, WHAT IS CAL
EPA SAID? WHERE DO THEY STAND?
ARE THEY IN SUPPORT? WHERE ARE
THEY? NO, WE HAVEN'T SOUGHT ANY
TO YET FROM CAL EPA. SO YOU'VE
NOT HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH
CAL EPA? NO, AS FAR AS I'M
CONCERNED, NO, WE HAVEN'T. OKAY,
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL,
BUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NOT
JUST IMPORTANT, BUT CRITICAL IS
WHETHER CAL EPA IS ON BOARD WITH
BEING ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THIS IS
LOOKS TO ME TO BE COMPLICATED. I
REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A
SIMPLE MIND. AND FOR YOU GUYS,
IT DOESN'T LOOK SO COMPLICATED.
BUT LOOKS TO ME TO BE VERY
COMPLICATED. SO THAT WOULD BE A
CRITICAL ELEMENT, SECONDLY IS
THAT IN TERMS OF WHO THIS
APPLIES TO, DOES IT APPLY TO THE
EXTRACTORS AS WELL AS TO OTHERS?
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE IF
YOU'RE NOT A REFINER, IF YOU'RE
NOT A PRODUCER, BUT YOU'RE AN
EXTRACTOR, DOES IT APPLY TO YOU
AS WELL? I SEE ONE HEAD SHAKING.
YES. AND ONE HEAD SHAKING. NO.
SO I'LL TURN TO YOU, SENATOR, IF
YOU WANT TO DEFER TO ONE OF YOUR
WITNESSES, THAT'S FINE.
PRODUCERS. FOR EXTRACTION,
PRODUCTION AND SALE OF FOSSIL
FUELS. SO IT DOES APPLY TO AN
EXTRACTOR? YES. OKAY. IT APPLIES
TO AN EXTRACTOR AND DOES NOT
APPLY TO THE RETAILER SO FAR AS
YOU KNOW. RIGHT. IT DOESN'T. BUT
IT IT APPLIES TO THE REFINER
RIGHT. YES. OKAY. AND SO WHAT
WHAT DO YOU JUST A BALLPARK
FIGURE. WHAT DO YOU ESTIMATE
THE. WELL LET ME START WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE. WHAT DO YOU
ESTIMATE THE COST OF CLIMATE
CHANGE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2020.
JUST I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT
WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE
FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. I'M
TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL. WHAT'S
THE HARM TO CALIFORNIA? YEAH.
ARADHNA TRIPATI WOULD BE BETWEEN
50 AND $100 BILLION.
CONSERVATIVELY AND THE COST
SINCE 1980, BETWEEN 100 AND $200
BILLION CONSERVATIVELY. RIGHT.
THAT'S NOT INCLUDING ALL SORTS
OF THINGS, BUT THAT'S I WANT TO
JUST FOCUS ON THE ESTIMATE
PERIOD THAT IS FOCUSED UPON IN
THE BILL. SO 50 TO $100 BILLION
FROM 20 FROM 2000 2020 WOULD BE
A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.
OKAY. CONSERVATIVELY. ALL RIGHT.
AND WHAT PORTION OF THAT 50 TO
$100 BILLION WOULD YOU ATTRIBUTE
TO THE ENTITIES THAT ARE
TARGETED IN THIS BILL. WHAT WHAT
PERCENT WOULD BE PROPORTIONATE
THROUGH PROPORTIONATE ARE THEY
50% RESPONSIBLE 80% RESPONSIBLE?
CASSIE, DO YOU WANT TO CHIME IN.
YEAH. SO THE SO THE FIRST OF ALL
JUST TO SAY ABOUT 75% OF WARMING
COMES FROM FOSSIL FUELS. THIS
BILL ONLY ADDRESSES THAT 75. AND
THEN WHEN YOU HAVE THE 1 BILLION
TON THRESHOLD WHICH NARROWS IT
DOWN TO A SMALL NUMBER OF
COMPANIES, YOU DO LOSE SOME OF
THE EMISSIONS. SO LET'S SAY
ROUGHLY ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF
EMISSIONS WITH THAT THRESHOLD.
OKAY. SO ABOUT BETWEEN IF IT'S
TWO THIRDS, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
OAN 40,000,000,080 BILLION, YOU
WOULD SAY OKAY. AND THAT 40
BILLION TO 80 BILLION THAT WOULD
BE ASSESSED AS TO THE TARGETED
ENTITIES THAT WITHIN THIS BILL,
RIGHT. AND WHAT WHAT MECHANISM
EXISTS. AND I KNOW YOU ALLUDED
TO THIS A MOMENT AGO, BUT I'M
THE CALCULATION ON NOT JUST THE
CALCULATION. I'M INTERESTED IN
NOT BEING ABLE TO PASS THAT 40
TO $80 BILLION ONTO THE
CONSUMER. WHY WOULD THEY NOT BE
ABLE TO PASS THAT 40 TO $80
BILLION ON THE CONSUMER? SO WHAT
I SPOKE TO EARLIER IS IN TERMS
OF TO STAY COMPETITIVE OF,
BECAUSE ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF
THESE POLLUTERS WILL HAVE THIS
FEE ASSESSED TO THEM, AND NOT
EVERY SINGLE ONE. SO BUT THE
EXAMPLE I GAVE WAS ONE A
POLLUTER, A BEING ACROSS THE
STREET FROM POLLUTER B, WHO AND
POLLUTER B DOES NOT GET THIS FEE
ASSESSED TO THEM. SO TO BE
COMPETITIVE THEY WOULDN'T WANT
TO BRING IT DOWN TO THEIR
CONSUMERS. AND MY WITNESS CAN
ADD TO THAT. ALSO, JUST TO ADD,
THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN CLIMATE
POLICIES. THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT
REDUCING EMISSIONS. AND THIS
WILL NOT AFFECT THE ONGOING
MARGINAL COST OF PRODUCTION. IT
IS SO IT IS IN SUCH SHARP
CONTRAST TO OTHER THINGS. FOR
THAT REASON, IT'S TAKING MONEY
FROM SOME OF THE LARGEST
COMPANIES AND REINVESTING IN
CALIFORNIA. AND FINALLY, OF
COURSE, ANTI-COMPETITIVE
BEHAVIOR AND PRICE GOUGING IS
ILLEGAL. AND WE ARE SO FORTUNATE
TO HAVE SB ONE TWO NOW IN
CALIFORNIA TO GIVE THAT EXTRA
PROTECTION AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO
PASS IT ON, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES
NOT LIKE OTHER POLICIES AFFECT
THE COST OF PRODUCTION. I WANT
TO GIVE YOU THIS. I'M SORRY. GO
AHEAD, 30S, AND TO GIVE YOU A
SENSE OF WHAT THOSE NUMBERS
COULD LOOK LIKE, IF YOU JUST
LOOK AT WHAT EXXON MADE YOU
KNOW, AS ONE OF THE COMPANIES
THAT IS ONE OF THE LARGEST,
POLLUTERS IN, IN THAT TIME
PERIOD, IT'S ON THE ORDER OF $1
TRILLION. RIGHT. AND WHAT WOULD
BE LEVIED PROPORTIONALLY COULD
BE SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF
0.03. JUST A REALLY ROUGH BACK
OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION. AND
SO IT'S REALLY SMALL POTATOES
FOR THEM, OKAY, AND FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES ARE BEARING ALL OF
IT. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK THE
OPPOSITION IF THEY AGREE WITH
SMALL POTATOES, BUT IN ANY EVENT
OKAY. SO AND IT EXTENDS TO 2045
IN TERMS OF ASSESSMENT. IS THAT
RIGHT. DID I HAVE THAT CORRECT.
YES. SO WE'RE ASKING CAL EPA TO
REASSESS IT EVERY TWO YEARS, TO
ENSURE THAT THE CALCULATIONS
THEY MADE THE TWO YEARS PRIOR
ARE STILL IN LINE WITH THE
DAMAGES THAT ARE CAUSED THROUGH
2045. SO IN TERMS OF DUE PROCESS
AND I'LL CONCLUDE WITH THIS,
TYPICALLY WHEN SOMEONE IS
ASSESSED OR ACCUSED, WHATEVER IT
MAY BE, OF SOME, ACTION, WHETHER
IT'S WRONGDOING OR NOT, THEY
HAVE AN ABILITY TO RESPOND TO
THAT IN SOME MEANINGFUL WAY. AND
I GET THAT THIS IS STRICT
LIABILITY. BUT EVEN THOSE WHO
ARE EVEN IN THE STRICT LIABILITY
REALM, IF YOU PRODUCE A PRODUCT
THAT IS DESIGNED DEFECTIVELY,
YOU STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TÊ
BASICALLY TO RESPOND IN TERMS OF
WHETHER IT WAS DESIGNED
EFFECTIVELY, BUT SECONDLY, WHAT
THE DAMAGES ARE AND WHERE HERE
DOES IT GIVE THE ENTITIES THAT
WOULD HAVE TO PAY THIS? WHERE DO
THEY HAVE WHERE THEY HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, CAL EPA,
YOU'RE WRONG. DO THEY RESORT TO
THE COURT? HOW DO THEY HOW DO
THEY ADDRESS THIS? SO SB 1487
HAS A SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO WHAT
IS IN THE CHILDHOOD LEAD
POISONING PREVENTION ACT. AND
EVEN IN THAT PREVENTION ACT,
SHELL WENT IN CHALLENGE ITS FEE
ASSESSMENT AND THE METHODOLOGY
THAT WAS UTILIZED. AND THEY LOST
THEIR CHALLENGE, BUT THEY
WEREN'T PREVENTED FROM CHALLENGE
, FROM BRINGING IT FORWARD. THE
SAME THING WOULD BE SAID HERE.
THEY'RE NOT PREVENTED FROM
BRINGING IT FORWARD, SO
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE NOT
BEING DEPRIVED OF ANY DUE
PROCESS OR OTHER RIGHTS UNDER
THIS BILL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M
GOING TO I'M GOING TO TURN TO,
TO SENATOR WILK HERE. SENATOR
WILK. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE
LAST TIME I DREW OUT A LIST LIKE
THIS AND I RIFFED, I GOT A LOT
OF TROUBLE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO
DO THAT. BUT I DON'T NEED TO
ANSWER. BUT SOMETHING I THINK I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU REACH OUT
AND DO. HAVE YOU TALKED TO
CALPERS AND CALSTRS? BECAUSE MY
CONCERN THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT
SHAREHOLDER VALUE, WHICH IS
GOING TO AFFECT THE PENSION
FUNDS OF OUR HARD WORKING
TEACHERS AND STATE AND STATE
EMPLOYEES. AND I WOULD GET SOME
INFORMATION FROM THEM AS WELL.
I'M NOT I'M JUST NOT EVEN CLOSE
TO BEING IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT A
HOLISTICALLY. AND I THINK YOU
MIGHT END UP HARMING A LOT OF
PEOPLE THAT I KNOW YOU DON'T
INTEND TO HARM. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. YEAH. EXCUSE ME, SENATOR, I
MADE THE MOTION EASY FOR ME TO
SAY. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR MOVES
THE BILL. DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION, SENATOR RUSSO? OKAY,
SURE. SENATOR RUSSO, IT'S BEEN
MOVED. SENATOR RUSSO, GO AHEAD,
I THINK YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, HEARD
REALLY LOUD AND CLEAR FROM A
NUMBER OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, OUR
COLLEAGUES HERE, HOW THE
PRINCIPAL GOAL OF, TRYING TO
MAKE UP OR ASKING THESE
COMPANIES, DEMANDING FROM THESE
COMPANIES WHO DID SO MUCH HARM
TO OUR, DELIBERATELY DID SO MUCH
HARM TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND POOR
COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR PAY THE BIGGEST PRICE OF
ALL OF THAT. AND YET AT THE SAME
TIME, YOU KNOW, WORK IN THESE
INDUSTRIES, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A
VERY DIFFICULT, CONTRADICTION
TO, TO DEAL WITH. I THINK IN
ADDITION TO THAT, THERE ARE SOME
BIG ISSUES, VERY BIG ISSUES THAT
CAN'T JUST BE, YOU KNOW,
ANSWERED IN A FEW WORDS, TAKE
SOME REAL SERIOUS, RESEARCH AND,
THOUGHTFULNESS. SO SO, I WILL I
WILL SUPPORT YOU TODAY, BUT THIS
IS GOING TO BE A VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT BILL. TO VOTE FOR ON
IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT SOME VERY
SIGNIFICANT. AND THAT'S GOING TO
TAKE SOME REAL, SERIOUS MOVEMENT
ON YOUR PART TO ADDRESS. I'M
JUST SAYING THAT AS AN OPINION
BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO DO
SOMETHING THAT'S VERY GOOD. ON
THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE TOO
MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OF THE
HARM THAT COULD COME FROM FROM,
FROM THIS KIND OF A LEGISLATION.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT
WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT. I THINK
WE'VE EXPRESSED OUR POINTS OF
VIEW. I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT OF
VIEW. SENATOR BARRASSO. SENATOR
MENGIBAR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU SO MUCH. I, I
TRULY APPRECIATE EVERY SINGLE
ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AS I'VE
JOTTED THEM ALL DOWN. SENATOR
ASHBY, YOU ARE CORRECT. THIS IS
A VERY AMBITIOUS BILL. THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME AND FIRST TIME IN
CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY THAT A BILL
LIKE THIS WAS INTRODUCED. BUT WE
ARE ONE OF THE FOUR IN THE
NATION THAT HAVE SAID ENOUGH IS
ENOUGH, STATES LIKE NEW YORK,
VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS AND
MARYLAND HAVE ALSO INTRODUCED
PRETTY IDENTICAL BILL IN
CONGRESS. WE ALSO HAVE A BILL
THAT WAS INTRODUCED THAT THIS
WAS MODELED AFTER IN THE US
SENATE BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID IN
MY FIRST SENTENCE, IF YOU BREAK
IT, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
BUYING IT. YOUR ANALYSIS, I
WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE, DID A ONE
OF MY FAVORITE SENTENCES FROM
THE ANALYSIS IS THAT WE COULD
EASILY CONCLUDE THAT FOSSIL FUEL
COMPANIES BENEFIT FROM THE
ACTIVITY THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE
CLIMATE CRISIS. IT IS ALSO
PROBABLY FAIR TO SAY THAT FOSSIL
FUELS SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF BEING REQUIRED TO
CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TO HELP OUR
STATES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
AS WE CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
ON JUST TRANSITION FROM FOSSIL
FUELS TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES,
THAT OUR UNION MEMBERS ARE
WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES ARE
GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF
THAT CONVERSATION FOR A JUST
TRANSITION. BUT THAT IS A
SEPARATE TOPIC FROM THIS. AGAIN,
THIS IS NOT REGULATORY, IT IS
JUST TO ENSURE THAT THEY HELP US
PAY FOR THE DAMAGES THEIR
EMISSIONS HAVE CAUSED. WITH
THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM SECRETARY. IT'S BEEN MOVED
BY SENATOR WAHAB. WOULD YOU CALL
THE ROLL, PLEASE? THIS IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER 11. SB 1497. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG
UMBERG I WILK NØ WILK. NO. ALAN.
ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE CABALLERO.
GRASSO. GRASSO AYE. GONZALEZ.
LAIRD. LAIRD. AYE MINH. NHIÀU.
WAHAB. WAHAB AYE. 5 TO 1. ALL
RIGHT. WHAT'S THE VOTE? 5 TO 1.
5 TO 1. PUT THAT ON CALL. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR SKINNER.
COMING RIGHT UP. GO AHEAD. ONE
SECOND. DID YOU SAY THAT ON THE
MIKE? DID I? WHAT? YOU WEREN'T
YOU WEREN'T ON. OKAY, SO JUST TO
BE CLEAR, WITH RESPECT TO SB
1497, THE VOTE WAS 5 TO 1. WE
PUT THAT BILL ON CALL ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR SKINNER, NUMBER 15, SB
976.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. I'M BACK. I THINK, I
COULD TALK AT LENGTH ABOUT WHAT
WHAT WE. THE EVIDENCE THAT WE
ARE NOW SEEING DAILY, WHETHER IT
IS IN RESEARCH REPORTS, POPULAR
ARTICLES, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING
PUT OUT BY A FORMER TECH
EMPLOYEE WHO'S A WHISTLEBLOWER
OR WHETHER IT'S A PSYCHOLOGIST
STUDY OR A, OTHER A PEDIATRICIAN
STUDY. OUR OWN US SURGEON
GENERAL ABOUT THE HARMS THAT
HAVE EMERGED AMONGST OUR YOUTH
WITH A DIRECT CORRELATION TO THE
USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.
AND AS EVERYONE ON THIS
COMMITTEE KNOWS, WE ARE LIMITED
IN OUR WAYS TO REGULATE THIS.
AND WE, INCLUDING MYSELF, HAVE
TRIED DIFFERENT, ATTEMPTS TO AND
BECAUSE OF FEDERAL LAW AND OTHER
THINGS. IT'S HARD TO, TO DESIGN
A BILL THAT WOULD DO WHAT I
THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS
LEGISLATURE WANTS, WHICH IS TO
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FOR
SOMETHING THAT PARENTS ARE
PRETTY MUCH, THEIR HANDS ARE
TIED IS SO DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO
INFLUENCE OR CONTROL. AND FOR
OUR KIDS, JUST GIVEN THEIR BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT, IMPULSE CONTROLS
AND VARIOUS OTHER THINGS IS
EXTREMELY HARD FOR THEM TO
CONTROL. SO THE BILL I'M
PRESENTING TODAY, SB 976, IT IS
PURPOSE IS TO DO OUR BEST TO
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM THE
HARMS OF SOCIAL MEDIA. AND IT
DOES. IT BY GIVING PARENTS MORE
ABILITY TO, IN EFFECT, PUT
LIMITS ON. BUT IT ALSO, MOST
IMPORTANTLY, DOES IT BY
REQUIRING OUR SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES BY DEFAULT TO NOT USE
THE ALGORITHMS THAT ARE EMBEDDED
IN THEIR PLATFORMS THAT HAVE
BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE THESE
ADDICTIVE FEATURES, SO THAT FOR
ALL USERS WHO ARE MINORS, THAT
THESE EMBEDDED ALGORITHMS WOULD
NOT BE AVAILABLE OR USED FOR
CHILDREN, USERS, AND THAT THE
THEY WOULD NOT SEND
NOTIFICATIONS TO OUR CHILDREN
USERS DURING THE HOURS THAT THEY
SHOULD BE SLEEPING. AND OF
COURSE, WE WERE PRETTY LIBERAL
ABOUT THAT. WE PUT IT TO
MIDNIGHT AND 6 A.M. AND DURING
THEIR SCHOOL HOURS AND THAT IT
OTHERWISE ALLOWS PARENTS TO
ADJUST VARIOUS OTHER THINGS IF
THEY CHOOSE FOR THEIR TO PROTECT
THEIR KIDS. IT NOW, WHEN WE
CONSIDER THE CRIES THAT, WELL,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S BENEFITS TO
USING SOCIAL MEDIA THAT SOME
KIDS, YOU KNOW, FIND PEERS THAT
THEY OR FIND FEEL SOCIALLY
ISOLATED. AND THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS ARE A WAY FOR THEM TO
FIND COMMUNITIES LIKE THEM. THIS
BILL IN NO WAY LIMITS THAT, IN
EFFECT, THIS BILL ALLOWS KIDS TO
GO BACK TO THE EARLY VERSION OF
FACEBOOK. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU
WHO MAY OR MAY NOT RECALL WHEN
FACEBOOK WAS FIRST ISSUED, IT
DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THOSE
ADDICTIVE ALGORITHM FEATURES.
INSTEAD, YOU, THE USER, YOU WERE
FED BACK BASED ON WHO YOU LIKED
AND WHO YOU PICKED AS A FRIEND.
IT WAS NOT BASED ON THE
ALGORITHMS, SO IT RETURNS BACK
TO THAT, WHAT WE CALL A
CHRONOLOGICAL FEED, WHICH ALLOWS
THEN BOTH MORE CONTROL THAT
YOU'RE NOT GETTING, INFORMATION
OR YOU KNOW, STUFF SENT AT YOU
THAT YOU DIDN'T CHOOSE. IN
EFFECT. NOW, LET ME GET INTO
SOME VERY SPECIFIC, YOU MAY HAVE
SEEN THE LA TIMES EDITORIAL
BOARD, PIECE, I THINK WAS
YESTERDAY. THAT SO APTLY STATED
THAT THE ALGORITHMS IN THESE
PLATFORMS ARE DESIGNED TO FEED
USERS A STEADY STREAM OF CONTENT
THAT THE USER DID NOT
NECESSARILY ASK FOR. THAT KEEPS
THE USER ON THE APP. AND THIS IS
WHY THE ALGORITHMS ARE CALLED
ADDICTIVE. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
WHAT THE USER SEES MAY BE MORE
DANGEROUS, MORE EXTREME, OR NOT
AGE APPROPRIATE THAN WHAT THE
USER INITIALLY SEARCHED FOR. SO
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING
TO CORRECT FOR. AND I WANTED TO
GIVE KUDOS TO THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. IT IS VERY WELL DONE.
I WAS VERY IMPRESSED. AND I WILL
STOP, TALKING NOW AND ALLOW MY
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT AND THEN
WE CAN GET INTO MORE DISCUSSION,
I HAVE DOROTHY JOHNSON, WHO IS
FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, A SPONSOR OF THE
BILL, AND ELEANOR BLOOM, WHO IS
A SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FROM OUR DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. AND, SENATOR
SKINNER, YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE
COMMITTEE'S. OH, I'M SO THAT WAS
VERY BAD OF ME. YES. I AM
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE TO REQUIRE
THE AG'S OFFICE TO ADOPT
REGULATIONS BY JANUARY 1ST,
2027, REGARDING HOW PLATFORMS
VERIFY AGE AND PARENTAL CONSENT.
BUT TO APPLY FOR THOSE AGE
VERIFICATION RESTRICTIONS WHEN
PLATFORMS HAVE THE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE THAT A USER IS A MINOR
BETWEEN THE PERIOD NOW AND WHEN,
THOSE REGS THAT THE AG WOULD
ADOPT. ADDITIONALLY, I WILL
CLARIFY THAT ENTITIES IN
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 22 675 ARE REGULATED BY
THE BILL. THANK YOU. FIRST
WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. DOROTHY
JOHNSON, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, WE REPRESENT
OVER 17,000 EDUCATION LEADERS IN
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WE
ARE A STUDENT FIRST ORGANIZATION
AND PLEASED TO SERVE AS A
SPONSOR OF SENATE BILL 976. OUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE STEMS
FROM THE NEED FOR A SAFER, MORE
RESPECTFUL ONLINE AND OFFLINE
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT TO UPLIFT
STUDENTS MENTAL HEALTH AND
ACADEMIC SUCCESS. IT ALSO STEMS
FROM THE NEED TO ENSURE OUR
EDUCATORS CAN FULFILL THEIR
GOALS, AS WELL. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE IMPACT OF ADDICTIVE SOCIAL
MEDIA IS CLEARLY SEEN DAILY AND
REPORTED AS A GROWING CONCERN
FOR OUR SCHOOL SITE LEADERS.
FURTHER, THE FRUSTRATION FROM
PARENTS WHO TURN TO SCHOOLS AND
EDUCATORS FOR HELP CANNOT BE
OVERSTATED. SCHOOLS ARE
CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED UNDER
CURRENT LAW TO REGULATE THE USE
OF STUDENTS SMARTPHONES ON
SCHOOL CAMPUSES AND DURING
SCHOOL SPONSORED ACTIVITIES.
THIS HELPS SOMEWHAT, BUT THE
SOCIO EMOTIONAL ISSUES PERSIST.
NEGATIVE BODY IMAGE, ANXIETY,
DEPRESSION, THOUGHTS OF
SELF-HARM, AND SO ON. THE STATE
HAS MADE A REAL INVESTMENT IN
CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
INCLUDING SCHOOL FOCUSED
SERVICES LIKE CERTIFIED WELLNESS
COACHES IN ADDITION TO LOCAL
INITIATIVES. SO WHILE WE WORK TO
TREAT THE SYMPTOMS, WE SHOULD
ALSO BE LOOKING AT WHAT ARE THE
CAUSES GIVEN ALL THE CHALLENGES
FACING TODAY'S STUDENTS, BOTH ON
AND OFF SCHOOL CAMPUS, WE
BELIEVE TOOLS TO HELP ENHANCE
FOCUS AND DISCOURAGE DISRUPTION
ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR
YOUNG LEARNERS AND EDUCATORS
ALIKE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
SUPPORT SB 976 AND RESPECTFULLY
URGE OUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ELEANOR
BLOOM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC
JUSTICE IN THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
ATTORNEY GENERAL BONTA IS
SPONSORING SB 976 TO PROTECT
KIDS FROM THE HARMS OF ONLINE
ADDICTION. THIS BILL IS PART OF
A LARGER EFFORT TO CREATE A
SAFER ONLINE ENVIRONMENT FOR
CALIFORNIA'S KIDS, WHERE SAFETY
AND MENTAL HEALTH PROTECTIONS
ARE PROVIDED BY DEFAULT, AND TO
ENSURE THAT SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS OBTAIN PARENTAL
CONSENT BEFORE EXPOSING CHILDREN
AND ADOLESCENTS TO ADDICTIVE
FEATURES. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SKINNER, FOR AUTHORING. IN THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
ADVOCATES FOR CO-SPONSORING WITH
US THIS TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN LAST FALL,
ATTORNEY GENERAL BONTA, ALONG
WITH STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY, SUED
META FOR MISLEADING ITS USERS
AND PUTTING OUR CHILDREN IN
HARM'S WAY. OUR LAWSUIT ALLEGES
THAT THE COMPANY VIOLATED
FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS,
DISREGARDING SERIOUS WARNINGS
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA
USE ON KIDS MENTAL HEALTH,
BUILDING A BUSINESS MODEL
FOCUSED ON MAXIMIZING YOUNG
USERS TIME ON THE PLATFORM,
EMPLOYING HARMFUL AND
PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATIVE
PLATFORM FEATURES, AND LYING
ABOUT IT TO THE PUBLIC. THIS ONE
COMPANY'S CONDUCT IS DECEPTIVE,
DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL, AND IT IS
JUST ONE PIECE OF A REALLY
SIGNIFICANT CRISIS FACING OUR
CHILDREN. OUR CHILDREN SPEND
MORE AND MORE TIME ONLINE IN
FRONT OF SCREENS FOR SCHOOL
PLAY, SELF-EXPRESSION,
CONNECTION AND EXPLORATION. AND
WITH THIS COMES THE GROWING BODY
OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE JUST
HEARD ABOUT THE TIME SPENT
ONLINE CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE
IMPACT ON CHILDREN, ON THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH, THEIR ABILITY TO
LEARN AND TO SLEEP, THEIR
FEELINGS OF EXCLUSION AND THEIR
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ADDICTION. THE
PROTECTING OUR KIDS FROM SOCIAL
MEDIA ADDICTION ACT ADDRESSES
THIS BY CHANGING THE DEFAULT
SOCIAL MEDIA ENVIRONMENT FOR
CHILDREN. THE BILL TAKES SEVERAL
STEPS TO PROTECT YOUNG USERS
FROM ADDICTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS. FIRST, SB 976 WOULD
BAR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, FROM
SERVING MEDIA TO CHILDREN
THROUGH A MANIPULATIVE,
ADDICTIVE ALGORITHMIC FEEDBACK
TO PLEASE WRAP IT UP. GREAT.
THANK YOU. THAT WAS A GOOD WRAP
UP. OKAY. GOOD. THANKS. PERFECT.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE OTHER
SUPPORTERS OF SB 976. THANKS,
KIM. STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, CLIFF BERG, ON BEHALF
OF THE JEWISH PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
DOCTOR HOFER, ON BEHALF OF
PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES, AS A
CO-SPONSOR AND IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JEFF WIENER, ON BEHALF OF
JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S
SERVICES IN THE SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA, WE SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
MIKEY HØI, ON BEHALF OF COMMON
SENSE MEDIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. FOR OTHERS WHO WISH TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO SB 976,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SIT DOWN?
ALL RIGHT. I'LL ASK THE
PROPONENTS TO PLEASE RETURN THE
AUDIENCE SO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, DYLAN
HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 976.
AND WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE
INTENT HERE TO PROTECT KIDS
ONLINE AND ON THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS. BUT I WANT TO NOTE
THAT OUR COMPANIES HAVE BEEN AT
THE FOREFRONT OF CREATING NEW
FEATURES AND TOOLS TO PROVIDE
PARENTS WITH GREATER CONTROL
OVER THEIR CHILD'S SOCIAL MEDIA
EXPERIENCE. IN FACT, MANY OF THE
TOOLS AND OPTIONS THAT THIS BILL
CONTEMPLATES ARE IN DEVELOPMENT
OR ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON
THESE PLATFORMS. HOWEVER WE DO
TAKE ISSUE WITH THE PROHIBITIONS
ON USING AN ALGORITHMIC FEED
UNLESS A USER CAN PROVE THAT
THEY ARE NOT A MINOR, OR IF THEY
ARE A MINOR IF THEIR PARENT
CONSENTS, THIS IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE AS WE INTERPRET THE
BILL, IN ORDER FOR AN ADULT TO
USE AN ALGORITHMIC FEED, THEY
MUST VERIFY THEIR AGE WITH THE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM. AND WHILE
SOME COMPANIES ARE ABLE TO
ESTIMATE A USER'S AGE RANGE,
THESE PROCESSES AND TOOLS ARE
NOT NEARLY ACCURATE ENOUGH TO
SUPPORT THE MANDATE OF THIS
BILL. THE FACT IS, THERE ISN'T A
RELIABLE METHOD FOR VERIFYING
AGE AND IDENTITY WITHOUT
COLLECTING USERS PERSONAL
INFORMATION SUCH AS GOVERNMENT
IDS, BIRTH DATES, OR OTHER
INFORMATION. IT'S EVEN MORE
DIFFICULT WHEN TRYING TO VERIFY
MINORS WHO OFTEN DON'T HAVE
IDENTIFICATION. VERIFYING A
PARENT IS EVEN TRICKIER, AS IT
WILL LIKELY REQUIRE A PLATFORM
TO VERIFY A PARENTAL
RELATIONSHIP AND RIGHTS SUCH AS
CUSTODY AGREEMENTS. THE DE FACTO
REQUIREMENT TO AGE, VERIFY AND
REQUIRE PARENTAL CONSENT TO
ACCESS. CORE FEATURES ALSO
RAISES SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES. AND WHILE THE BILL IS
DRAFTED TO AVOID MENTIONS OF
CONTENT, IT STILL IMPACTS THE
FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PLATFORMS
AND THEIR USERS, MOST DIRECTLY,
THE BILL MANDATES PLATFORMS
PRESENT CONTENT AND INFORMATION
IN A PARTICULAR WAY THROUGH A
CHRONOLOGICAL FEED. PLATFORMS
HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
EDITORIAL DISCRETION AND TO
CHOOSE HOW TO PRESENT
INFORMATION, MUCH LIKE
NEWSPAPERS AND BOOKSTORES. THIS
BILL DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH
EXISTING CASE LAW, WHICH HAS
APPLIED THAT RIGHT TO ONLINE
PLATFORMS AS IT RELATES TO
USERS. BY RESTRICTING ACCESS TO
THESE FEATURES WITH AGE
VERIFICATION AND PARENTAL
CONSENT, SB 976 IMPERMISSIBLY
AND WE BELIEVE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDENS
ADULTS ACCESS TO LAWFUL CONTENT
AND MINORS ABILITIES TO ACCESS
AND SHARE INFORMATION.
ADDITIONALLY, I'LL END WITH THIS
THE ASSUMPTION THAT A
CHRONOLOGICAL FEED IS INHERENTLY
SAFE AND AN ALGORITHMIC FEED IS
INHERENTLY HARMFUL, I THINK IS
MISGUIDED AND ALGORITHMIC. FEED
SHOWS USERS INFORMATION AND
POSTS FROM THEIR FRIENDS,
FAMILY, AND THEIR INTERESTS. IT
ORDERS AND MAKES SENSE OF THE
IMMENSE VOLUME OF USER. MR.
CHAIR, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE I'M
THE ONLY WITNESS. IS IT POSSIBLE
TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO MINUTES?
YOU WANT MORE THAN TWO MINUTES
BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY WITNESS?
YES, I BELIEVE SO. GO AHEAD, AND
I'M WRAPPING UP. SO I APPRECIATE
THE ABILITY, SHOWS USERS THIS
INFORMATION. IT MAKES SENSE OF
THE IMMENSE VOLUME OF USER
GENERATED CONTENT THAT'S OUT
THERE. IT ALSO HELPS ENSURE THAT
THEY RECEIVE HIGH QUALITY,
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE
CONTENT. CHRONOLOGICAL FEEDS, ON
THE OTHER HAND, CAN BE GAMED BY
BAD ACTORS. THE SAME WAY THAT AN
ALGORITHMIC FEED CAN, THEY CAN
BURY RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM
FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN FAVOR
ACCOUNTS THAT POST CONTINUOUSLY.
A LOT OF THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE
PAID TEAMS TO POST FREQUENTLY SO
THAT PEOPLE SEE THESE. THAT IS
EXACERBATED UNDER A
CHRONOLOGICAL FEED. SO FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO APPRECIATE THE TIME.
THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS
WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 976,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
AUSTIN HAYWORTH, ON BEHALF OF
THE INTERNET WORKS ASSOCIATION,
OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE SCOPE OF
THE OF THE DEFINITION OF
ADDICTIVE FEED. AND WE'VE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS HERE AND
OTHER STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
NAOMI PADRON, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION. AND WE
WOULD ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH
TECHNET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
BRANDON AT THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE OPPOSED
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE? LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. SENATOR ASHBY,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN. I
WANT TO THANK SENATOR SKINNER
FOR THIS BILL. I'M PROUD TO BE A
COAUTHOR, ALONG WITH SENATORS
ALLEN DURAZO RUBIO AND WILK, I
KNOW YOU HAVE WORKED HARD IN
THIS SPACE, AND I AM VERY
GRATEFUL FOR YOU FOR CONTINUING
TO BEAT THAT DRUM AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. SENATOR
UMBERG, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE
MOTION. ALRIGHTY. WE'LL DO OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, I BELIEVE SENATOR
ASHBY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL. SHE MOVES THE BILL. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR SKINNER WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
RATHER THAN, REFUTING VARIOUS
THINGS IN MY CLOSE, I WOULD JUST
INDICATE THAT, AS WE ARE WELL
AWARE, SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
THEMSELVES HAVE SO FAR BEEN
UNWILLING TO VOLUNTARILY CHANGE
PRACTICES IN A WAY THAT WOULD
MEET THE, THAT WOULD PROTECT OUR
CHILDREN'S IN THE WAY THAT
VARIOUS RESEARCHERS HAVE SHOWN
THAT THE HARM. WE'VE OBSERVED
THIS AT THE CONGRESSIONAL
HEARING IN JANUARY. WE'VE
OBSERVED IT HERE IN THE STATE
CAPITOL. WE SEE NOW PLACES LIKE
CANADA SUING SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES. WE SEE DIFFERENT
STATES TAKING ACTION, INCLUDING
OUR OWN STATE, BECAUSE WE'RE IN
A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE HAVE TEN
YEARS OF VERY STRONG AND GOOD
EVIDENCE OF THIS IMPACT ON OUR
KIDS, AND WE HAVE TO ACT TO
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. AND WITH
THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON
SB 976, AS AMENDED. BILL HAS
BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR ASHBY.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THIS FILE ITEM NUMBER 15,
SB 976. THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG UMBERG I.
WILK ALLEN. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO DURAZZO I. DURAZZO.
AYE. GONZALEZ LAIRD. LAIRD. AYE.
MINH NILO. WAHAB 4 TO 0. LET'S
CALL THE ROLL AGAIN. SO ALL THE
COAUTHORS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VOTE ON THE BILL. SENATOR WILK.
OKAY, WHY DON'T WE CALL THE ROLL
ONE MORE TIME? NOT VOTING. NOT
VOTING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THERE
WE GO. OKAY THANK YOU, SENATOR
SKINNER. OKAY ALL RIGHT, LET'S
TURN TO SENATOR LAIRD
.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR LAIRD, ITEM
NUMBER 25, SB 1097. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT SENATE BILL
1097. IT WILL UPDATE THE
MILITARY AND VETERANS CODES TO
USE GENDER INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE.
IT CLARIFIES THAT BENEFITS AND
PROTECTIONS PROVIDED TO
SURVIVING SPOUSES ARE ALSO
AVAILABLE TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS,
AND IT CLOSES A MINOR LOOPHOLE
TO CLARIFY THAT ONLY SERVICE
MEMBERS ON ACTIVE MILITARY
ORDERS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM JURY
DUTY, THIS IS ONE IN A SERIES OF
BILLS OF A NUMBER OF MEMBERS
WHERE WE LOOK AT THE CODE AND WE
TRY TO MAKE IT GENDER INCLUSIVE.
I DID A BILL TWO YEARS AGO
BECAUSE AMBER RAY WAS APPOINTED
THE FIRST WOMAN AS COMMANDER OF
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
AND YET THE ENTIRE CODE REFERRED
TO THE COMMANDER AS HE AND DID A
BILL TO UPDATE IT. SO THAT'S
WHAT THIS DOES IN A NUMBER OF
WAYS. IN ADDITION TO CLARIFYING
ABOUT DOMESTIC PARTNERS IN
BENEFITS AND CLOSING A LOOPHOLE
ABOUT JURY DUTY, THE BILL HAS NO
REGISTERED OPPOSITION. IT PASSED
OUT OF THE VETERANS COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY WITH NO NO VOTES. I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
THOSE TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1097, SEEING NO ONE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE, THOSE WHO ARE
OPPOSED, TO SB 1097, NO ONE'S
APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE.
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES SENATOR
WILK, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
WILK MOVES THE BILL. SENATOR
WILK MOVES THE BILL. ALL RIGHT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN EYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR
WILK. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 25, SB 1097. THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG A UMBERG I
WILK I WILK I ALLEN. ASHBY.
ASHBY. AYE. CABALLERO DURAZO
DURAZO I GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD
I MINH. NILO WAHAB. 5 TO 0 FIVE
ZERO. PUT THAT ON CALL. ALL
RIGHT. FOR SOME HOUSEKEEPING
MEASURES, WE'VE GOT SENATOR
LAIRD. THEN WE HAVE SENATOR MINH
. THEN THERE ARE THREE BILLS BY
SENATOR STERN THAT I UNDERSTAND
WILL BE PRESENTED BY OTHER
MEMBERS. THEN WE HAVE TWO BILLS
BY SENATOR UMBERG. AND OF
COURSE, WE HAVE A VOTE ONLY ON
SENATOR GLAZER'S SB 1424. AND WE
HAVE TESTIMONY ONLY ON SENATOR
TARDOS. 1154. SENATOR HURTADO
WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT HERSELF,
WE'LL TAKE HER BILL WHEN SHE
PRESENTS HERSELF. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR LAIRD, NEXT. BILL, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. 26 SB 1190, THE
SENATE BILL 1190 CLARIFIES THAT
MOBILE HOME OWNERS CAN INSTALL
SOCIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS IN
THEIR MOBILE HOMES PROVIDED THEY
MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS,
ENSURING THE HOME IS CAPABLE OF
SUSTAINING SOLAR INFRASTRUCTURE.
RIGHT NOW, MOBILE HOME
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION CAN
OVERRIDE THIS. THEY CAN SET
RULES THAT DON'T ALLOW
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS, MOBILE
HOME OWNERS, TO BE ABLE TO
INSTALL SOLAR AND REALIZE THE
NET METERING BENEFIT, THIS IS
VERY CLEAR BECAUSE IF IT TURNS
OUT THAT THERE'S A MASTER OR, A
MASTER ACCOUNT FOR THE ENTIRE
PARK, THEN THAT DOESN'T WORK.
AND THAT IS EXEMPTED FROM THIS
BILL. AND THERE'S PRECEDENT IN
THE LEGISLATURE. WHEN I WAS IN
THE ASSEMBLY, YOU COULD NOT PUT
UP POLITICAL SIGNS, YOUR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE NOT BE
ABLE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE
LEGISLATURE, STEPPED IN AND SAID
IF A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
THÀNH, SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T PUT
UP A POLITICAL SIGN IN THE
WINDOW THAT THERE'S AN
OVERRIDING FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE
ALLOWED IN MOBILE HOMES. THIS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THAT ETHIC, BUT
IT REALLY MEETS OUR CLIMATE
GOALS. AND IT'S, WE HOPE WILL
ADD TO PEOPLE BEING, ADDING
SOLAR. THE BILL HAS NO
REGISTERED OPPOSITION HERE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT AND ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. IS LINDA
NOGHAI WITH THE GOLDEN STATE
MANUFACTURED HOMEOWNERS LEAGUE
AT THE RIGHT TIME? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN IPHONE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD. THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M LINDA NIGH ON BEHALF OF GSML
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL FOR OVER
60 YEARS. GSML HAS BEEN A
RESIDENT ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING
FOR SENIORS ON FIXED INCOME AND
OTHER CALIFORNIANS OF MODEST
MEANS, LIVING IN MOBILE HOMES AS
ENERGY PRICES GO UP AND OPTION
FOR MOBILE HOME OWNERS TO HELP
OFFSET MONTHLY UTILITY BILLS AND
MAKE UP OUR CONTRIBUTION TO
ADDRESSING A CHANGING CLIMATE, I
RECENTLY DECIDED TO INSTALL
SOLAR ON MY OWN HOME MOBILE
HOME. I WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE
REQUIRED APPROVALS, INCLUDING
FIRST APPROVAL, WHICH WAS FROM
MY PARK MANAGEMENT. HOWEVER,
OTHER MOBILE HOME OWNERS HAVE
NOT BEEN SO LUCKY IN GETTING
APPROVAL FROM THEIR PARK
MANAGERS. WE BELIEVE IT'S
BECAUSE THERE'S NO CLARITY AND
GUIDANCE IN THE STATE LAW
REQUIRED RELATED TO MOBILE HOME
RELATED, I'M SORRY, RELATED TO
SOLAR AND MOBILE HOMES. SENATOR
LAIRD'S BILL WOULD CLARIFY THAT
WE CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM,
NOR TAKEN ADVANTAGE BY PARK
MANAGEMENT. WHILE EXPLORING
WHETHER SOLAR ENERGY IS FEASIBLE
IN OUR MOBILE HOMES, THIS BILL
KEEPS IN PLACE ALL LOCAL AND
STATE PERMITTING AND SAFETY
APPROVALS. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MISS NYE. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE APPROACH. MISS
NYE, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU IN
PERSON. I KNOW WE SEE ONE
ANOTHER ON ZOOM MANY TIMES, SO
THANK YOU. IN SUPPORT. BEVERLY
PURCELL, HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT, ORANGEVILLE 200
RESIDENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MICHELLE MONNING I'M THE HOA
PRESIDENT OF A PARK IN ROSEVILLE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JOSEPH
NYE, HOMEOWNER I GO FOR THE
OPPOSING OPPOSED OKAY. NO
SUPPORT. SUPPORT. OKAY GREAT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOT IT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO SB 1190,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS, THIS IS CHRIS
WYSOCKY WITH WJMA, AND WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND THE
WORK THAT HE DID TO WORK WITH
US. IT GOT US TO A POSITION OF
NEUTRAL. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU FOR THE DIALOG AND THE
DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. SENATOR.
ALRIGHTY THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
WISH TO TESTIFY ON SB 1190?
SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHED
THE MICROPHONE? LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SENATOR
ASHBY, I JUST WANT TO KNOW, WAS
THAT YOUR HUSBAND? HE HAD TO
CLEAR THE RECORD SO HE COULD GO
HOME. CORRECT YES. PERFECT. I'LL
MOVE YOUR BILL WHENEVER THE TIME
IS. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ME
THAT QUESTION. NEVER MET HIM
BEFORE IN MY LIFE. ALL RIGHT. IT
WAS HER HUSBAND ON ACCIDENT. I
SEE. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ASHBY.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ASHBY HAS
MOVED THE BILL. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS? SEEING NO OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE, AND I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS,
ESPECIALLY THE CORRECTED ONE IN
THE TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. WE WANT TO KEEP AN
ACCURATE RECORD. SO ALL RIGHT,
MADAM SECRETARY, IT'S BEEN MOVED
BY SENATOR ASHBY. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 26 SB 1190. THE MOTION'S
MOTION IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER, A NUMBER
I WILK A WILK I ALAN ASHBY.
ASHBY. AYE. CABALLERO DURAZO
DURAZO I GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD
I MINH. NHIÀU WAHAB. 5 TO 0 FIVE
ZERO. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL.
ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE WOULD
NORMALLY HAVE SENATOR MINH
FOLLOWED BY SENATOR WHOEVER IS
PRESENTING SENATOR STEARNS
BILLS, FOLLOWED BY SENATOR
UMBERG. AND AS I MENTIONED, WHY
DON'T WE DO THIS? LET'S TAKE UP
A LESS SB 1424 BY SENATOR
GLASER. IT'S FILE NUMBER 39.
VOTE ONLY. IN OTHER WORDS,
THERE'LL BE NO PRESENTATION,
WILL ONLY BE A VOTE. SO, IS
THERE A MOTION? IT'S THE VERY
LAST ITEM. IT'S. IT'S FILE
NUMBER 39. SB 1424 BY SENATOR
GLASER. AND THIS IS FOR VOTE
ONLY. THIS BILL WAS CONSIDERED
LAST WEEK AND WAS GRANTED
RECONSIDERATION. SENATOR LAIRD
MOVES THE BILL. ALL RIGHT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 39, SB
1424, THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER Ã. I WILK
NØ. WILK. NÓ ALAN ASHBY.
CABALLERO, RUSSELL Dð RUSSELL I.
GONZALEZ. LAIRD MINH NHIÀU
WAHAB. 2 TO 1. 2 TO 1. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
ALLEN, ARE YOU HERE TO PRESENT
ANY OF SENATOR STERN'S BILLS?
YES ALL RIGHT, CALL
TRANSPORTATION. NET TODAY. ALL
RIGHT. WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE
TO PRESENT FIRST? WHY DON'T I
JUST DO ITEM 29 FIRST? THE,
SORRY. ONE MORE TIME. FILE
NUMBER 29, SB 1421. THIS BILL IS
BY SENATOR STERN, BUT IT'S BEING
PRESENTED TODAY BY SENATOR ALAN
WRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. IN 2022,
THERE WAS A SOMETHING LIKE A 20%
REPORTED INCREASE IN HATE CRIMES
. THIS FOLLOWED ALARMING RISES
IN VARIOUS FORMS OF HATE IN
RECENT YEARS, INCLUDING ANTI ÁP
BROCK, LGBT INCIDENTS, BIG
SPIKES 20, 2324 AND ANTI-SEMITIC
AND ISLAMOPHOBIC, ANTI-ARAB
INCIDENTS. AND WE'VE SEEN THIS
ISSUE, REALLY CUTE IN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOLS. I THINK 2021, THE
NUMBER OF APPEALS THAT CDC
RECEIVED RELATED TO
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND
BULLYING BASED ON A PROTECTED
CHARACTERISTIC, WAS 58. THAT
NUMBER ROSE TO 70 AND 22, 101
AND 23, A 74% INCREASE IN JUST
OVER TWO YEARS. AND NOW, MORE
THAN EVER, THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS
TO BE EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH
THESE INCIDENTS IN AN
APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY MANNER.
SO THIS BILL ESTABLISHES THE
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS WITHIN
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO
STREAMLINE THE RESPONSE TO
INCIDENTS OF HATE AT LOCAL
EDUCATION AGENCIES AND
STREAMLINE THE RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINTS RELATIVE TO THE
ACCESS OF HIGH QUALITY
EDUCATION, INSTRUCTION AND
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS. SO WITH
ME TODAY PROVIDING TESTIMONY IN
SUPPORT, IS ALICE KESSLER FROM
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA. AND WE'LL
HEAR FROM ALICE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LAST
YOURS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, ALICE
KESSLER, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, THE LARGEST
STATEWIDE LGBTQ ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION IN THE IN THE
NATION. AND WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED
IN, LEGISLATION IN INCREASING
THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF STUDENTS
OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS. IT'S
BEEN A LARGE BODY OF WORK. AND
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE SEEING A
CLIMATE RIGHT NOW WHERE OUR
STUDENTS ARE REALLY IN THE
CROSSHAIRS OF A POLITICAL
CLIMATE WHERE WE'RE SEEING,
UNFORTUNATELY, AS SENATOR ALLEN
CITED, THESE INCIDENTS ON THE
RISE AND NO KNOCK TO THE GOOD
PEOPLE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT OVER THE YEARS THERE HAS
BEEN A BACKLOG AND IT HAS BEEN
DIFFICULT FOR STUDENTS TO BRING
THESE ISSUES FORWARD WITH THE
DEPARTMENT, AND WE ALSO KNOW
THAT NOT ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ARE, YOU KNOW, EQUALLY SITUATED
WHEN IT COMES TO THESE ISSUES.
IN FACT, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW,
ISSUES GOING ON IN LOCAL SCHOOL
BOARDS DEALING WITH BOOK BANS,
DEALING WITH CURRICULUM THAT
HAVE BECOME QUITE HEIGHTENED AND
HAVE HAD, AN IMPACT ON THOSE
STUDENTS THAT REALLY ARE AT THE
INTERSECTIONS OF THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. SO THE IDEA HERE
IS REALLY TO CREATE DEDICATED
RESOURCES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
THIS HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT. AND, YOU KNOW,
STUDENTS REALLY CAN'T GET A
DECENT EDUCATION IF THEY'RE NOT
SAFE AND THEY'RE NOT PROTECTED
AT SCHOOL. AND SO THAT'S REALLY
THE THRUST OF THIS BILL. AND WE
WOULD HUMBLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB
1421. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CLIFF BERG HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
JEWISH PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. TONY
TRUJILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT SAYING NO ONE ELSE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. THOSE
WHO ARE OPPOSED, PLEASE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE. ANY OPPOSITION
SB 1421 SEEING NO ONE. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
SENATOR LAIRD, I WOULD MOVE THE
BILL. LET'S MOVE THE BILL.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. SEEING
NONE. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ALLEN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN, I
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT AND YOUR
UNDERSTANDING AND INTEREST IN
THIS ISSUE. IT'S OBVIOUSLY
SOMETHING THAT WE CARE A GREAT
DEAL ABOUT. AND I RESPECTFULLY
RESTAURANT AND VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR LAIRD. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 29, SB
1421. THE MOTION IS TO PASS THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG A
UMBERG I WILK A WILK I ALLEN I
ALLEN I ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO
. RUSSELL Dð. RUSSELL I
GONZALEZ. LAIRD LAIRD I MINH.
NHIÀU WAHAB. THANK YOU. 6 TO 0
SIX ZERO. PUT THAT ON CALL. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT IS SB 1444. AGAIN
SENATOR ALLEN PRESENTING ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR STERN, I THINK
I THINK I'M PRESENTING, SB 1504.
OKAY. THAT'S FINE. I THINK
SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. 1444 BUT IF
YOU NEED ME, DO 1444. I'M HAPPY
TO DO IT. ADMIN IS DOING 14 MIN
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO LET'S
AND HE TRUSTED SENATOR MIDDAY TO
GET IT. OH I SEE YOU KNOW SO
JUST AN ISSUE OF COMPETENCY. ALL
RIGHT OKAY. SO, SO SENATOR STERN
TRUSTED YOU WITH SB 1504. YES.
GO AHEAD, WELL, LET ME START BY
SAYING THAT THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE,
ACCEPTS THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
TO ADD A CROSS REFERENCE TO THE
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL FOR SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM AND EXISTING LAW.
ALL RIGHT. SO ACCORDING TO, A
REPORT FROM OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL
, OVER HALF OF TEENS REPORT
THEY'VE EXPERIENCED
CYBERBULLYING. CERTAIN
DEMOGRAPHICS, SUCH AS LGBTQ PLUS
TEENS, ARE PARTICULARLY
TARGETED, LEADING TO INCREASED
RISK OF DEPRESSION, SUBSTANCE
ABUSE, AND OFFLINE VICTIMIZATION
. WE ALSO HAVE SEEN THAT BLACK
OR HISPANIC LATINO TEENS
DISPROPORTIONATELY BEAR THE
BRUNT OF CYBER BULLYING, AND WE
NOW KNOW THAT TOO OFTEN YOUNG
PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING IN SILENCE,
AND TRAGICALLY, SOME EVEN TAKE
THEIR OWN LIVES AS A RESULT OF
ONLINE ABUSE, ALSO, AND I KNOW
THAT WILL BE ONE OF THE TOPICS
OF CONVERSATION WITH SB 1444,
TOO OFTEN YOUNG PEOPLE SUFFER IN
SILENCE. TRAGICALLY, SOME EVEN
TAKE THEIR OWN SORRY, YOUNG
PEOPLE REPORT THAT SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS BERRY WHERE TO REPORT
CYBERBULLYING IN BOILERPLATE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND THAT
WHEN THEY DO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
COMPLAIN, THE PLATFORMS JUST
NEVER RESPOND. SO THIS IS A
CUSTOMER SERVICE BILL RELATING
TO SOCIAL MEDIA. IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE PLATFORMS TO REMOVE
CONTENT. SUCH A REQUIREMENT
WOULD BE BLOCKED BY SECTION 230,
BUT THE BILL MAKES FIVE DISTINCT
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW. FIRST,
IT REQUIRES THE CYBER BULLYING
REPORTING MECHANISM TO BE
PROMINENTLY SHOWN ON THE
PLATFORM. IT REQUIRES A WRITTEN
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF THE
REPORT WITHIN 36 HOURS. THIRD,
IT REQUIRES A WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF DETERMINATION WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REPORT.
FOURTH, IT LIFTS VIRTUALLY
VERBATIM LANGUAGE, EXPANDING
UPON WHAT CONSTITUTES CYBER
BULLYING FROM METAS POLICIES. SO
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY
BEEN DEVELOPED BY ONE OF THE BIG
TECH FIRMS. AND THEN FIFTH,
BEFITTING THE LIFE AND DEATH
STAKES FOR CHILDREN, AND IT
EXTENDS ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO
CITY ATTORNEYS, DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY COUNSEL AND
ALLOWS ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT
SUBMITS A REPORT OF CYBER
BULLYING TO THE PLATFORM TO
BRING AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THEIR
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO A RESPONSE
AND A WRITTEN DETERMINATION ON,
SO IT'S, WE HAVE WITNESSES HERE
IN SUPPORT. EMILY SARANG, WHO IS
A HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMAN AND
CYBERBULLYING SURVIVOR, AND
ALSO, I BELIEVE. IS THAT HOWARD
COMING OR. NO, NOT AT HOWARD.
OKAY ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. WELL,
SO KIM'S HERE, ALL RIGHT. WOULD
YOU MISS STONE FIRST? OKAY. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS EMILY SARANG. I'M A
FRESHMAN AT RUTH ASAWA SOTA HIGH
SCHOOL IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND AS
SOMEONE WHO HAS DEALT WITH BEING
CYBER BULLIED AND IS SOMEONE WHO
HAS TRIED TO HELP MANY OF MY
FRIENDS WITH CYBER BULLYING, I
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 154 IN 2021.
WHEN I WAS 11, A GROUP OF BOYS
WHO HAD KNOWN ME IN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL BEGAN HARASSING ME
THROUGH A SOCIAL MEDIA APP
CALLED DISCORD. FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY GAVE ME A NAME IN THE
SERVER WHICH WAS I NEED TO SUCK
UP. I WON'T SAY IT HERE, BUT YOU
KNOW, THEY ALSO SAID THAT NOBODY
COULD EVER LOVE ME IN A ROMANTIC
WAY SO THAT I WAS WEAK BUT HURT
AND URGED ME TO COMMIT SUICIDE.
THEY WERE JUST PICKING ON EVERY
DETAIL THEY COULD FOR A REASON,
PURELY TO HARM MY SELF-ESTEEM.
THAT I ALREADY POINTED OUT,
WASN'T IN A GOOD PLACE. THEY
MADE FUN OF MY HEIGHT, AND WHEN
AN OLDER FRIEND OF MINE JOINED
THE SERVER TO DEFEND ME IN A
RESPECTFUL MANNER, THEY JUST
WANT TO TARGETING THAT PERSON
TOO. IT WAS HARD TO FIND WHERE
IN DISCORD TO REPORT WHAT WAS
HAPPENING TO ME. IT ISN'T ON ITS
HOME PAGE. WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE
SAFETY CENTER HOME PAGE TAB
LINK, IT ISN'T ON THAT NEXT PAGE
EITHER. AND WHEN YOU CLICK ON
THE SAFETY LIBRARY TAB, IT STILL
ISN'T THERE. YOU HAVE TO CLICK
ON TOPICS AND THEN LOOK FOR HOW
TO REPORT CONTENT TO DISCORD,
WHICH APPEARS ON THE VERY BOTTOM
OF THE NEXT PAGE. WHEN I
REPORTED THE USERS HARASSING ME,
I GOT NO RESPONSE OR
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MY REPORT. I
STILL HAVEN'T. I'VE ALSO
EXPERIENCED THE WAY THESE
PLATFORMS HANDLE REPORTS WHEN
I'VE TRIED TO HELP OTHERS TAKE
INSTAGRAM COUNTLESS TIMES, I'VE
COME ACROSS COMMENTS PEOPLE WILL
MAKE ON OTHERS BODIES, MENTAL
HEALTH, OR LIVES IN GENERAL.
WHEN I SENT REPORTS FOR COMMENTS
LIKE GO KILL YOURSELF AND STOP
EATING WHILE YOU'RE AT IT. ON NO
SET TIMETABLE, I WOULD GET A
RESPONSE OF WE FOUND THE CONTENT
REPORTED DOESN'T GO AGAINST OUR
COMMUNITY GUIDELINES, BUT THANK
YOU FOR HELPING TO KEEP THE
INSTAGRAM COMMUNITY SAFE WHEN OF
COURSE, THE CONTENT I REPORTED
CLEARLY VIOLATES ITS COMMUNITY
GUIDELINES. SENATORS, THIS BILL
IS JUST A CUSTOMER SERVICE BILL
BENEFITING CHILDREN. THE RISK
THAT NOT HAVING AN ACCESSIBLE,
TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE CYBER
BULLYING REPORTING PROCESS POSES
TO MINORS IS EXTREME. IF I WAS
IN AN EVEN WORSE PLACE THAN I
WAS WHEN I WAS TOLD TO KILL
MYSELF, I MAY HAVE LISTENED TO
THEM AND DONE IT IN. THAT SCARES
ME. SENATORS, ON BEHALF OF TEENS
EVERYWHERE, PLEASE HELP US.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. COULD
YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR HIGH
SCHOOL ONE MORE TIME? EMILY
SARANG RUTH ASAWA, SCHOOL OF THE
ARTS IN SAN FRANCISCO. AUBREE IS
YOUR FIRST NAME EMILY. EMILY.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS
EMILY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT, MISS STONE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
KIM STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE. WE'RE
PLEASED TO CO-SPONSOR THE BILL.
THE BEST USE OF THESE TWO
MINUTES IS FOR ME TO SHARE A
COUPLE FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS
WITH YOU, FROM PARENTS AND TÍNH
THAT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR
THIS BILL, SO APOLOGIZE IN
ADVANCE FOR READING FROM A
PARENT. MY SON FACED AN ALARMING
THREAT THROUGH HIS USE OF A
POPULAR SOCIAL APP, WHICH, DUE
TO A SECURITY FLAW, EXPOSED HIS
PERSONAL INFORMATION TO A GROUP
WITH WHITE NATIONALIST IDEOLOGY.
THIS BREACH ESCALATED TO REAL
WORLD THREATS, INCLUDING
ATTEMPTS TO SABOTAGE HIS COLLEGE
APPLICATIONS AND COERCE HIM INTO
SPREADING HATEFUL PROPAGANDA.
AND THEN THESE ARE FROM TEENS,
AND THIS CAME FROM RETHINK AND
ASK TRISH, WHO SHARED THEM WITH
US. Ã POSTED A VIDEO OF ME
GETTING ASSAULTED FROM FIVE
YEARS AGO. I REPORTED IT
IMMEDIATELY TO INSTAGRAM FOR
HARASSMENT AND BULLYING, BUT
THEY DIDN'T RESPOND. HOW CAN I
GET THAT CONTENT TO BE TAKEN
DOWN ASAP? BECAUSE I'M HUGELY
EMBARRASSED AND I JUST WANT IT
GONE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO
THERE IS AN ACCOUNT THAT HAS
SHARED PERSONAL INFORMATION
ABOUT ME AND HAS POSTED
SEXUALIZED VIDEOS AND
SCREENSHOTS OF ME THAT HAVE
CAUSED GREAT PAIN IN MY LIFE. I
KEEP REPORTING IT, BUT IT KEEPS
SPREADING. I AM SO LOST. HOW DO
I GO ABOUT HAVING MY ADDRESS AND
PHOTOS OF MY HOME REMOVED FROM
POSTS THAT A BITTER EX HAS
POSTED ON FACEBOOK? SHE POSTED
OUR ADDRESS TO INCITE VIOLENCE
AGAINST MY FAMILY. I HAVE TRIED
REPORTING IT TO FACEBOOK BUT GET
DENIED EVERY TIME WE FEAR FOR
OUR FAMILY'S SAFETY. PLEASE HELP
ME. HOW CAN I CONTACT FACEBOOK
TO REMOVE SOMEONE'S MESSAGES
CONTAINING SEXUAL IMAGES OF ME
THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO MY FAMILY
MEMBERS AND FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK?
IT'S NOT CLEAR SOMEONE POSTED AN
OFFENSIVE PHOTO WITH ME WITHOUT
MY CONSENT AND CYBERBULLIED ME A
FRIEND WHO FOLLOWS THEM SHOWED
ME THE POST WHAT CAN I DO? WE
BOTH REPORTED IT, BUT THE
REPORTING SYSTEM DOESN'T ADDRESS
SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. THEY NEVER
RESPOND RESPECTFULLY. ASK YOUR I
VOTE HAPPY. THANK YOU QUESTIONS.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GIVE US
YOUR NAME, YOUR AFFILIATION,
YOUR POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS DOROTHY
JOHNSON WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
, PLEASED TO SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS.
SAM NASH WITH THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
CLIFF BERG, ON BEHALF OF THE
JEWISH PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YOU MAKE
GOOD USE OF YOUR TIME HERE, MR.
BERG. I CAN SEE SO JEFF WIENER,
JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S
SERVICES, WE SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS CHRIS DIDIER FROM
PLACER COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE
VICTIMS OF ILLICIT DRUGS, AND
ALSO ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL CRIME
VICTIMS RIGHTS WEEK, I STRONGLY
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. DIDIER.
ALL RIGHT. THOSE IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 15 ZERO
FOUR, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE OR YOU CAN HAVE A
SEAT, HERE IN THE FRONT, IF YOU
LIKE.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. AGAIN,
MY NAME IS KARA BUNDER, AND I'M
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB
1504. WHILE WE SHARE THE CONCERN
ABOUT ADDRESSING CYBERBULLYING,
AND WHILE RECENT AMENDMENTS
ADDRESS SOME OF OUR CONCERNS
WITH THE LEGISLATION, CRITICAL
COMPONENTS ESSENTIAL FOR
COMPLIANCE HAVE YET TO BE
ADDRESSED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BILL
INCLUDES POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS. IT REQUIRES A SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN CONFIRMATION TO A
REPORTING INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS
RECEIVED THE REPORT, BUT
RESTRICTS THE PLATFORM FROM
USING A COMMUNICATIONS METHOD
THAT IS WITHIN A SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM'S CONTROL. MANY ONLINE
SERVICES OFFER AN ARRAY OF
PRODUCTS AS A PART OF THEIR
NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS,
INCLUDING EMAIL, MESSAGING,
SOCIAL MEDIA, GAMING, MUSIC,
TELEVISION, FILM STREAMING,
AMONG OTHERS. THIS COULD
UNNECESSARILY CONSTRAIN A SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM THAT RECEIVES A
REPORT OF A CYBERBULLYING BY NOT
ALLOWING THE PLATFORM TO CONTACT
A USER VIA EMAIL IF THAT SERVICE
IS PROVIDED BY THE SAME COMPANY.
Kò COMPLIANCE DEFINITIONS ALSO
REMAIN UNDEFINED AND SUBJECTIVE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL IS
LARGELY MODELED AFTER LAST
YEAR'S AB 1394 REGARDING CSAM,
WHILE ONLINE PLATFORMS EMPLOY A
VARIETY OF AI AND HUMAN DRIVEN
TOOLS TO HELP FLAG, HELP FLAG,
REPORT AND REMOVE DANGEROUS AND
POTENTIALLY HARMFUL CONTENT, SB
15 ZERO FOUR INCLUDES SEVERAL
VAGUE OR UNDEFINED TERMS,
INCLUDING REASONABLE, MINOR, OR
WHAT MAY CONSTITUTE A
DETRIMENTAL EFFECT TO MINORS.
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM
IS EASIER TO DETECT AND IDENTIFY
DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE
MATERIAL AND PLATFORMS. ACCESS
TO HASHING VALUES USED TO
DEFINITIVELY, DEFINITIVELY ID
SUCH MATERIAL. IDENTIFYING
CYBERBULLYING MATERIALS MORE
SUBJECTIVE IN NATURE, AND THIS
ALSO MAKES THE 36 HOUR RESPONSE
TIME FRAME MORE DIFFICULT TO
COMPLY WITH, AS THIS IS NOT AN
APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON WHEN
IT COMES TO THE CONTENT. FOR THE
ABOVE REASONS, WE URGE YOU TO
RESIST ADVANCING LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL
COMPLIANCE ROADMAP FOR RECOVERY
SERVICES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND APPRECIATION OF THE,
LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS. THANK
YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS
AT THE END. GO AHEAD. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF
OF TECHNET, ALSO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO SB 1504, ALIGNED MANY
OF MY COMMENTS WITH CCI AS WELL.
I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT, DUE TO
THE PRESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF THE
NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT,
MECHANISM FOR JUST ONE CATEGORY
OF CONTENT CYBERBULLYING
COMBINED WITH THE MASSIVE
INCREASE IN PENALTIES AND
ENFORCEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT,
THIS CREATES A STRONG INCENTIVE
FOR PLATFORMS TO DEPRIORITIZE
SOME OF THEIR RESPONSES TO OTHER
CATEGORIES OF CONTENT. SINCE A
PLATFORM CAN BE SUED BY ANYONE,
NOT JUST A VICTIM OR THEIR
PARENT, PLATFORMS HAVE STRICT
TIMELINES TO COMPLY WITH, AND
FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN
LIABILITY IN $75,000 A DAY PER
VIOLATION, PENALTIES PLATFORMS
ARE STRONGLY INCENTIVIZED TO
PRIORITIZE RESOURCES AND
PERSONNEL TO ENGINEERING AND
STAFFING. THEIR RESPONSES TO
THIS CATEGORY OF CONTENT. AND
THESE ARE RESOURCES THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE ALLOCATED
ELSEWHERE, JUST LAST YEAR, THIS
BILL, THIS COMMITTEE PASSED A
BILL, RELATED RELATED TO CSAM,
AS NOTED, AB 1394, WHICH CREATED
A VERY SIMILAR REPORTING
MECHANISM, AND WE BELIEVE THIS
BILL MIGHT UNDERCUT THE PRIORITY
THAT THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS
LEGISLATURE ASSIGNED TO THAT
CATEGORY OF CONTENT, AND WE
THINK THAT MAY BE AN INADVISABLE
CHOICE, TECHNET AND OUR MEMBER
COMPANIES HAVE ENGAGED WITH THIS
COMMITTEE ON SIMILAR BILLS ON
REPORTING MECHANISMS. I
REFERENCED THAT ONE. THERE ARE
SEVERAL OTHERS BEFORE, THE
LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR, AND WE'RE
OPEN TO WORKING ON A BILL THAT
TREATS CATEGORIES OF CONTENT
REPORTING MECHANISMS
HOLISTICALLY, RATHER THAN
SINGLING OUT SINGLE ONES. SO WE
HOPE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH
YOU GUYS ON AMENDMENTS, AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. APPRECIATE IT.
THANKS. THANK YOU. SO SENATOR
STERN IS NOT HERE SO HE CAN'T
COMMIT TO WORK WITH YOU? I CAN'T
COMMIT TO CONTINUE. ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE IS MAKING SURE THAT WE
HAVE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE
CONSISTENT AND THAT WE HAVE,
LAWS THAT ARE WORKABLE. WE CAN'T
ALWAYS ACHIEVE THAT. BUT TO THE
EXTENT I UNDERSTAND, THERE WAS
SOME COORDINATION CHALLENGES,
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE
SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW WE CAN
MAKE SURE THAT THIS BILL, THIS
LAW IS WORKABLE AND THAT THE
DEFINITIONS THAT TERMS ARE
DEFINED AND THE DEFINITIONS ARE
CONSISTENT. I WOULD WELCOME
THAT. SO I SEE YOUR HEADS
NODDING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. AND
THEN TO EMILY, LET ME JUST SAY,
I HOPE YOUR PARENTS, TEACHERS,
FRIENDS, IF THEY'RE NOT WATCHING
THIS, THERE'S A VIDEO THAT YOU
CAN DISTRIBUTE. BUT MOST
IMPORTANTLY, I HOPE THAT THOSE
WHO CYBER BULLIED YOU, WATCH
THIS AND SEE HOW YOU'VE STOOD UP
TO THEM. SO THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. QUESTIONS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. COMMENTS. OH ME TOO. I
FORGOT THE OPPOSITION. ME TWOS.
ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
GIVE US YOUR NAME, YOUR POSITION
AND YOUR AFFILIATION AND YOUR
POSITION. BRANDON KNAPP,
REPRESENTING ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION, RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE, LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. YES, SENATOR
WILK, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
ACTUALLY, JUST REALLY A COMMENT.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR
BRAVERY COMING HERE AND DOING
IT. AND YOU DID AN EXCELLENT
JOB, ONE OF THE SADDEST DAYS
THAT I'VE HAD IS BACK IN 2017.
THERE WAS A HIGH SCHOOL, THERE
WAS A SHOOTING AT MY LOCAL HIGH
SCHOOL. IN FACT, IT WAS THE HIGH
SCHOOL THAT MY KIDS ATTENDED IN
THE CLASSROOM THAT MY DAUGHTER
WAS IN EVERY SINGLE DAY OF HER
ACADEMIC CAREER. IN THE
AFTERMATH OF THAT, I GOT
INVITED. WELL THEY INVITED ME TO
COME TO SPEAK TO ONE OF THE
JUNIOR HIGHS THAT THAT FEED INTO
THAT. AND I SAID, I WON'T COME
SPEAK, BUT I WILL COME AND
LISTEN. AND THEY ENDED UP
PUTTING ALL THE CLASSES TOGETHER
. AND WHAT YOU YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE
TO GO THROUGH. I JUST IT TAKES A
LOT JUST TO, TO, TO GO THROUGH
THAT. THE CYBER BULLYING, THEY
WERE SHOWING ME EXAMPLES.
THEY'RE SHARING STORIES WITH ME.
IT'S IT WAS OUT OF CONTROL IN
2017. I GOT TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S
EVEN WORSE NOW AND NOTHING HAS
BEEN DONE TYPICALLY ON THINGS
LIKE THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THERE
ARE STILL SOME CHALLENGES. I'M
NORMALLY VERY CONSERVATIVE AND
SAY NO, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY YES
TODAY BECAUSE WE NEED THESE
PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND
PROTECT, PROTECT OUR YOUNG
PEOPLE. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR COMING. SO SENATOR
WILK WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL
. ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS. YES
SENATOR CABALLERO. JUST GOT
SOMETHING IN MY THROAT. LET'S
SEE IF I CAN DO IT. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY
AND SHARING YOUR STORY, AND I
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE HEARING MORE AND MORE
ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF SOCIAL
MEDIA, AND THE MORE THAT WE CAN
BESEECH THE COMPANIES TO COME
FORWARD AND WORK WITH US ON
LANGUAGE AND WORK WITH US ON
SOLUTIONS THAT WILL GET IT
RIGHT, WE'LL GET IT BETTER TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT THAT YOU
RAISED, MR. CHAIR, WHICH IS THAT
WE TRY REALLY HARD TO GET IT
RIGHT, BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS
WORK BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING IN AN
IMPERFECT WORLD. AND THE MORE
THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE,
THE INTERNET WORKS AND WHAT IT'S
ACTUALLY VÆ IT'S POTENTIAL FOR
GOOD AND ITS POTENTIAL FOR HARM,
WE HAVE TO FIX IT. WE HAVE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING
EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. AND FOR OUR
CHILDREN ARE THE MOST
VULNERABLE. VULNERABLE JUNIOR
HIGH IS PROBABLY THE TOUGHEST
TIME FOR IN A CHILD'S LIFE. AND
THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
MANEUVER THROUGH A SYSTEM THAT
DOESN'T HARM THEM IS GOING TO BE
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT TO OUR
FUTURE. SO, THANK YOU FOR I KNOW
IT'S NOT YOUR BILL, BUT THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR AND TO THE
WITNESSES, THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SENATOR CARILLO. OTHER SENATOR.
ALSO, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOUR
WITNESS FOR COMING TODAY.
CONTINUE TO BE STRONG AND
COURAGEOUS, AND I SEE YOU AS
SPEAKING OUT FOR MY TWO
GRANDKIDS FOR INFORMATION. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR ASHBY.
YEP. I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU
THAT WAS REALLY BRAVE OF YOU AND
COURAGEOUS. YOU DID A GREAT JOB.
AND I THINK YOU CONVINCED SOME
MEMBERS TO SENATOR STERN OWES
YOU FOR SHOWING UP WHEN HE DID
IT. OKAY ALL RIGHT. WELL. WELL,
LET'S. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
LET'S. SENATOR STERN NÓ. ALL
RIGHT, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY
SENATOR WILK, MADAM SECRETARY,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I'M
SORRY, I KNOW, I, I KNOW THE
SENATE. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
I WANT TO JOIN THE PRAISE FOR
OUR WITNESS. WHO. AND IT IS I
MEAN, AS A DAD OF A LITTLE
LITTLE GUY WITH ANOTHER ONE
COMING ALONG, I JUST I'M
SHUDDERING ABOUT THE KIND OF
LIFE THAT WE'RE, THAT SOME OF
THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY'RE
FACING THIS GENERATION IS
FACING, THAT THAT WE, DIDN'T
HAVE TO. YOU KNOW, ALL OF US ON
THIS COMMITTEE, I KNOW I CAN
SPEAK FOR SENATOR STERN AND THAT
HE'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WORK,
WORK WITH OPPOSITION AND TRY TO
SEE IF SOME OF THESE ISSUES CAN
BE WORKED OUT, BUT THAT HE, YOU
KNOW, HE'S REALLY TRYING TO ALSO
KEEP HIS EYES ON THE PRIZE. AND
IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING YOUNG
PEOPLE, SUCH AS EMILY. SO IT'S
IN THAT SPIRIT THAT I ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALLEN, FOR
PRESENTING, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER 31. SB 1504.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER A NUMBER I
WILK I WILK I ALLEN I, ALLEN I,
ASHBY ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I RUSSELL. RUSSELL I
GONZALEZ. LAIRD LAYERED I MIN
MIN I NILO WAHAB. THANK YOU 8 TO
0 EIGHT ZERO WILL PUT THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU SENATOR ALLEN.
AND I SEE SENATOR HURTADO HERE.
SO THANK YOU, SENATOR HURTADO,
SB 1154 AND I UNDERSTAND,
SENATOR MINH, ARE YOU GOING TO
PRESENT SENATOR STERN'S BILL
NEXT? LET'S HAVE SENATOR HURTADO
GO UP FIRST, A FILE NUMBER 38,
SB 1154. SENATOR TARO, IS FOR
TESTIMONY ONLY. THE FLOOR IS
YOURS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY, AND I KNOW IT'S
ALREADY BEEN A LENGTHY COMMITTEE
HEARING TODAY, BUT I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND
SPEAK ON AN ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE
TO OUR ECONOMY. AND THAT'S, SB
1154, WHICH WE'RE LOOKING TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS,
THAT IS A PRESSING NEED FOR
THERE IS A PRESSING NEED FOR
ROBUST LEGISLATION AGAINST AI
DRIVEN PRICE FIXING AND THE NEED
FOR LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH A
NEW ERA OF ANTI COMPETITION IN A
NEW ERA OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE
THÀNH. WE MUST BE MORE
AGGRESSIVE AND TAKE A CLOSER
LOOK AT VERTICAL DEALS, ROLL UP
STRATEGIES AS WE HAVE SEEN IN
AGRICULTURE, LAND ACQUISITIONS
AND WE MUST LOOK AT INFORMATION
SHARING BECAUSE AS THE DOJ HAS
INDICATED, INFORMATION SHARING
NO LONGER MAKES SENSE IN A WORLD
WHERE IT IS EASY TO LEVERAGE BIG
DATA AND MACHINE LEARNING. AND
BECAUSE AGGREGATED DATA CAN BE
DISAGGREGATED, AGGREGATION ISN'T
NECESSARILY A SAFEGUARD AGAINST
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT. THE
SAME IS TRUE OF INFORMATION
SHARING THROUGH THIRD PARTIES.
AS NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS, ACTING
CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION MAUREEN K AULHAUSEN
DELIVERED A SPEECH ON THE USE OF
COMPUTER ALGORITHMS TO AUTOMATE
DECISION MAKING BY MARKET
PARTICIPANTS. THIS IS HOW SHE
ARTICULATED THE ISSUE NOW
CONFRONTING COURTS AND
POLICYMAKERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
JUST AS THE ANTITRUST LAWS DO
NOT ALLOW COMPETITORS TO
EXCHANGE COMPETITIVELY SENSITIVE
INFORMATION DIRECTLY IN AN
EFFORT TO STABILIZE OR CONTROL
INDUSTRY PRICING, THEY ALSO
PROHIBIT USING AN INTIMATE,
INTIMATE INTERMEDIARY TO
FACILITATE THE EXCHANGE OF
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION. TO UNDERSTAND WHY
THIS IS SUCH AN EASY CALL,
OHLHAUSEN RECOMMENDED REPLACING
ALGORITHM WITH A GUY NAMED BOB.
IS IT OKAY FOR A GUY NAMED BOB
TO COLLECT CONFIDENTIAL PRICE
STRATEGY INFORMATION FROM ALL
THE PARTICIPANTS IN A MARKET,
AND THEN TELL EVERYBODY HOW THEY
SHOULD PRICE IF IT ISN'T OKAY
FOR A GUY NAMED BOB TO DO IT,
THEN IT PROBABLY ISN'T OKAY FOR
AN ALGORITHM TO DO IT EITHER. AT
ITS CORE, AI REPRESENTS AN
EXTRAORDINARY LEAP FORWARD IN
EFFICIENCY AND INNOVATION.
HOWEVER, THIS TECHNOLOGY ALSO
POSES UNIQUE CHALLENGES,
PARTICULARLY IN THE REALM OF
PRICE FIXING. UNLIKE TRADITIONAL
METHODS, AI CAN ANALYZE MASSIVE
DATA SETS, PREDICT COMPETITOR
BEHAVIOR, AND ADJUST PRICES WHEN
UNPRECEDENTED PRECISION AND
SPEED THIS CAPABILITY. IF
MISUSED, CAN LEAD TO A NEW ERA
OF DIGITAL COLLUSION COVERT AND
DIFFICULT TO DETECT. YET WITH
THE SAME HARMFUL IMPACT.
ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED PRICES
THAT HARM CONSUMERS AND STIFLE
FAIR COMPETITION. WE'RE SEEING
THIS PATTERN ACROSS MUCH OF THE
ECONOMY, ESPECIALLY WITH
GROCERIES. AT THE END OF 2023,
AMERICANS WERE PAYING AT LEAST
30% MORE FOR BEEF, PORK AND
POULTRY PRODUCTS THAN THEY WERE
IN 2020. WHY? WELL, NEAR
MONOPOLY POWER. JUST FOUR
COMPANIES NOW CONTROL PROCESSING
OF 80% OF OUR BEEF. NEARLY 770%
OF OUR PORK, AND ALMOST 60% OF
OUR POULTRY. SO OF COURSE, IT'S
EASY FOR THEM TO COORDINATE
PRICE INCREASES AS THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION IS ENFORCING ANTI
TRUST MORE AGGRESSIVELY THAN ANY
OTHER ADMINISTRATION IN THE LAST
40 YEARS. INDEED, THE SHERMAN
ACT PLACED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN
ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT, AND THE
RECENT LAWSUIT BY THE US DOJ
AGAINST AGRI STATS INCORPORATED
DEMONSTRATES ITS EFFECTIVENESS.
AGRI STATS ACCUSED OF VIOLATING
SECTION ONE OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
ALLEGEDLY COMPILED AND
DISSEMINATED INFORMATION ABOUT
BROILER CHICKEN, PORK AND TURKEY
PRODUCERS, WHICH HARMED
COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROBLEM GOES
WELL BEYOND THE GROCERY STORE,
AND 75% OF US INDUSTRIES, FEWER
COMPANIES NOW CONTROL MORE OF
THEIR MARKETS THAN THEY DID 20
YEARS AGO. THIS IS WHERE THE
NECESSITY FOR STRONG LEGISLATION
COMES INTO SHARP FOCUS. WE NEED
LAWS THAT ARE AGILE ENOUGH TO
ADAPT TO RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES AND ROBUST ENOUGH TO
PROTECT OUR MARKETS INTEGRITY.
WE, CALIFORNIA'S CONSUMERS, ARE
ALREADY BEARING THE BRUNT OF
UNCHECKED TECHNOLOGICAL ABUSES,
PAYING HIGHER PRICES AND FACING
LESS CHOICE. THIS IS NOT THE
PROMISE OF TECHNOLOGY WE ASPIRE
TO DELIVER WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
WELL. FIRST, ANTITRUST LAWS MUST
BE AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCED.
HOWEVER THE CHALLENGE LIES IN
PROVING THESE AGREEMENTS WHEN
THEY ARE EMBEDDED IN DATA. SB
1154 AIMS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
RELATED TO THE USE OF PRICING
ALGORITHMS IN THE MARKET. IT
MANDATES THAT ENTITIES USING OR
DISTRIBUTING PRICING ALGORITHMS
MUST PROVIDE DETAILED REPORTS
UPON REQUESTS BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, INCLUDING INFORMATION
ON THE ALGORITHMS, DEVELOPMENT
DATA SOURCES, AND POTENTIAL
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES.
ADDITIONALLY, SB 1154 PROHIBITS
THE USE OF PRICING ALGORITHMS
THAT UTILIZE NONPUBLIC
COMPETITOR DATA AND ESTABLISHES
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS WITH
PROVISIONS FOR CIVIL ACTIONS AND
LIABILITY FOR JOINT AND SEVERAL
PARTIES. FURTHER MORE, IT
REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY IN THE USE
OF PRICING ALGORITHMS BY
ENTITIES WITH SIGNIFICANT
REVENUE, IMPOSING DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CUSTOMERS AND
EMPLOYEES, AND IT CALLS FOR A
STUDY TO ASSESS THE PREVALENCE
AND IMPACT OF PRICING ALGORITHMS
ON COMPETITION AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION. MOREOVER, IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT OUR ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS ALL THE NECESSARY
TOOLS TO PROSECUTE THESE
ADVANCED FORMS OF COLLUSION,
EFFECTIVELY, CURRENT STATUTES
MAY NOT FULLY CONTEMPLATE THE
NUANCES OF AI, AND SOPHISTICATED
STRATEGIES IT ENABLES. WITHOUT
MODERNIZED LAWS. OUR HANDS COULD
BE AND VERY WELL ARE TIED AND
OUR MARKETS ARE LEFT VULNERABLE
TO EXPLOITATION. WE MUST ALSO
CONSIDER THE BALANCE BETWEEN
FOSTERING INNOVATION AND
PREVENTING ABUSE. CALIFORNIA HAS
ALWAYS BEEN A BEACON OF
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT, AND
IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE CONTINUE
TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE BY
IMPLEMENTING FORWARD THINKING
REGULATIONS, WE CAN ENSURE THAT
INNOVATION BENEFITS ALL, NOT
JUST A SELECT FEW. MANIPULATING
THE SYSTEM. IN FACT, ALGORITHM
PRICE SETTING APPEARS MORE
UBIQUITOUS THAN NOT. A SIMPLE
INTERNET SEARCH FOR PRICE
SETTING SOFTWARE PRODUCES DOZENS
OF COMPANIES LIKE PRICE FEED,
ADVISOR 360 AND SMART PRICING.
EACH OF WHICH ADVERTISES ITS USE
OF DATA DRIVEN MACHINE LEARNING
AND ALGORITHMIC REPRICING TO
BOLSTER EFFICIENCY AND
PROFITABILITY FOR THEIR CLIENTS.
SEVERAL OF THESE TOOLS ARE AIMED
DIRECTLY AT PEOPLE WHO SELL ON
AMAZON, WHICH HAS BECOME A
HOTBED FOR MACHINE DRIVEN,
DYNAMIC PRICING. THE SHEER
AVAILABILITY OF PRICE
OPTIMIZATION SOFTWARE, WHICH,
ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
ADVERTISEMENTS, IS DESIGNED TO
RAISE PRICES ON CONSUMERS, IS AN
UNDER-DISCUSSED FACTOR IN THE
ONGOING CONVERSATION ABOUT
INFLATION OR GREEDFLATION, AS I
LIKE TO REFER TO IT, OF COURSE,
THE USE OF SOFTWARE TO OPTIMIZE
PRICING ISN'T ALWAYS, OR EVEN
OFTEN ILLEGAL. COMPARING YOUR
RIVALS PUBLIC PRICE TO YOUR OWN
PRICE IS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE
AND TIME TESTED STRATEGY, AND
THAT'S NOT ANY DIFFERENT IN THE
ERA OF BIG DATA. HOWEVER, USING
SOFTWARE TO PRIVATELY COLLUDE
WITH RIVALS ON PRICING OR OUTPUT
TO ALLOCATE MARKETS OR SET
FLOORS OR CEILINGS ON PRICES IS
WITHIN THE ORBIT OF WHAT
ANTITRUST LAWS ARE DESIGNED
SIGNED TO ADDRESS, LIKE SB 1154.
AND THAT'S FOR GOOD REASON.
SOFTWARE ENABLED PRICE FIXING IS
LIKELY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGHER
PRICES EVERYWHERE, FROM THE GAS
PUMP TO THE GROCERY STORE. WHO
IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE RISE AND
IMPROPER EVICTIONS FROM
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS NOT AN AI PRICE
FIXING ISSUE. AFTER ALL, THERE
IS INFORMATION AVAILABLE,
INFORMATION ON THIS MARKET AND
THE DEMAND IS THERE. THE
ROADBLOCK IN MANY OF THESE
CASES, LIKE SO MANY OTHER PRICE
FIXING CASES, IS HOW TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S AN
ACTUAL AGREEMENT AMONG
COMPETITORS TO FIX PRICES.
SECTION ONE OF THE SHERMAN ACT
PRESCRIBES EVERY CONTRACT,
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE. AND WHILE
CONSPIRACY MIGHT SEEM TO INVOKE
A BROADER LEVEL OF SPECULATION,
IT HAS CONVENTIONALLY BEEN
UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN A MEETING OF
THE MINDS OR AN AGREEMENT. AND
THAT'S HOW COLLUDING WITH
SOFTWARE BECOMES LEGAL IN THE
MINDS OF SOME JUDGES. IN A 13
PAGE RULING DISMISSING THE
RAINMAKER CASE, FOR INSTANCE,
CHIEF JUDGE MIRANDA DU OF THE
NEVADA DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT
THE PARTIES FAIL TO ALLEGE WITH
ENOUGH, SPECIFICS, SPECIFICITY
THAT THE HOTEL OPERATORS HAD
ACTUALLY AGREED WITH EACH OTHER
TO ARTIFICIAL INFLATE THE PRICES
OF HOTEL ROOMS. JUDGE Dð
COULDN'T DETERMINE, FOR
INSTANCE, WHETHER THE HOTEL
CHAINS USED THE SAME EXACT
PRICING ALGORITHM, EVEN THOUGH
THEY ALL ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS
WITH RAINMAKER. JUDGE Dð ALSO
DINGED THE COMPLAINANTS FOR NOT
HAVING PROOF THAT THE HOTEL
CHAINS ACTUALLY A SEPARATE
MAKER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. NEVER
MIND THAT RAINMAKER ITSELF
ADVERTISES THAT IT RECOMMENDS
THAT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
ACCEPTED 90% OF THE TIME. THESE
ARE FATAL MISGIVINGS, ACCORDING
TO JUDGE Dð, BUT IT'S HARD NOT
TO PERCEIVE JUDGE DEW'S DEMANDS
FOR SPECIFICITY AS REQUIRING
ULTIMATE PROOF OF THE
ALLEGATIONS. AT THE INFANCY OF
THE CASE BEFORE PLAINTIFFS CAN
EVEN GET THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR.
THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW
OF PRICE FIXING CREATES A CATCH
22. PLAINTIFFS NEED TO HAVE MORE
SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY BEFORE THEY CAN BEGIN
THE LITIGATION DISCOVERY PROCESS
TO GET THE SAME EVIDENCE.
RELATED. HOW DOES ONE PROVE THE
EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT THAT
IS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND
PURPOSES, BEING MADE BY A
MACHINE BASED ON NONPUBLIC
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE
HOTEL CHAINS? THIS ISN'T EXACTLY
THE OLDEN DAYS WHEN EXECUTIVES
SAT IN SMOKE FILLED ROOMS AND
AGREED TO SET PRICE FLOORS FOR
THE MUTUALLY ASSURED
PRESERVATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
PROFITS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE THE
AUTOMATED VERSION OF TRADITIONAL
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, WHERE
COMPETITORS HAVE LONG GATHERED
TO SHARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND
BUSINESS STRATEGIES THAT, AT
BEST PROTECT MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC FROM HARMS AND AT WORST,
ENHANCE PROFITS THROUGH UNFAIR
AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE MEANS. ONE
THING SHOULD BE CLEAR ALLOWING
PRICE FIXING TO OCCUR THROUGH
SHARED SOFTWARE RATHER THAN AN
EXPLICIT AGREEMENT, IS NOT JUST
A TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, IT'S A
LEGAL CHANGE. INDEED, JUDGES ARE
SIMPLY REWRITING THE LAW TO
LEGALIZE PRICE FIXING WHEN IT'S
EXTREMELY HARD TO BRING A
COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE BURDEN IS
JUST TOO HIGH FOR PLAINTIFFS, AS
IS HAPPENING IN THE RAINMAKER
CASE, AND POTENTIALLY THE
REALPAGE LITIGATION, JUDGES HAVE
CREATED A LIABILITY SHIELD FOR
CORPORATIONS TO COLLUDE. NOBODY
THOUGHT YOU COULD WIN IS A
DEVASTATING AND AVOIDABLE
SENTIMENT IN THE FACE OF CLEAR
AND PERVASIVE HARM. THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF INACTION IS TOO GREAT
WHEN BUSINESSES COLLUDE TO FIX
PRICES, IT DOES NOT JUST AFFECT
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS. IT STIFLES
OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY AND IT
CONCENTRATES MARKET POWER AND
WORST OF ALL, IN MY OPINION, I
BELIEVE THAT INACTION UNDERMINES
OUR DEMOCRACY AND I AM WILLING
TO PUT MY POLITICAL CAREER ON
THE LINE FOR IT. TODAY, WE AS
LAWMAKERS HAVE THE POWER AND
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
AMERICANS, PROTECT OUR FREEDOM.
IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK TO DO,
BUT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I HOPE THAT MY PRESENT DAY, MY
PRESENTATION TODAY, LEAVES
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF WITH
WHAT WE ARE CHALLENGED AND HOW
AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO MOVE
FORWARD AND WHAT IS DOWN THE
ROAD. LET US BE PROACTIVE. LET
US ENSURE THAT AS TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCES, OUR LAW STRENGTHENED
IN TANDEM, PROTECTING US AGAINST
EMERGING THREATS LIKE CALIFORNIA
LEAD THE WAY AND DEMONSTRATING
THAT TECHNOLOGY CAN AND SHOULD
BE HARNESSED AS A FORCE FOR
GOOD. WITH THE WELL-BEING OF OUR
CITIZENS AT ITS HEART AND I WILL
LEAVE YOU WITH A QUOTE FROM
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA
MONACO TO BE VERY CLEAR, FRAUD
USING AI IS STILL FRAUD. PRICE
FIXING USING AI IS STILL PRICE
FIXING AND MANIPULATING MARKETS.
USING AI IS STILL MARKET
MANIPULATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, SENATOR HURTADO. I FEEL
LIKE I SHOULD GET THREE UNITS OF
CONTINUING EDUCATION. VERY WELL
DONE. THERE'S NOT A VOTE ON
THIS, BUT DO MEMBERS BECAUSE
SHE'S HERE OBVIOUSLY TO ADVOCATE
AND TO EDUCATE. DO ANY MEMBERS
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THEY WOULD
LIKE TO ASK TO FOLLOW UP? OH,
WE'RE STILL GOING TO DO SUPPORT
AND OPPOSITION EVEN THOUGH
THERE'S NOT A VOTE. OKAY DO WE
HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT SEEING NONE ANYONE HERE
FOR OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MR.
VICE CHAIR MEMBERS WROTE ME WITH
CAL CHAMBER RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1154 AS A JOB
KILLER. THERE ARE TWO KEY FACTS
TO KEEP IN MIND HERE. FIRST,
PRICE COLLUSION IS ALREADY
CLEARLY ILLEGAL UNDER EXISTING
LAW. SECOND, THE USE OF PRICE OF
A PRICING ALGORITHM, EXCUSE ME,
DOES NOT INHERENTLY CONSTITUTE
PRICE FIXING. PRICING ALGORITHMS
ARE WIDELY USED TOOLS EMPLOYED
BY BUSINESSES, BOTH TO MAKE
THEIR PRICES MORE RESPONSIVE TO
CHANGES IN SUPPLY AND DEMAND
SAVING THEM VALUABLE RESOURCES,
BUT ALSO TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE
RETAILERS USE THEM TO ENSURE
THEY'RE OFFERING THE LOWEST
PRICES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. BANKS
USE THEM TO SET RATES AND FEES
FROM HOSPITALITY AND UTILITIES
TO TRANSPORTATION AND AIRLINE
COMPANIES. THEY ENABLE DYNAMIC
PRICING, THE LIST GOES ON. THIS,
OF COURSE, DOES NOT CHANGE THE
FACT THAT COLLUDING WITH
COMPETITORS TO FIX HIGH PRICES
IS PROHIBITED. STATED ANOTHER
WAY, WHETHER IT'S ACCOMPLISHED
BY SALESPEOPLE CONSPIRING OR
COMPUTERS RUNNING ALGORITHMS,
COLLUSION IS COLLUSION. A THIRD
FACT PROSECUTION OF COLLUSION IS
NOT ONLY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE
PURSUED, BUT IS ACTIVELY BEING
PURSUED. AS POINTED OUT BY THE
ANALYSIS. UNFORTUNATELY, SB 1154
IS NOT JUST UNNECESSARY, IT'S
INCREDIBLY PROBLEMATIC AS IT
ACTUALLY BLURS THE LINE,
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN LAWFUL
USES OF PRICING ALGORITHMS AND
PRICE FIXING. ITS RELIANCE ON
OVERLY BROAD AND VAGUE TERMS
WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT CONFUSION
AND UNCERTAINTY, CREATING
SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE COSTS
FOR BUSINESSES. LEFT GUESSING AS
TO WHAT IS AND IS NOT ALLOWED.
IT ALSO EXPOSES BUSINESSES TO
SIGNIFICANT LIABILITY AND
AGGRESSIVE PENALTIES IF THEY GET
IT WRONG. COMBINED WITH ONEROUS
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED
ON BUSINESSES USING ALGORITHMS.
EVEN WHEN THERE'S BEEN NO
ALLEGATION, LET ALONE REASON, TO
BELIEVE THAT THEY ENGAGE IN
ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR OR
HARM CONSUMERS, THIS BILL WOULD
HAVE A SWEEPING, CHILLING EFFECT
ON PRICE COMPETITION AMONG
BUSINESSES OF ALL SIZES AND
INDUSTRIES. AND FOR THESE
REASONS, WE MUST UNFORTUNATELY
OPPOSE SB 1154 AS A JOB KILLER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION. JUST SO
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY
GOING TO VOTE ON THE BILL,
RIGHT? OKAY. MY COMMENTS BRIEF
THIS TIME AROUND, THANK YOU
AGAIN. MY NAME IS KARA BENDER.
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1154, PRICING
ALGORITHMS ARE DESIGNED TO
AUTOMATE THE PRICING PROCESS AND
LEVERAGE DATA FOR BETTER
DECISION MAKING AND THESE
ALGORITHMS JUST ADJUST PRICING
IN REAL TIME IN RESPONSE TO
MARKET CONDITIONS. AND THIS
AUTOMATION RESULTS IN BUSINESSES
BEING ABLE TO SAVE MONEY, AS
MANUALLY MANAGING PRICING AND
INVENTORY CAN BE EXTREMELY
COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING IN
MANY CASES. DYNAMIC PRICING ALSO
RESULTS IN CONSUMERS RECEIVING
LOWER, MORE COMPETITIVE PRICES
FOR GOODS AND SERVICES. PRICE
COMPARISON TOOLS AND DYNAMIC
PRICING CAN HELP CONSUMERS FIND
THE BEST DEALS AT ANY GIVEN
TIME, SAVING THEM TIME AND
EFFORT IN SEARCHING FOR BARGAINS
. WHILE THERE ARE POTENTIAL
CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH PRICING
ALGORITHMS, THESE ARE ALREADY
ADDRESSED UNDER EXISTING STATE
AND FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW.
COLLUSION IS LEGAL UNDER
EXISTING LAW, AND CALIFORNIA'S
UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW ADDRESSES
PRICING DISCRIMINATION ON
COMMODITIES AND SERVICES.
ADDITIONALLY EXISTING ANTITRUST
LAW PROHIBITS COMPETITORS FROM
COLLUDING THROUGH THIRD PARTIES
TO SET PRICES BY IMPROPERLY
USING SENSITIVE INFORMATION FROM
RIVAL COMPETITORS. NOTABLY, THIS
ACTIVITY IS CONSIDERED ILLEGAL
UNDER EXISTING LAW, REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER FIRMS USE AN
ALGORITHM, THIS BILL WOULD HAVE
FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES GIVEN
THAT APPEARS TO ASSUME THAT THE
USE OF PRICING ALGORITHMS IS
PRESUMPTIVELY ILLEGAL. FOR
EXAMPLE, E-COMMERCE AND BRICK
AND MORTAR RETAILERS EMPLOY
PRICING ALGORITHMS TO OFFER
LOWER PRICES TO CONSUMERS TIED
TO INVENTORY LEVELS AND PRICING
OTHER PRICING ACROSS OTHER
BUSINESSES. AS THE CHAMBER
MENTIONED, THERE ARE VARIOUS
OTHER, INDUSTRIES THAT USE
DYNAMIC PRICING ALGORITHMS AS
WELL. SO I WILL NOT BELABOR YOU
GOING THROUGH THOSE AGAIN, BUT
ON BEHALF OF THE CTIA, I
APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
THESE COMMENTS. AND WHILE THERE
IS POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE USING
DYNAMIC PRICING, THESE ARE
ALREADY ADDRESSED UNDER EXISTING
LAWS WITHOUT HARMING OTHER
BENEFICIAL AND LAWFUL USES FOR
BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE NOW. AND I KNOW,
SENATOR, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE. AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS,
BASICALLY A STATEMENT THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK
IN THIS AREA AND THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED. SO THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. OH, I'M SORRY
I DIDN'T DO, THOSE WHO WISH TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION PROVIDE
THEIR NAME, THEIR POSITION AND
THEIR AFFILIATION. OAN HOFFMAN,
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. OTHERS SEEING NO ONE
ELSE. NO COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE.
MEMBERS NEED NOT HAVE A MOTION.
OH, SENATOR RUSSELL. YES I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR. I KNOW
THAT SHE'S VERY YOU'RE A VERY
PASSIONATE NOT ONLY ABOUT THIS,
BUT ALSO OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE
CONNECTED TO THIS, YOU KNOW, A
LOT OF, MYSTERY IN THE WAY, LAND
IS BOUGHT LAND, PROPERTY, SO I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF TIMES
WHEN WE OVERLAP IN THE ISSUES
AND LEGISLATION, SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. PARTY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, SENATOR, I
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
FOR WORKING ON THIS IMPORTANT
AREA. THANKS. ALL RIGHT, IN
TERMS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO
PROCEED, SENATOR MINH IS NOW
GOING TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER 30,
AUTHORED BY SENATOR STERN.
THAT'S SB 1444. AFTER HE
PRESENTS THAT HE'S GOING TO
PRESENT HIS OWN BILL, SB 1286,
AND THEN I WILL BE UP. IF I CAN
STOP COUGHING. ALL RIGHT. THAT
THAT'S, ITEM NUMBER 27 IS 1286,
BUT SENATOR MINH IS FIRST GOING
TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER 30, SB
1444. OKAY AND, WHERE DO YOU
WANT ME TO SIT? WHY DON'T YOU
SIT RIGHT THERE? NÓ RIGHT THERE.
THE HOT SEAT. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR
PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
STERN, SB 1444. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. THE US
SURGEON GENERAL STATES THAT IT
CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT SOCIAL
MEDIA IS, QUOTE, SUFFICIENTLY
SAFE FOR CHILDREN AND
ADOLESCENTS. HOWEVER, UP TO 95%
OF TEENAGERS AND EVEN 40% OF
CHILDREN AGED 8 TO 12, INCLUDING
MY OWN KIDS WHO ARE EIGHT, 11
AND 13 ARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA
REGULARLY, PER COMMON SENSE
MEDIA, CALIFORNIA, OF COURSE, IS
SEEN AS A LEADER ON MANY ISSUES
AND HOPEFULLY WILL BE A LEADER
ON THIS MASSIVE CHILD SAFETY
ISSUE AS WELL, WITH A NUMBER OF
BILLS REFLECTING A NUMBER OF
POLICY APPROACHES SEEKING TO
PROTECT KIDS WHO ARE ONLINE. SB
1444 IS A COMPLEMENTARY APPROACH
THAT ALLOWS PARENTS TO HAVE THE
OPTION TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN
THROUGH THE USE OF THIRD PARTY
SAFETY SOFTWARE. UNDER THIS BILL
, SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WOULD
TRANSFER A CHILD'S DATA TO A
CHOSEN SAFETY SOFTWARE ONLY
AFTER THE CHILD'S AGE AND THE
PARENT'S GUARDIANSHIP ARE
VERIFIED. A CHILD MUST ALSO BE
NOTIFIED IF THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN
IS USING SAFETY SOFTWARE IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR SOCIAL
MEDIA ACCOUNT. ADDITIONALLY, THE
PARENT MAY ONLY BE NOTIFIED OF
THE DATA NECESSARY FOR A
REASONABLE PARENT TO UNDERSTAND
THE RISKS THAT THE CHILD IS
EXPERIENCING, AS ONE OF THE
LISTED HARMS, IF A SAFETY IF A
SAFETY SOFTWARE PROVIDER
DISCLOSES MORE DATA THAN IS
STRICTLY NECESSARY, OR DATA
UNRELATED TO ONE OF THE LISTED
HARMS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY
ENTIRELY DE-REGISTER THE
PROVIDER, WHICH EFFECTIVELY ENDS
THAT PROVIDER'S ABILITY TO DO
BUSINESS IN THE STATE. THE BILL
ALSO REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY WOULD ISSUE GUIDANCE
TO SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AND
THE SAFETY SOFTWARE PROVIDERS
REGARDING TECHNICAL STANDARDS TO
PROTECT USER DATA. THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH ADD
SOME IMPORTANT GUARDRAILS TO
THIS BILL. FIRST, THEY ADD A
REQUIREMENT THAT SAFETY SOFTWARE
PROVIDERS SUBMIT INDEPENDENT
AUDITS TO THE AG FOR REVIEW.
FURTHERMORE, AUDIT SUMMARIES
WILL BE PUBLICLY PUBLISHED TO
ENSURE TRANSPARENCY. THE
AMENDMENTS ALSO LIST LIMIT DATA
RETENTION TO 21 DAYS, AND
LASTLY, THEY CONFORM THE
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM TO EXISTING BNP CODE,
WHICH IS FURTHER LIMITED TO ONLY
PLATFORMS WITH MORE THAN $100
MILLION MONTHLY. I'M SORRY, 100
MILLION MONTHLY GLOBAL USERS, OR
WHICH GENERATE MORE THAN $1
BILLION IN GROSS REVENUES PER
YEAR. THIS DEFINITION EXEMPTS
ALL BUT THE ABSOLUTE LARGEST
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS FROM
HAVING TO PROVIDE ANY DATA. THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE WANTED ME TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THEY REMAIN
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE, THEIR STAFF, AND
OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS ALL
CONCERNS REGARDING CHILDREN'S
PRIVACY AND DATA SECURITY, THE
EXTENT OF ALARM THAT SOCIAL
MEDIA IS INFLICTING UPON
CHILDREN IS ONGOING, PERVASIVE
AND SEVERE. WE HEAR ABOUT THIS
ALL THE TIME. IT'S IN THE MEDIA.
WE ARE STARTING TO SEE MANY
STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL
MEDIA ON CHILDREN. BUT DESPITE
RISING AWARENESS OF THESE HARMS
OVER RECENT YEARS AND VARIOUS
LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS, THE RISK TO
CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND WELFARE
FROM SOCIAL MEDIA USE CONTINUES.
THIRD PARTY SAFETY SOFTWARE IS
AN EXISTING, PROVEN SOLUTION TO
RAPIDLY INCREASE SAFETY FOR
YOUNG ADULT SOCIAL MEDIA USERS.
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO
MY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. MR.
MARK BERMAN WITH THE
ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL MEDIA
SAFETY AND DOCTOR LARA BERMAN,
MOTHER AND ADVOCATE FOR CHILD
INTERNET SAFETY. ALL RIGHT, MR.
BERMAN, GO AHEAD. OR DOCTOR
BERMAN, WHICHEVER WAY. BERMAN.
BERKMAN OAN BERMAN, ALL RIGHT.
I'M DOCTOR LAURA BERMAN. I'VE
BEEN A THERAPIST FOR 30 YEARS,
BUT I'M COMING TO YOU AS A MOM
OF THREE CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY
THIS ONE. SORRY THIS IS SAMMY
CHAPMAN, MY SON, WHO WILL BE WHO
WILL BE FOREVER 16. AND HE WAS A
STRAIGHT A STUDENT. HE WAS ON
THE FOOTBALL TEAM. HE WAS
GETTING READY TO APPLY TO
COLLEGE. AND AS WE ALL KNOW,
BECAUSE WE'VE ALL BEEN KIDS AND
ANYONE WHO'S A PARENT KNOWS GOOD
KIDS MAKE DUMB DECISIONS AND
THANKS TO SNAPCHAT VIA SNAPCHAT,
A DRUG DEALER FOUND HIM,
SOLICITED HIM, AND OFFERED TO
DELIVER DRUGS TO OUR HOUSE AS
EASILY AS A PIZZA HE WAS
SHELTERING AT HOME DURING THE
PANDEMIC, ISOLATED AND BORED,
AND ACCEPTED THE OFFER. AND HIS
BROTHER AND I FOUND HIM DEAD ON
THE FLOOR ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2021.
HAD SAMMY'S LAW OR THE CHILD LET
PARENTS PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN?
LAW BÀN IN PLACE. SAMMY WOULD
STILL BE. THANK YOU. SAMMY WOULD
STILL BE ALIVE TODAY, AND I'M
HERE. IT'S NOT GOING TO SAVE
SAMMY'S LIFE. MY OTHER KIDS ARE
NOT GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF THE
RISKS OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE
DANGERS AND THE PREDATORS AND
THE DRUG DEALERS THAT THEY ARE
MATCHING WITH OUR CHILDREN AND
THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE BEING
EXPOSED TO. IT'S THE EQUIVALENT
OF DROPPING THEM OFF IN THE
DARKEST, MOST DANGEROUS ALLEY
WITH DRUG DEALERS AND PIMPS AND
EXPECTING THEM TO BE ABLE TO
NAVIGATE IT. AND THEY CAN'T. AND
I'M HERE NOT ONLY IN SAMMY'S
MEMORY, BUT IN THE MEMORY OF THE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PARENTS
WHO HAVE AND FAMILIES WHO HAVE
SUFFERED THE SAME FATE AT THE
SOCIAL MEDIA LOBBY, WILL TELL
YOU THAT THE COMPANIES ARE
PUTTING SAFEGUARDS AND
CHECKPOINTS IN PLACE. THEY'VE
BEEN CLAIMING THAT FOR THREE
YEARS THAT THERE IS NOTHING
THERE THAT A KID CAN'T TURN OFF.
THEY ARE DIGITAL NATIVES. WE ARE
TOURISTS. WHAT? I AM A HUGE FAN
OF SOCIAL MEDIA. I USE IT IN MY
PROFESSION. I BELIEVE IT HAS
TREMENDOUS BENEFITS, BUT WE MUST
PUT GUARDRAILS IN PLACE AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS LAW DOES. SO I
HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER FOR
VOTING AYE FOR THIS LAW AND
ALLOW THESE GUARDRAILS TO BE IN
PLACE SO THAT PARENTS SHOULD
THEY CHOOSE, CAN PROTECT THEIR
CHILDREN. IT'S OUR RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AS A PARENT AND
GRANDPARENT, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE
YOUR PAIN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS. AND THANK YOU FOR
TURNING THAT PAIN INTO PASSION
TO HELP OTHERS. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
EVENING. MY NAME IS MARK
BERKMAN. I'M THE CEO OF THE
ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL MEDIA
SAFETY HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB
1444. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR, SENATOR STERN, FOR
ANSWERING THE DESPERATE CALL
FROM PARENTS TO PROTECT OUR
CHILDREN FROM THE MANY DANGERS
OF SOCIAL MEDIA. THESE ARE
SEVERE, PERVASIVE THREATS LIKE
CYBERBULLYING, DRUG TRAFFICKING,
SEXTORTION, AND SUICIDE, AMONG
MANY OTHERS. THANKFULLY, WE NOW
HAVE SAMMY'S LAW. THIS IS A
BIPARTISAN INTERVENTION THAT
WILL PROVIDE IMMEDIATE
PROTECTION TO MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIAN CHILDREN FROM ALL
THESE DANGERS. BY FINALLY GIVING
PARENTS THE CHOICE TO USE THIRD
PARTY SAFETY SOFTWARE ON ALL
MAJOR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS,
SAFETY SOFTWARE PROVIDES LIFE
SAVING ALERTS TO PARENTS WHEN
DANGEROUS CONTENT COMES ACROSS A
CHILD'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT. IF
A CHILD IS BEING PREYED UPON,
CYBERBULLIED, OR SOLICITED FOR
DRUGS OR IDEATING ON SUICIDE,
SAFETY SOFTWARE CAN WARN
PARENTS, GIVING THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE BEFORE
THE CHILD IS SEVERELY HARMED.
THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM SIMPLY
CANNOT DO THIS THEMSELVES.
SAFETY TÊ SOFTWARE IS AN
EXISTING, PROVEN, EFFECTIVE
PRODUCT ALREADY PROTECTING
MILLIONS OF CHILDREN FROM SOCIAL
MEDIA HARMS, SENDING OUT
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF LIFE
SAVING ALERTS EACH YEAR WITH
ESTABLISHED EFFICACY. IT HAS
PREVENTED SUICIDES, DETERRED
CYBERBULLYING, AND EVEN STOPPED
AT LEAST 16 TÍNH SCHOOL
SHOOTINGS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS NEED
TO PROVIDE DATA ACCESS AT THE
PARENT'S REQUEST. SOME SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS DO THIS, WHILE
OTHERS TRAGICALLY REFUSE TO DO
SO. THIS DECISION IS SIMPLY
UNCONSCIONABLE. WE CAN CHANGE
THAT WITH SAMMY'S. LAW AND WE
CAN PROTECT CHILDREN, WHILE ALSO
MATERIALLY INCREASING DATA
SECURITY AND PRIVACY OVER THE
STATUS QUO. SAMMY'S LAW DOES NOT
JUST BALANCE THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS. IT ACTUALLY DIRECTLY
ADDRESSES THEM. THANK YOU. IF
YOU COULD WRAP IT UP, THANK YOU.
WE'VE SEEN ENOUGH BROKENHEARTED
PARENTS FOR THE SAKE OF
CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN, I ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. OTHERS WISH TO TESTIFY.
NAME YOUR AFFILIATION AND
POSITION. KIM STONE. STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON
SENATORS. MY NAME IS CHRIS
DIDIER FROM PLACER COUNTY. ON
BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF ILLICIT
DRUGS AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF MY
SON, MY YOUNGEST CHILD, ZACH,
WHO ALSO DIED FROM FENTANYL
POISONING FROM SNAPCHAT. WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 1444 SAMMY'S
LAW. THANK YOU. SAM CHAPMAN,
SAMMY'S DAD IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S
TURN TO THE OPPOSITION. IF
YOU'RE OPPOSED TO SB 1444,
PLEASE APPROACH. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF
TECHNET. AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO SB 1444. I DO WANT TO
SAY, AS I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED,
OUR COMPANIES ARE RESPONDING TO
THIS THIS CRISIS. WE ARE
CREATING NEW, TOOLS AND CONTROLS
FOR PARENTS. WE'RE CONSTANTLY
RE-ENGINEERING, ENGINEERING OUR
PRODUCTS TO BE SAFER. WE'RE
OPENLY COMPETING TO DO SO, AND
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS
A LOT MORE WORK TO BE DONE. AND
SO I DO WANT TO JUST STATE THAT
AT THE OUTSET THAT WE ARE TRYING
TO ENSURE THAT OUR PLATFORMS ARE
SAFER EVERY SINGLE DAY, I DO
WANT TO NOTE, THOUGH, THAT IT'S
UNCLEAR HOW THIS BILL EXPANDS ON
THE CURRENT STATUS QUO, SINCE
THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE PROVIDERS
ARE ALREADY ABLE TO CONTRACT
WITH AND OBTAIN AN API OR
APPLICATION PROGRAMING INTERFACE
FROM A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM,
THIS TYPE OF CONTRACTING ALLOWS
FOR THE VETTING BETWEEN THE
PARTIES TO ENSURE THAT USER DATA
WILL BE PROTECTED. AND THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS CONSTANTLY
REMINDED MY COMPANIES THAT THIS
IS THE MOST SENSITIVE
INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS AND WE
TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY VERY
SERIOUSLY TO PROTECT IT. AND SO
ENSHRINING IN CONTRACTS, THE
ABILITY TO, TO PROTECT THAT AS
WELL AS SEEK REMEDIES IN CASE
THAT DATA IS BREACHED, HOWEVER,
THIS BILL PROVIDES VERY LITTLE
IN THE WAY OF PROTECTIONS FOR
USER DATA, AND ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE NECESSARY
JUST TO MATCH THE CURRENT
STANDARDS THE PLATFORMS REQUIRE
OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. AS AN
EXAMPLE, THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS
FOR A THIRD PARTY PROVIDER TO
REGISTER WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IS TO MAKE FOUR SIMPLE
AFFIRMATIONS. EVEN WITH THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ADD AUDIT
AUTHORITY, THIS BILL IS LIKELY
TO RESULT IN PLATFORMS BEING
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEIR API
AND MINORS DATA TO THIRD PARTIES
THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY
VETTED OR APPROVED. ANOTHER
PROTECTION THAT IS CONSPICUOUSLY
MISSING IS THE PRESERVATION OF
PLATFORMS OWN SAFETY AND PRIVACY
SETTINGS FOR MINORS. AT A
MINIMUM, A THIRD PARTY SHOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO UNWIND THE MANY
SETTINGS. FEATURES. PARENTAL
CONTROLS, POLICIES AND
PROTECTIONS PLATFORMS HAVE IN
PLACE TO CREATE A SAFER
ENVIRONMENT FOR TEEN USERS.
FINALLY THIS BILL WOULD
CERTAINLY ALLOW FOR MORE
INVASIVE PARENTAL SURVEILLANCE
AND MONITORING. AND WHILE OUR
PLATFORMS BELIEVE THAT PARENTS
ARE OFTEN BEST SITUATED TO MAKE
IMPORTANT DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR
CHILD AND THEIR ONLINE PRESENCE,
WE DO SHARE THE CONCERN
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ANALYSIS
ABOUT WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN FOR
TEENS WHO AREN'T IN SUPPORT OF
HOMES AND HOW THESE CHOICES
WOULD PLAY OUT IN OTHER STATES.
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. HOFFMAN. ALL
RIGHT. OTHERS WHO ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO 1444. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KARA BENDER. ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, CCI MEMBERS HAVE
BEEN LEADING THE EFFORT TO
IMPLEMENT SETTINGS AND PARENTAL
TOOLS TO INDIVIDUALLY TAILOR
YOUNGER USERS ONLINE USE. FOR
EXAMPLE, VARIOUS SERVICES ALLOW
PARENTS TO SET TIME LIMITS, TIME
LIMITS, MONITOR USE, PROVIDE
ENHANCED PRIVACY PROTECTIONS,
AND OTHER TOOLS TO ALLOW PARENTS
TO BLOCK SITES ENTIRELY. THIS IS
WHY LAST YEAR WE SUPPORTED
LEGISLATION THAT ADVANCED
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA REGARDING DIGITAL
LITERACY AND IN THE HOPE THAT
THAT WOULD HELP EDUCATE BOTH
CHILDREN AND PARENTS ABOUT THE
TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT
THEIR DISPOSAL TODAY TO BE ABLE
TO IMPLEMENT THOSE TYPES OF
CONTROLS, AS MENTIONED BY THE
OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESS, WE DO
BELIEVE THAT THE GOAL OF SB 1444
CAN ALREADY BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT
OPENING UP APPLICATION PROGRAM
INTERFACES TO POTENTIAL SECURITY
RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES,
BECAUSE GENERALLY, APIS THAT ARE
MAINTAINED INTERNALLY ARE
SUBJECT TO A GREATER LEVEL OF
PROTECTION THROUGH SEVERAL
LAYERS OF SECURITY. I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IN 2021,
SEVERAL, FEDERAL LAWMAKERS,
SENATOR WARREN MARKEY AND
BLUMENTHAL SUBMITTED A LETTER TO
BACH TECHNOLOGIES. ONE SUCH
THIRD PARTY VENDOR, OUTLINING
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE SOFTWARE
MAY BE SURVEILLING STUDENTS AND
APPROPRIATELY AND COMPOUNDING
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL
DISCIPLINE. THE LETTER DETAILS
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF USING SUCH
SURVEILLANCE SOFTWARE IN AN
EDUCATIONAL SETTING, BUT ALSO
EXTENDS TO ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE TRACKING AND
SURREPTITIOUS CONTROL OF NEARLY
ALL OF A CHILD'S ONLINE
BEHAVIOR. THIS COULD
PROPORTIONATELY AFFECT YOUNGER
USERS IN CERTAIN MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES, OR, AS THE
OPPOSITION WITNESS MENTIONED
PREVIOUSLY, UNSUPPORTIVE
HOUSEHOLDS. AS NOTED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, A NEAR
IDENTICAL BILL IN ILLINOIS HAS
BEEN OPPOSED BY EQUALITY
ILLINOIS, ACLU OF ILLINOIS, AND
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ILLINOIS,
I THINK THAT WRAPS UP ALL OF MY
COMMENTS AS I DON'T WANT TO
OPINE ON WHAT THE OTHER
OPPOSITION WITNESSES ALREADY
SAID, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION TO 1444.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ROANOKE ALONG
WITH CAL CHAMBER RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. BRANDON APP
REPRESENTING ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION. RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION TO 1444 QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SENATOR ALSO
THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
I COMMITTED TO SENATOR STERN
THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL TODAY BECAUSE I KNOW HIS
INTENT IS IN THE IN THE RIGHT
PLACE, AND WE'RE CONSTANTLY
LOOKING FOR THE BEST WAY TO
SUPPORT OUR CHILDREN, OUR YOUTH
AND AT THE SAME TIME, PROTECT
OUR PRIVACY, I KNOW THE, SENATOR
STERN HAS, MADE AMENDMENTS SO
FAR, BUT I DO SHARE SOME OF THE
PRIVACY CONCERNS, NOT BECAUSE I
OPPOSE IT, BUT BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO
ADDRESS, FOR INSTANCE, IT'S,
CONCERNING THAT THE PRIVATE
COMPANIES OR THIRD PARTY, SAFETY
SOFTWARE PROVIDERS WILL HAVE
ACCESS TO AND MANAGE USER DATA
OF CHILDREN REGARDING THE
CHILDREN'S, ONLINE INTERACTIONS,
CONTENT AND ACCOUNT SETTINGS ON
THESE PLATFORMS. I'M CONCERNED
THAT THE THIRD PARTY SAFETY
SOFTWARE PROVIDERS WILL SET
THEIR OWN PARAMETERS AND
CRITERIA FOR WHAT IS EVIDENCE OF
A CHILD'S ANXIETY OR DEPRESSION.
AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE
THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE PROVIDERS
WOULD BE ABLE TO SHARE ANY DATA
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD
THERE BE, THERE SHOULD BE
PARAMETERS AND SAFEGUARDS, ON
THAT LEVEL AS WELL. SO I AGREE
THERE SHOULD BE OVERSIGHT ON
THESE COMPANIES. I APPRECIATE
THAT THE BILL REQUIRES THAT
THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS TO BE
REGISTERED WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND WITH THESE
COMMENTS, I URGE THE AUTHOR TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON ON THESE
CONCERNS AND ENSURE THAT A CHILD
USERS PRIVACY IS PROTECTED.
AGAIN, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OTHER COMMENTS. QUESTIONS? YES.
LET ME GO TO SENATOR, CABALLERO
THEN TO SENATOR ASHBY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I AM I SHARE
SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES THAT,
SENATOR DURAZO JUST ARTICULATED.
AND I GUESS, WHERE I COME OR HOW
I COME TO IT AND I, I HAVE NOT
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATOR
STERN, AND I AND I WISH HE WAS
HERE BECAUSE THEN I COULD GET
COMMITMENTS FROM HIM ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER. BUT BUT IF WE'RE GOING
TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF YOUNG
PEOPLE AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT
THE THIRD PARTY, VENDORS ARE NOT
ILLICITLY USING THE INFORMATION
IN, IN A WAY THAT, PREJUDICES
THE YOUNG, THE YOUNG PEOPLE THAT
THEY'RE SUPPOSEDLY TAKING CARE
OF, I THINK IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TO DO A REGULATORY,
TO GIVE MAYBE THE DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY, THE ABILITY TO DO A
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT SAYS
YOU CAN'T SURVEIL, FOR EXAMPLE.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY DANGEROUS
TO HAVE ANYBODY SURVEILLING
YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, TÍNH OR, OR,
PRETEEN IS REALLY, I THINK, KIND
OF FRIGHTENING, NOT KIND OF
FRIGHTENING TO ME. MY KID, MY
MINOR GRANDKIDS, THEY'RE NOT MY
CHILDREN. AND I'D WANT TO KNOW
THAT, THAT THEY'RE PROTECTED,
AND THAT SOMEONE ISN'T FOLLOWING
THEM FOR ULTERIOR PURPOSES, AND
I THINK THE, THE FRAMEWORK OUGHT
TO BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE INTERNET COMPANIES SO
THAT IT'S NOT UNDOING WHAT THE
INTERNET COMPANIES HAVE PUT IN
PLACE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
OF THE YOUNG INDIVIDUAL AS WELL.
THE MINOR, FOR LACK OF A BETTER
WORD, SO THAT THIS, THAT WE'RE,
WE'RE COMING UP WITH SOMETHING
THAT DOESN'T UNDO WHAT THE
COMPANIES ARE DOING, IF, IF
THOSE, FEATURES WERE SET UP TO
PROTECT THE MINORS THEMSELVES
AND THAT ADDS AN ADDED LEVEL OF,
OF, OF SECURITY THAT,
INFORMATION CAN, CAN BE,
DIVULGED TO THE PARENTS OR CAN
BE SHARED IN A WAY THAT THAT
PROTECTS YOUNG PEOPLE. I WOULD
WANT TO KNOW THAT THAT, THAT
KIND OF A, A SETUP, THAT THERE
IS A REGULATORY PROCESS THAT THE
COMPANIES CAN RESPOND TO AND
MAKE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT, BECAUSE
IT'S WAY BEYOND US ALL. I KNOW
IS MY GRANDKIDS CAN GET AROUND
ALL THE SECURITY FEATURES THAT
ANYBODY PUTS ON, ON, ON THE, ON
THE DEVICES. AND SO I WAS IT'S
REALLY TRUE THAT THAT YOUNG
PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO DO A WHOLE
HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN THOSE OF
US THAT DIDN'T GROW UP WITH THIS
KIND OF TECHNOLOGY. I WANT TO
KEEP OUR KIDS SAFE, BUT I ALSO
WANT TO KNOW THAT THERE'S AN
ABILITY TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN, AND THAT IT'S NOT
AN ADVERSARIAL PROCESS. THANK
YOU FOR THE COMMENTS, SENATOR.
AND I HAVE TALKED TO THE
SENATOR, SENATOR STERN, I KNOW
HE THE FIRST THING HE EXPRESSED
TO ME IS THAT HE IS WILLING TO
WORK AND EAGER TO WORK WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING
OPPOSITION AND COMMITTEE STAFF,
ON THE POINTS YOU RAISED. AND,
THAT'S THE REASON HE ACCEPTED
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
PUT UP IMPORTANT GUARDRAILS AND,
TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, THAT
THERE ARE POTENTIALLY PRACTICES
OR FRAMEWORKS THAT COULD BE
UTILIZED TO COLLABORATE WITH
SOME OF THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS. I'M SURE HE'D BE OPEN
TO THOSE, HE TOLD ME HE'S
COMMITTED. I MEAN, HE'S TRYING
TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM
THAT WAS RAISED BY TRAGIC STORY,
RELAYED BY BY DOCTOR BERMAN,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE SAFETY
CONCERNS ARE A COROLLARY CONCERN
HERE THAT THIS BILL MIGHT RAISE,
AND I KNOW HE'S COMMITTED TO
WORKING THROUGH THOSE. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY
PERMISSION FOR THE WITNESS TO
SPEAK IF HE HAS ANY. SURE YEAH.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. WE
HAVE BEEN WORKING A LONG TIME ON
THIS BILL TO CONTINUE TO ADDRESS
ANY CONCERNS. AND LIKE I SAID IN
MY STATEMENT, NOT ONLY ADDRESS,
NOT ONLY BALANCE HERE, BUT
ACTUALLY ADDRESS THEM. AND I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THAT THIRD PARTY
SAFETY SOFTWARE IS OUT AND USED
BY MILLIONS OF FAMILIES, ACROSS
THE COUNTRY WITH REAL EFFECTIVE
RESULTS. SO WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF
LIVES SAVED FROM THIS. THERE'S
NO COROLLARY, COROLLARY IN TERMS
OF OTHER INTERVENTIONS WE'RE
LOOKING AT EITHER LEGISLATIVELY
OR THAT THE PLATFORMS ARE TRYING
TO ROLL OUT THIS INTERVENTION.
DOES NOT EXIST OTHERWISE, AND
IT'S EFFECTIVE, SO IT EXISTS AND
IT'S OUT THERE. WE HAVE NOT
FOUND ANY. WHILE WE'VE FOUND
CHILDREN'S LIVES SAVED, WE HAVE
NOT FOUND ANY OF THESE CONCERNS
MANIFEST AFTER HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF ALERTS GO OUT. NOW,
DESPITE THAT, THIS BILL ADDS
ADDITIONAL GUARDRAILS FOR
PRIVACY. REALLY STRICTLY
LIMITING WHAT CAN BE DISCLOSED
TO A PARENT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY
CONNECTED TO A SEVERE HARM THAT
IS LISTED WITHIN THE BILL, AND
WE DO. AND SENATOR STERN TOLD ME
I COULD SAY THIS AS WELL. WE DO
HAVE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
DRAFTED COMING OUT THAT WILL
FURTHER ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS.
REALLY, I THINK DEFINITIVELY, SO
I WILL, I WILL LEAVE IT. LET ME
ASK YOU THIS. IF, IF, IF THE
SYSTEM ALREADY EXISTS, WHY DO
YOU NEED THIS BILL? THE PROBLEM
IS THAT SOME AND THIS IS WHY THE
ARGUMENT ABOUT CONTRACTING, IS
THE POLICY ISSUE AT STAKE? SOME
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, REDDIT,
TUMBLR, OTHERS ALLOW THIS
ACCESS. NOW, OTHERS, LIKE
SNAPCHAT, DO NOT ALLOW THE
ACCESS. AND THAT'S WHERE A LOT
OF THE HARM TO CHILDREN IS
COMING FROM. AND THE ONLY WAY TO
GET AT PROTECTING THOSE CHILDREN
IS THROUGH THIRD PARTY SAFETY
SOFTWARE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
WITH BUSINESS MOTIVES AND SAFETY
. AND SO IF WE CREATE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD, WE CAN ALLOW
PARENTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL
THE PLATFORMS THAT THEIR
CHILDREN ARE USING. AND WE CAN
ALSO HAVE GOOD PLAYERS COME INTO
THE INDUSTRY AND NOT BE AT A
DISADVANTAGE IN NEGOTIATING WITH
THE LARGE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT, SENATOR ASHBY.
YEAH, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I
JUST MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU.
THE PARENTS IN THE ROOM WHO ARE
HERE BECAUSE YOU JUST YOU KNOW,
YOU NEVER EXPECT TO BE SITTING
IN THE STATE CAPITOL IN A
JUDICIARY SENATE HEARING
ADVOCATING FOR SOMETHING THAT
MIGHT PROTECT KIDS FROM WHAT
TOOK YOUR OWN SON'S LIFE. SO
THANKS FOR COMING HERE, ALL OF
YOU. THANKS FOR DOING IT. I YOU
KNOW, WE'RE THROWING AROUND THIS
TUM SAMMY'S LAW, BUT I LOOKED AT
YOUR FACE A COUPLE TIMES AND
THEY SAID IT, AND IT'S STILL
YOUR SON'S NAME. AND, YEAH, I'LL
MOVE THE BILL. ALRIGHTY THANK
YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SENATOR WILK, DID YOU
WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT OR
QUESTION? I'M GOING TO MAKE A
COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, I TOO WANT TO JUST
SAY HOW SORRY I'M A FATHER, A
GRANDFATHER I CAN'T EVEN
CONCEIVE. YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU
GUYS HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH?
AND LIKE THE CHAIRMAN SAID,
JUST, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE
THE BEST OF THIS SITUATION AND
IMPACT OTHER, OTHER FAMILIES IS
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. ONE OF
THE COMMENTS YOU SAID, WHICH I
THINK IS SO TRUE, GOOD KIDS MAKE
BAD DECISIONS. I KNOW FOR ME, I
MADE PLENTY OF BAD DECISIONS AND
BY THE GRACE OF GOD, I AM HERE
TODAY, BUT I LIVED IN A MUCH
SAFER AND SIMPLER WORLD THAN
THAN TODAY'S KIDS. AND I JUST
KNOW, REMEMBER DROPPING MY
ELDEST OFF AT COLLEGE AND MY
WIFE AND I AND LOOKING IN THE
REAR VIEW MIRROR AS WE'RE
PULLING OFF THE COLLEGE CAMPUS,
AND I JUST REALIZED NOT THAT
YOUR JOB AS A PARENT IS EVER
DONE, BUT THOSE THOSE DANGEROUS
YEARS WERE DONE AND THAT WE ARE
ALL STEWARDS OF OUR CHILDREN. WE
DON'T WE DON'T KNOW OAN THEM,
BUT WE'RE STEWARDS. AND I THINK
MOST PARENTS, THE VAST MAJORITY
OF PARENTS ARE GOOD. PARENTS
LOVE THEIR KIDS AND WANT TO
PROTECT THEM. AND SO I AGREE,
THERE'S STILL SOME CHALLENGES
WITH THIS BILL, BUT I'M
CONFIDENT THAT SENATOR STERN
WILL GET THERE AND HAPPY TO JOIN
MY OTHER COLLEAGUES IN
SUPPORTING THE BILL. ALRIGHTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LAST, LAST
COMMENT, WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR
ME TO REVIEW MY BAD DECISIONS AS
A YOUNG PERSON, SO, SO, SO, THE,
SENATOR STERN IS NOT HERE. I
WILL COMMIT TO CONTINUE TO WORK,
TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE THINGS
BECAUSE THE END PRODUCT WE HAVE
MAY NOT BE ONE THAT EVERYONE
AGREES WITH, BUT IT SHOULD BE
ONE THAT DOES THE GREATEST TO
PROTECT YOUNG PEOPLE WITHOUT
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES. AND I DO
THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME MAJOR
CHALLENGES. I THINK THIS BILL IS
GOING TO COME BACK TO THE SENATE
AFTER THE ASSEMBLY FOR
CONCURRENCE, AND WHEN IT COMES
BACK TO THE TO THE SENATE, WE'RE
GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR THOSE
CHANGES. SO, ALL RIGHT, WITH
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, SENATOR MOON,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
AND I WOULD JUST NOTE TO SOME OF
THE CONCERNS RAISED, THIS IS AN
OPT IN FOR PARENTS. SO IT'S NOT
THAT EVERYBODY'S DATA IS GOING
TO BE OUT THERE. IT'S FOR THE
PARENTS THAT REQUEST IT. RIGHT.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM SECRETARY. IT'S BEEN MOVED
BY SENATOR ASHBY. THIS IS FILE
ITEM 30, SB 1444. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS ON BERG. I AM
BERG I WILK I WILK I ALLEN.
ALLEN I ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO
. CABALLERO I RUSSELL. RUSSELL I
GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD I MINH I
MEAN I NEAL. 8 TO 0 800. PUT
THAT ON CALLS. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR. MEN, ITEM NUMBER 27, SB
1286, AFTER SENATOR MINH IS DONE
, THEN IT WILL BE SENATOR
UMBERG. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO
CALL THE ROLL ONE LAST TIME. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR MINH, THE FLOOR
IS YOURS, THANK YOU, CHAIR
UMBERG AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS SR.
I'M SORRY, SB 1286 WOULD EXTEND
PROTECTIONS THAT EXIST UNDER THE
ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
ACT COLLECTIONS ACT TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO PERSONALLY
SIGNED FOR THEIR BUSINESS DEBT
IN ORDER TO PROTECT SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS FROM UNFAIR,
DECEPTIVE, AND ABUSIVE DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES. WE'VE SEEN
THAT IN MANY CASES IN RECENT
YEARS, SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE
STRUGGLED, PARTICULARLY DURING
COVID. IN THE AFTERMATH OF THAT,
THEY HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING TO
FIND THE NECESSARY FINANCES TO
KEEP OPERATING. THIS IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR MINORITY
OWNED BUSINESSES, WHICH HAVE
LOWER THAN LOWER LOAN APPROVAL
RATES THAN WHITE OWNED
BUSINESSES. EVEN WITH SIMILAR
REVENUES, CREDIT SCORES AND DEBT
LEVELS SINCE THE 2008 ECONOMIC
CRASH, MANY TRADITIONAL AND
NONTRADITIONAL LENDERS HAVE
REQUIRED INDIVIDUALS TO
PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THEIR
BUSINESS DEBT. WHILE LENDERS ARE
WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO REQUIRE
COSIGNATORIES. THIS GOES AGAINST
THE PURPOSE OF THE ENTITY
FORMATION. PROVIDING A PERSONAL
GUARANTEE OPENS THE DOOR FOR
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO BE
SUBJECT TO ABUSE OF DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES OF THE
KINDS THAT WE'VE SEEN ASSOCIATED
WITH LOAN SHARKS AND PREDATORY
PRACTICES IN OTHER SPACES. SOME
OF THESE PRACTICES INCLUDE
THREATS, CONTACTING BORROWERS AT
INCONVENIENT HOURS, USING FALSE
STATEMENTS, OR ADDING
UNAUTHORIZED INTEREST OR FEES TO
THE AMOUNTS OWED. THERE ARE OVER
3 MILLION SMALL BUSINESSES IN
CALIFORNIA THAT DO NOT HAVE ANY
EMPLOYEES. THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY
INDIVIDUALS WHO RUN THEIR
BUSINESSES DAY TO DAY
OPERATIONS, MARKETING AND
ACCOUNTING. THESE BUSINESS
OWNERS ARE OPERATING VERY
SIMILARLY TO INDIVIDUAL
CONSUMERS AS THEY NAVIGATE THE
FINANCIAL MARKETPLACE. UNDER SB
1286, THESE BORROWERS WOULD
STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING
OFF THEIR DEBTS, BUT WOULD
SIMPLY BE PROTECTED FROM UNFAIR,
DECEPTIVE, OR ABUSIVE COLLECTION
PRACTICES. HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL, I HAVE WITH
ME, DESIREE NGUYEN AUTH WITH THE
EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER
AND LEWIS CADET PECK WITH THE
RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS LENDING
COALITION. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK
YOU. GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
DESIREE NGUYEN AUTH. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER JUSTICE
PROJECT AT EAST BAY COMMUNITY
LAW CENTER, LECTURE AT BERKELEY
LAW. FORMERLY A BUSINESS
ATTORNEY FOR SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS, AND I AM A MEMBER OF THE
DEBT COLLECTION ADVISORY BOARD
OF THE DFP. SB 1286 IS AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE THAT WILL
REQUIRE LONG ACCEPTED PRACTICES
OF DECENCY AND DEBT COLLECTION
TO BE APPLIED TO DEBT COLLECTION
FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. AS OF
2023, 99.8% OF CALIFORNIA
BUSINESSES ARE SMALL BUSINESSES.
THAT AMOUNTS TO 4.1 MILLION
SMALL BUSINESSES, 3.35 MILLION
PEOPLE, 3.35 MILLION OF THESE
SMALL BUSINESSES DO NOT HAVE
EMPLOYEES. THAT'S 3.35 MILLION
PEOPLE DOING THEIR OWN
ADVERTISING, MARKETING, TAXES,
ACCOUNTING, WEB DESIGN AND MORE
ON TOP OF THE SERVICES OR GOODS
THAT THEY HAVE SET OUT TO SELL.
THAT'S 3.35 MILLION PEOPLE
WITHOUT A FACELESS ACCOUNTING
DEPARTMENT BASED ON MY
EXPERIENCE WITH THESE BUSINESS
OWNERS, IT IS CLEAR THAT MANY DO
NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL ACUMEN OR
EQUAL BARGAINING POWER TO
NEGOTIATE FAVORABLE OR FAIR
TERMS IN FINANCING. AS SUCH, THE
CPA'S LEAST SOPHISTICATED
CONSUMER STANDARD IS VERY MUCH
APPROPRIATE. WHAT I SEE IN THE
FIELD IS WOMEN OPENING
BUSINESSES TO MEET A NEED THAT
THEY CANNOT OTHERWISE FILL WITH
A 40 HOUR A WEEK JOB, LIKE THE
NEED FOR CHILD OR DEPENDENT
CARE. STARTING A BUSINESS ALLOWS
THEM FLEXIBILITY AND THE DIGNITY
THAT COMES WITH PROVIDING
INCOME. SB 1286 SEEKS TO ENSURE
THAT PERSONAL GUARANTEES FROM
THESE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
COLLECTED FAIRLY, WITHOUT DECEIT
OR HARASSMENT. I'D LIKE TO
BRIEFLY SHARE A SHORT STORY FROM
ONE OF OUR CO-SPONSORS, SMALL
BUSINESS MAJORITY. DAVE, WHO WAS
A TRAINER FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS,
HAD A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS BEFORE
PUTTING ALL OF HIS SAVINGS INTO
OPENING A NEW GYM. IMPROVEMENTS
NEEDED TO BE MADE TO THE SPACE,
AND HE TOOK OUT FINANCING. AFTER
TAKING OUT THE FINANCING, DAVE
WAS OAN IN AN ACCIDENT AND
BROKE HIS FEMUR. HE WAS UNABLE
TO WORK AND COMMERCIAL RENT WAS
ABOUT $6,000 A MONTH. HE WAS
ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THE
PAYMENTS UNTIL COVID, WITH GYMS
BEING THE FIRST TO CLOSE IN
CALIFORNIA, HE REALLY STRUGGLED.
NOT ONLY DID THE FINANCING
COMPANY LEAVE THREATENING
MESSAGES ON HIS WIFE'S PHONE,
THEY TRACKED DOWN THE
INFORMATION OF HIS CUSTOMERS TO
TELL THEM ABOUT HIS DEBT AND
THREATENED TO PURSUE THEM TO GET
THE MONEY THEY WERE OWED. THE
EFFECT ON THE GYM WAS
DEVASTATING. I'D LIKE TO THANK
SENATOR MINH FOR PRIORITIZING
SMALL BUSINESSES, A LARGELY
UNDERREPORTED COMMUNITY THAT
COMPRISES A VAST PORTION OF
ECONOMIC FABRIC IN CALIFORNIA. I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE,
AND I'D LIKE TO PASS THE MIC ON
TO MY COLLEAGUE LEWIS, WHO
REPRESENTS THE ONLY NEW
STAKEHOLDER TO THE CPA. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
HONORABLE MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
LEWIS PECK. I SERVE AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE RESPONSIBLE
BUSINESS LENDING COALITION, AN
ORGANIZATION OF FOR PROFIT AND
NONPROFIT VOICES DEDICATED TO
RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION IN SMALL
BUSINESS FINANCING. WE REPRESENT
OVER 1000 SMALL BUSINESS GROUPS,
FOR PROFIT FINANCING PROVIDERS,
NON PROFIT CDFIS COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES AND TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF SMALL BUSINESSES THEMSELVES.
ACROSS OUR MANY DIFFERENCES, WE
ALL AGREE THAT SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS DESERVE TO BE TREATED
FAIRLY DURING THE FINANCING
COLLECTIONS PROCESS. WE DID NOT
TAKE A POSITION ON THIS BILL IN
THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE, OR EVEN
IN TIME TO BE IN YOUR COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, BECAUSE OUR FOR PROFIT
MEMBERS NEEDED TIME TO ANALYZE
WHETHER THE BILL WOULD CREATE A
DIFFICULT COMPLIANCE BURDEN. AND
THEY FOUND THAT IT WOULD NOT. IN
FACT, OUR MEMBERS SHARED THAT
THEY GENERALLY COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS ALREADY. THE
EXCEPTION WAS AFFIRMATIVE
REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE NOTICES
TO BORROWERS. SOME OF THOSE
MEMBERS FOUND THAT THOSE NOTICES
WOULD BE NEW, BUT NOT ONEROUS TO
DO. OUR PRIMARY FEEDBACK IS
ACTUALLY WE'RE CONCERNED THAT
THE BILL DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH
IN ITS CURRENT STATE. IT DOES
NOT COVER LOANS TO SMALL
BUSINESSES. IT ONLY COVERS
COLLECTIONS AGAINST FLESH AND
BLOOD INDIVIDUALS THAT BORROWED
FOR A BUSINESS PURPOSE. AND WE
THINK IT SHOULD COVER SMALL
BUSINESSES BECAUSE OF THE SORTS
OF THINGS THAT EXACTLY DESIREE
JUST DESCRIBED HAPPENING, WHICH
THAT IS OUT THERE, THAT IS
HAPPENING, OUR MEMBERS SHARED
THAT ABUSIVE COLLECTIONS
PRACTICES HARM NOT ONLY BUSINESS
OWNERS, BUT ALSO FAIR
COMPETITION. WHEN SOME COMPANIES
ARE USING THESE UNETHICAL MEANS
TO EXTRACT A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE, RESPONSIBLE LENDERS
ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE IF THEY
DON'T ADOPT THE SAME UNETHICAL
PRACTICES. THAT'S WHAT OUR
MEMBERS SHARED, SB 1286 SETS A
FAIR STANDARD FOR COMPETITION BY
PROHIBITING THINGS LIKE LYING,
CALLING THE BORROWERS IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO HUMILIATE
THEM, CALLING THE BORROWERS
RELATIVES, CALLING, AND SO ON,
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D ALSO
LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL, AND MAYBE
URGE IT TO GO A LITTLE FARTHER
ON BEHALF OF CAMEO AND ALSO
SMALL BUSINESS MAJORITY, WHO ARE
HERE EARLIER TODAY BUT COULDN'T
STAY. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT. OTHERS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1286, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
RACHEL MUELLER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS, ROBERT HARRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION, WE'RE A
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS MEASURE WITH
OUR SMALL BUSINESS ALLIES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DANNY KENDALL
KAISER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT, SEEING NO ONE
ELSE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
LET'S TURN NOW TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
SB 1286, YOU'RE WELCOME TO TAKE
A SEAT AT THE TABLE. IF YOU
LIKE. CLIFF, HOW YOU DOING?
WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST,
MR. BURG? OH, YOU'RE GOING TO GO
FIRST. OKAY, FINE. ALL RIGHT,
MR. BURG, CLOSE IT OUT, GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN. LINDSAY GORIN
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY HERE TODAY
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BANKING NETWORK.
REPRESENTING THE SMALL LOCAL
COMMUNITY BANKS THAT EXTEND
ACCESS TO CREDIT TO BOTH
CONSUMERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES
ACROSS THE STATE, FIRST, JUST
WANT TO NOTE THAT WE DO
APPRECIATE THE SUBSTANTIAL WORK
THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS BILL IN
SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, AS
WELL AS THE AUTHOR'S WILLINGNESS
TO ACCEPT AMENDMENTS AND
INITIATE STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS
WITH US AND OUR COALITION,
HOWEVER, TODAY WE MUST
UNFORTUNATELY REMAIN IMPOSED
BECAUSE ISSUES REMAIN IN SB 1286
AND THERE IS AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE
PROBLEMS BEING SOLVED BY THIS
MEASURE AND WHETHER THIS METHOD
IS THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION, WE
APPRECIATE THE STATED INTENT OF
THE BILL TO ENSURE THAT OWNERS
OF MICRO BUSINESSES, MICRO
BUSINESSES ARE FREE FROM
HARASSING DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT
THIS GOAL WOULD BE MORE
APPROPRIATELY ACCOMPLISHED
THROUGH THE CREATION OF ENTIRELY
NEW ACT. AND ROSENTHAL IS
MODELED AFTER THE FEDERAL FAIR
DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT,
AND BOTH OF THESE ACTS ARE
TAILORED TO THE COLLECTION OF
CONSUMER DEBTS, WHICH MEANS THAT
THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS AROUND
PRACTICES LIKE CONTACTING THE
DEBTORS EMPLOYER OR THEIR FAMILY
MEMBERS, WHILE THIS IS
APPROPRIATE IN A CONSUMER
SETTING, MANY EXISTING
PROVISIONS JUST DON'T JUST DON'T
WORK IN THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
SPACE. ROSENTHAL GOES. WELL
BEYOND SIMPLY BANNING HARASSING
PHONE CALLS AND MANDATES A
LENGTHY SERIES OF COMPLIANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE
COLLECTION OF PERSONAL FAMILY OR
HOUSEHOLD DEBTS, WHICH ALSO
INCLUDES MORTGAGE DEBT. ALSO
WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT OUR
COALITION IS UNCLEAR ON THE
AUTHOR'S INTENDED GOALS. THE
AUTHOR'S STATEMENT IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS INDICATES
THAT NON TRADITIONAL LENDERS,
ARE NOT ACTING UNDER THE SAME
REGULATIONS AS THE TRADITIONAL
LENDERS THAT WE REPRESENT, AND
THIS SEEMS TO BE A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM ENTIRELY, AND WE WOULD
CERTAINLY WELCOME A DISCUSSION
ON THAT POLICY THAT MIGHT CREATE
A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
BETWEEN THE ROLES THAT
TRADITIONAL AND NON TRADITIONAL
LENDERS ABIDE BY WITH RESPECT TO
COMMERCIAL BORROWERS, AND ALSO
AUTHOR STATES THE GOAL TO
PROTECT MICRO BUSINESSES. BUT
THIS MEASURES $500,000 THRESHOLD
CAST A MUCH WIDER NET. AND WE
BELIEVE THIS THRESHOLD SHOULD BE
REDUCED TO $100,000 AT THE TIME
OF ORIGINATION. LAST THE MEASURE
HAS MOVED AND CHANGED REALLY
QUICKLY OVER THE PAST WEEK, AND
REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
TO EXISTING LAW. WE'RE STILL
TRYING TO ANALYZE IT, FRANKLY,
ANALYZE ANY TOUCH POINTS AND
ISSUES THAT THE MEASURE
PRESENTS. SO WE THINK THIS IS
DESERVING OF A ROBUST
STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION AND MORE
THOUGHTFUL DIALOG THAT MIGHT
TAKE SOME MORE TIME, SO WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COMMITTEE
TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WHETHER
THE BILL'S METHOD. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT,
MR. BERG, YOU AND I ARE THE ONLY
TWO PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM THAT
REMEMBER HIRSH ROSENTHAL. SO I'M
NOT GOING TO ASK YOU WHAT.
HIRSCH. OH, I SEE OTHER HANDS.
ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK
YOU WHAT HIRSCH WOULD WANT YOU
TO DO. ALL RIGHT, SAN FERNANDO
VALLEY, ALL RIGHT. OH, I'M
SORRY. HERSHEY HAS HIS FAN CLUB
HERE. INDEED. I'M HAPPY TO PLAY
THE HIRSCH WOULD HAVE INTENDED
CARD, BUT GO AHEAD, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. CLIFF BERG, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COLLECTORS, THIS
IS ONE OF THESE ODD SITUATIONS
WHERE, FRANKLY, MY CLIENT AGREES
WITH THE AUTHOR AND WOULD BE
PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING
A STANDALONE BILL THAT
PROHIBITED DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS BILL SEEKS AN
EASY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM,
AND IT WOULD, IN ESSENCE, CRAM
SMALL BUSINESSES INTO AN ACT
THAT SENATOR ROSENTHAL CREATED
TO PROTECT CONSUMERS. IF YOU
READ THE ROSENTHAL ACT, IT
MENTIONS CONSUMERS 90 SOMETHING
TIMES. THE ACT IS TAILORED TO
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER
CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IT WOULD
CREATE EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS TO STUFF
SMALL BUSINESSES. IT'S A ROUND
PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE, AND FOR
THE REASONS THEREFORE STATED, WE
WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR ON A ON A LAW THAT
PROTECTS MICRO BUSINESSES FROM
DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING
PRACTICES. BUT THE WAY HE'S
GOING ABOUT IT, CRAMMING THEM
INTO THE ROSENTHAL ACT JUST
DOESN'T WORK OPERATIONALLY AND
THEREFORE WE HAVE TO OPPOSE THE
BILL AT THIS TIME, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HIM AND
THE SPONSORS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, OTHERS
WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M TRACY STEVENS. WE'RE
PRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION,
ALSO IN OPPOSED. THANK YOU. TIM
LYNCH, ON BEHALF OF THE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION, AN INTERNATIONAL
ALIGNING OUR COMMENTS WITH THE
PREVIOUS OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDITORS BAR ASSOCIATION,
APPRECIATE THE WORK AND THE
COMMITMENT THE AUTHOR HAS MADE.
WE UNFORTUNATELY REMAIN STILL
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. VANESSA
LUGO, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
BANKERS ASSOCIATION AND WE'RE
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CREDIT
UNION LEAGUE, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION PARTY. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, DID YOU ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS? I DO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. YES. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE SEEING NO Þ. SENATOR
CABALLERO. SO I WE HEARD THIS IN
BANKING AND THE ISSUES WERE THE
SAME THAT IT'S A ROUND PEG IN A
SQUARE HOLE OR VICE VERSA. AND I
WONDER IF YOU THOUGHT ABOUT
FIXING THE ISSUES AS WAS JUST
SUGGESTED, RATHER THAN PUTTING
IT IN THE ACT. WELL, SO I WILL
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. I DON'T
THINK THE ROSENTHAL FRAMEWORK IS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS. THE
ABUSES AND PREDATORY PRACTICES
THAT IT LAUNCHED, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, THE ROSENTHAL AND
THEN SOME OF YOU GUYS WERE
AROUND. I WAS NOT. BUT THAT
LAUNCHED THE ROSENTHAL ACT AND
SPURRED THAT ARE IDENTICAL TO
THE ABUSIVE PRACTICES WE'RE
SEEING AGAINST SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND THIS BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO
BUSINESSES. I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR, THE AMENDMENTS WERE
ACCEPTED IN BANKING, AS YOU
KNOW, MADE THIS SO THAT IT ONLY
APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
COSIGNATORIES TO SMALL BUSINESS
DEBT. AND AGAIN, THE ABUSIVE
PRACTICES THAT ARE IN PLAY HERE
AS FAR AS COLLECTION ARE, ARE
BASICALLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE
THAT CONSUMERS FACE. SO WE THINK
IT'S A PERFECTLY APT FRAMEWORK.
AND OF COURSE, IF WE WERE TO
CREATE A BRAND NEW FRAMEWORK, IT
WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPREHENSIVE.
AND I SUSPECT THAT WE'D SEE A
LOT OF CRITICISM OF ALL THE
DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF IT. SO
WE THINK THE ROSENTHAL ACT,
PARTICULARLY AS AMENDED, THIS
BILL IS ACTUALLY A PERFECT FIT.
WE HAVE WHITTLED IT DOWN. SO
IT'S A ROUND PEG IN A ROUND HOLE
AT THIS POINT. AND I'VE NOT
HEARD EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS IS
INAPT OTHER THAN A HANDFUL OF
ONE OFFS, WHICH WE ARE HAPPY TO
ADDRESS. AND WE HAVE MOVED THE
BILL QUITE A LOT IN A SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME. AS AS HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED, WE HAVE BEEN OPEN TO
TAKING AMENDMENTS TO AVOID ANY
DIS SYNCHRONICITIES THAT MIGHT
EXIST, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH OPPOSITION AND ALL
STAKEHOLDERS TO TRY TO ADAPT THE
ROSENTHAL ACT TO SO THAT IT FITS
WELL, AND THERE MAY BE A FEW
AREAS THAT THEY CAN IDENTIFY,
ANYTHING THAT THEY CAN IDENTIFY
WHERE THERE'S A REASONABLE
CHANGE THAT SHOULD BE ENACTED. I
THINK WE ARE HAPPY TO CONSIDER.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. APPRECIATE
IT. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION
SENATOR CABALLERO MOVES THE
BILL, SENATOR MINH, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR. AYE. VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER 27, SB 1286.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
NUMBER A NUMBER I. WILK NØ. WILK
NØ ALLEN. ALLEN I. ASHBY ASHBY I
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I RUSSELL.
GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN MIN
I NILO. FIVE 6 TO 1. SENATOR,
CAN YOU SAY 6 TO 1? THAT BILL IS
ON CALL. VOTE WAS 6 TO 1, AND
THE BILL IS ON CALL SO MEMBERS
CAN ADD ON. NEXT UP, FILE ITEM
35, SB 913. WE HAVE FILE ITEM
35, SB 913 BY OUR CHAIRMAN. AND
THE RECOMMENDATION IS CHAIR'S
RECOMMENDATION IS AN AYE VOTE.
BUT IT'S Dð PASS PASS. RIGHT?
RIGHT Dð PASS Dð PASS IS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. AND WITH THAT
, WHENEVER YOU WANT TO START.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FOR YOUR
PATIENCE HERE. TODAY I'M
PRESENTING SB 913, WHICH AFTER
AMENDMENTS IN HEALTH COMMITTEE
AND POST HEALTH COMMITTEE WOULD
ALLOW LICENSED ALCOHOL OR DRUG
ABUSE RECOVERY TREATMENT
FACILITIES TO BE VISITED BY
LOCAL CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS
WITH THE CONSENT, I'LL UNDERLINE
THAT CONSENT OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. THÀNH,
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE,
ESPECIALLY IN DOHERTY, FOR YOUR
WORK ON THIS BILL, HERE'S.
BESIDES MY HEALTH, HERE'S THE
PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT
THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
RECOVERY AND TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND THERE'S REALLY
INADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT. THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, I'M SURE IT'S
WELL-MEANING, BUT IS UNDER,
BASICALLY, IT'S UNDER CAPACITY
AND SO, THIS BILL SIMPLY ALLOWS
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES TO, IN ESSENCE,
DEPUTIZE CITY ATTORNEYS WITH
THEIR CONSENT AND ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT THEY PROVIDE
AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY MAKE SITE
VISITS AND REPORT THAT THEY ARE
ACTING EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT
THE LAW AND REGULATIONS, NONE OF
THESE PROVISIONS WILL SUPERSEDE
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, LAW DOESN'T INCREASE
AUTHORITY AT ALL, IT SIMPLY
MEETS OUR SHARED GOAL OF
ENSURING TREATMENT FACILITIES
MEET STANDARDS OF PATIENT CARE.
THIS IS A PROBLEM. IT'S NOT JUST
ORANGE COUNTY. JUST TO BE CLEAR,
IT'S NOT JUST ORANGE COUNTY.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT IMPACTS
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. WITH ME HERE IS, CAROLYN
GRINDER ON BEHALF OF LEAGUE OF
CITIES AND ALEXANDER HOFFMAN,
CITY ATTORNEY FOR MISSION VIEJO
AND OTHER CITIES. THANK YOU.
LET'S START WITH, MISS GRINDER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS, OR GOOD
EVENING, I GUESS MY NAME IS
CAROLYN GRINDER. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, WHICH IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR SB 913.
RESIDENTIAL RECOVERY HOUSING
PROVIDES VALUABLE REHABILITATION
AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES IN A
THERAPEUTIC ENVIRONMENT, WHICH
CAN BENEFIT BOTH INDIVIDUAL
PATIENTS AND THE BROADER
COMMUNITY. HOWEVER FOR TOO LONG,
CITIES HAVE STRUGGLED TO WORK
WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE
THAT BAD ACTORS OPERATING IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE, WHICH HAS BEEN TO
THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE RECEIVING
CARE AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHY COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
LICENSING LAWS ADMINISTERED
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CARE SERVICES IS ESSENTIAL TO
SAFEGUARDING RESIDENTS
WELL-BEING AND MAINTAINING
QUALITY CARE, ACCORDING TO DHCS,
IN 2023, THE AVERAGE TIME IT
TAKES TO CLOSE OUT A SINGLE
COMPLAINT IS FOUR MONTHS, AND
THEY RECEIVE NEARLY 600 OF THESE
COMPLAINTS PER YEAR. AS THE
NUMBER OF FACILITIES CONTINUES
TO RISE, WITH BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS WORTH OF FUNDING IN THE
PIPELINE FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
HOUSING ACROSS OUR STATE, THE
DEPARTMENT FACES A MAJOR HURDLE
IN MONITORING AND REGULATING
THESE FACILITIES. SB 913 IS NOT
ABOUT LIMITING ACCESS TO THESE
FACILITIES AND THESE CRITICAL
SERVICES. CITIES HAVE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN SUPPORTED INCREASED
INVESTMENTS IN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
HOUSING. SB 913 INTENT IS TO
ENHANCE THE OVERSIGHT AND
ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING STATE
LICENSING LAWS FOR DRUG AND
ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITIES
WITH CITIES AS PARTNERS.
SPECIFICALLY, 913 WOULD ENHANCE
STATE LICENSING EFFORTS BY
REQUIRING DCS TO ADOPT A PROCESS
THAT WOULD ALLOW CITIES TO
REQUEST APPROVAL TO CONDUCT SITE
VISITS, AND ENFORCE EXISTING
LICENSING LAWS TO BE VERY CLEAR,
THIS WOULD ESTABLISH A PROCESS
FOR CITIES TO WORK WITH THE
DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL
PRIOR TO ANY ACTION. IN NO WAY
DOES 913 ALLOW CITIES TO CONDUCT
THESE VISITS OR TAKE ACTION
WITHOUT THEIR DIRECTION AND
APPROVAL. CITIES ARE THE CLOSEST
LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO THE
CONSTITUENTS THEY SERVE, AND ARE
POSITIONED TO RESPOND PROMPTLY
TO EMERGING ISSUES IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES, ALLOWING THEM TO
PARTNER WITH THE STATE TO DO
THESE INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCE
LICENSING LAWS ENABLES SWIFT
ACTION TO ADDRESS VIOLATIONS,
ENSURE COMPLIANCE, AND PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. CITIES
ARE FOCUSED ON LEGISLATIVE
SOLUTIONS THAT SAFEGUARD EVERY
PERSON'S WELL-BEING AND CARE. WE
BELIEVE 913 IS A STEP FORWARD IN
PROTECTING RESIDENTS AND
UPHOLDING THE INTEGRITY OF
TREATMENT FACILITIES. WE URGE
YOU TO PASS THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION SO WE CAN CONTINUE
TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS THIS
YEAR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. GOOD. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
ALEXANDRA HOFFMAN AND I'M THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FOR
MISSION VIEJO. I ALSO AM AN
ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF
FOUNTAIN VALLEY. WE LIKE THIS
LAW BECAUSE RIGHT NOW ALL WE DO
IS GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT THESE
FACILITIES. AND THERE'S NOTHING
WE CAN DO ABOUT THEM. WE DON'T
KNOW IF THEY'RE GOOD COMPLAINTS
THAT ARE VALID. WE DON'T KNOW IF
THEY'RE BAD COMPLAINTS, JUST
FROM OVERLY SENSITIVE PEOPLE WHO
HEARD ONE LOUD NOISE THE MORNING
BEFORE. WE DON'T KNOW ALL WE CAN
DO IS TELL OUR RESIDENTS,
COMPLAIN TO THE STATE AND THAT
FROM A CUSTOMER SERVICE
PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S NOT A VERY
GOOD APPROACH. PEOPLE FEEL
UNHEARD. IT KIND OF CREATES THIS
SNOWBALL EFFECT WHERE EVERYONE
IS JUST MAD AND COMPLAINING
ABOUT THESE PLACES, AND WE DON'T
KNOW IF WE CAN HELP THEM OR NOT.
SO WE LIKE THIS LAW. IT IT WOULD
GIVE CITIES THE ABILITY TO SAY,
HEY, WE'RE GETTING COMPLAINTS
ABOUT THIS PLACE. CAN WE GO
CHECK THEM OUT AND CONFIRM
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE VALID
COMPLAINTS OR BAD, OR THEY'RE
NOTHING? SO SO AND THEN AFTER
THAT, SAY IT'S A PLACE WHERE
CONFIRMED THEIR THEIR VALID
COMPLAINTS, THEN WE CAN GO TO
THE STATE AND SAY HEY, CHECK
THIS PLACE OUT AND ALL THE POWER
STILL RESIDES WITH THE STATE
AGENCY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DO
WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE
WHO WANTS TO ADD ON AS A. ME
TOO, AS SUPPORTERS? GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. PAUL GONSALVES,
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF 1000
OAKS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SIR, AND I APPRECIATE
YOU RUNNING UP THERE, ANYBODY
HERE IN OPPOSITION? ARE YOU
GOING TO BE A PRIMARY WITNESS?
OKAY THANK YOU. YES FINE. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'LL KEEP IT QUICK,
MY NAME IS TRENT MURPHY. I'M A
POLICY ANALYST FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAM
EXECUTIVES, KNOWN AS CADP, OUR
MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS MAKE UP THE
BULK OF THE STATE'S PUBLICLY
FUNDED SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
TREATMENT NETWORK. AND WE ARE
HERE IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
COMPLIANCE AND UPHOLDING
STANDARDS OF CARE WITHIN
LICENSED CITY FACILITIES.
HOWEVER, EXPANDING THE AUTHORITY
OF CITY ATTORNEYS TO ENFORCE
DC'S LICENSING LAWS WOULD
COMPROMISE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND
CONSISTENCY OF THESE CITY
LICENSING PROCESSES. AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, SOME OF THE
REASONING FOR THE BILL IS
CENTERED AROUND THE DCS
COMPLAINT PROCESS TAKING TOO
LONG, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT
THAT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS,
THE DCS HAS SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPROVED THEIR AVERAGE TIME TO
CLOSE A COMPLAINT, REDUCING IT
BY MORE THAN HALF. AND IN
ADDITION, IN THE MOST RECENT
2324 BUDGET, DCS RECEIVED
ROUGHLY $2 MILLION TO HIRE 12
MORE FULL TIME COMPLIANCE
ANALYSTS. THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT
OF A 50% INCREASE IN THE
DEPARTMENT'S CAPACITY TO HANDLE
THE COMPLAINT CASELOAD. WE
BELIEVE THAT THIS PROBLEM,
IDENTIFIED BY THE SENATOR HAS
ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY
PROVIDING DCS THE RESOURCES THEY
NEED, AND IS A MUCH MORE
EFFICIENT, ETHICAL AND
REASONABLE AVENUE TO ENSURE
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OF THESE
CITY FACILITIES. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME AND URGE YOUR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. ANYBODY HERE IS A
MEETING IN OPPOSITION. JOHN
DREBINGER WITH THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE. WE REMAIN REGRETFULLY
OPPOSED. HOWEVER, WE DO
APPRECIATE THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
AND CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND LOOK FORWARD
TO FUTURE CONVERSATIONS. JUST
FEEL LIKE THE BILL NEEDS TO BE
AMENDED A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE
WE CAN WITHDRAW THAT OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
I'LL PULL IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, CONCERNS. OKAY. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR MINH.
SENATOR CABRERA, YOU'VE BEEN
FULL OF QUESTIONS TODAY. NO
QUESTIONS ON THIS BILL. YES. I
JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE
MAYOR STEINBERG IS OPPOSED TO
WHAT I THINK IS A PRETTY GOOD
BILL. SO MAYBE I'M PROBABLY NOT
THE RIGHT PERSON TO RESPOND.
WELL SENATOR ELLENBERG, YOU
COULD RESPOND. MAYBE I COULD
JUST SAY THAT THE STEINBERG
INSTITUTE IS NOT THE SAME AS
MAYOR STEINBERG. SO I WILL
AFFIRM SENATOR ASHBY'S COMMENTS
THERE, HOWEVER, THE INSTITUTE
ITSELF IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED
WITH JUST THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
ON PROP ONE IMPLEMENTATION.
AGAIN, NOT THEMATICALLY OPPOSED
TO THE IDEA OF AROUND
ACCOUNTABILITY. WE ARE WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND
WITH SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE
CAN REACH THAT POINT OF
ACCOUNTABILITY. WE JUST THINK
THAT THE CURRENT FORMAT MIGHT
CREATE SOME BOUNDARIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO THESE
FACILITIES. OPERATING AND
PROVIDING LEGITIMATE SERVICES IN
COMMUNITIES. SO BY NO MEANS
OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF THE BILL
OR THE INTENT, BUT REALLY JUST
KIND OF TRYING TO SUSS OUT SOME
OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND HOW WE
CAN GET THERE AND FEEL LIKE
THROUGH FUTURE CONVERSATION, WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AWESOME. THANK YOU. SENATOR
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, BECAUSE ONE
OF THE ONE OF THE PIECES, I
THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD BILL. I
THINK THE MORE THAT YOU CAN DO,
INSPECTIONS LOCALLY, THE MORE
EFFECTIVE IT'S GOING TO BE,
BECAUSE YOU CAN GET THERE IS
EASIER. AND MY EXPERIENCE
WORKING FOR THE STATE WAS THAT
IN THE INSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS
A STATE NÓ A STATE AGENCY THAT
WAS DOING INSPECTIONS, THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY'D VISIT
EVERY SINGLE FACILITY WAS ONCE
EVERY TEN YEARS OR SO. IT WAS
VERY, VERY INFREQUENT. AND
USUALLY IT WAS DONE BY
COMPLAINT. SO THAT YOU HAD, YOU
HAD TO HAVE A COMPLAINT FILED.
AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE A HARD
TIME FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE
THAT COMPLAINT. BUT TO LOCALS,
IT'S A LOT EASIER. BUT I DO
THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO
HAVE SOME KIND OF TRAINING
COMPONENT SO THAT THE LOCALS ARE
DOING THE INSPECTIONS VERY
SIMILAR, OR USING THE SAME,
PUNCH LIST, IF YOU WILL, THAT
THE STATE INSPECTORS WOULD HAVE.
AND SO, I THINK IT'S A GOOD BILL
. AND I, IF A MOTION HAS ALREADY
BEEN MADE. OKAY. GREAT. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SENATOR
ALLEN, YOU WANT TO CHIP IN HERE?
NO. GOOD. EXCELLENT. SO WE HAVE
A MOTION FROM SENATOR MINH. IT
IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. WITH THAT. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. JUST A COUPLE
COMMENTS. ONE IS IT IS TRUE
THAT, COMPLAINT CLOSING HAVE
BEEN REDUCED TO 114 DAYS IF YOU
HAVE NEEDLES SPREAD AROUND YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD, 114 DAYS SEEMS
LIKE AN AWFULLY LONG TIME NUMBER
ONE. NUMBER TWO IS IF YOU
COMPLAIN AND YOU NEVER GET A
RESPONSE, COMPLAINTS GO DOWN
DRAMATICALLY. SO THIS SIMPLY THE
DEPARTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO
TRAIN AND AUTHORIZE AND PROVIDE
CONSENT. SO IT SHOULD BE ONLY
WITH THE AUTHORIZATION WITHIN
THE AUTHORITY AND WITH THE
COMPETENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT.
WITH THAT, I URGE AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. LET'S CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FILE ITEM NUMBER 35, SB
913. MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG A UMBERG I
WILK I WILK I ALLEN ALLEN I
ASHBY I ASH ÁP I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I RUSSELL GONZALEZ.
LAIRD. LAIRD. I'M AN I MEAN I
NILO WAHAB. 7 TO 0 OKAY THE VOTE
SEVEN ZERO. WE WILL LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR MEMBERS TO ADD ON. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
BOTH. ALL RIGHT. NEXT BILL. ARE
WE READY? WE ARE NOT READY
BECAUSE I HAVE NOT ANNOUNCED IT.
THANK YOU FOR. I DIDN'T MEAN TO
GRAB IT OUT OF YOUR HAND. SO WE
FILE ITEM 36, SB 919 BY SENATOR
UMBERG. HAVING TO DEAL WITH
FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW. THANK
YOU. WITH THAT, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS THE
LAST BILL THAT WE'LL HEAR TODAY.
AND SO IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE, AFTER THIS BILL
IS OVER, WE'LL TAKE UP THE VOTE
AND THEN, MAYBE BE DONE. ALL
RIGHT. SO WELL, I EXPECT MANY OF
YOU TO ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS. SO
WE'RE HERE WELL BEYOND SIX, SO I
WANT TO THANK YOU AND DOHERTY
ONCE AGAIN FOR HIS HARD WORK ON
THIS BILL, TODAY I PRESENT SB
919, WHICH INCREASES
TRANSPARENCY AND FRANCHISE SALES
PROCESSES FOR PROSPECTIVE
FRANCHISEES, WHAT THIS BILL DOES
, EXCUSE ME, WILL PROVIDE NOTICE
THE COMMISSIONER OF THIRD PARTY
FRANCHISE SELLERS ACTIVELY
SELLING FRANCHISE AND
DISCLOSURES TO PROSPECTIVE
FRANCHISEES ABOUT THE THIRD
PARTY FRANCHISEE, THIRD PARTY
FRANCHISE SELLERS, PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE CREDENTIALS, LISTING
OF FRANCHISE OR CLIENTS BY THE
INDUSTRY. A NUMBER OF CLIENTS
WITH IN EACH INDUSTRY SERVICE
PERFORM FOR THEIR CLIENTS AND
COMPENSATION. RECEIVED
LITIGATION HISTORY AND THE NAMES
OF FRANCHISEES TO WHOM THE
FRANCHISE IS WERE SOLD DURING
THE PAST YEAR. REQUIRES ANNUAL
NOTICE OF FILING WITH THE
COMMISSIONER AND PAYMENT OF A
REGISTRATION FEE WITH ME TODAY
ARE RANDY POLLACK WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE
ASSOCIATION AND KEITH MILLER
WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
FRANCHISE DEALERS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, RANDY POLLACK, ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION, WE
REPRESENT ABOUT 10,000
FRANCHISEES AND ABOUT 900
BRANDS. AND WHAT THIS BILL IS
GOING TO DO, AS MANY OF YOU HAVE
PROBABLY SEEN, ADVERTISEMENTS
ABOUT, HEY, ARE YOU INTERESTED
IN A IN A FRANCHISE, WHETHER
IT'S ON TV OR ON RADIO OR IN AN
ADVERTISEMENT, AND SO WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IS THAT FOR THESE
THIRD PARTY BROKERS WHO ARE VERY
IMPORTANT IN THE ECOSYSTEM OF
FRANCHISE, IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE
MORE INFORMATION TO THOSE PEOPLE
WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN
PURCHASING A FRANCHISE. SO THE
PERSON, THE THIRD PARTY BROKER
WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
INFORMATION TO THE TO THE PERSON
THAT THEY'RE DOING THE BUSINESS
WITH, SO THEY HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY'RE
GETTING INTO. ALSO, WE'RE JUST
ASKING FOR A REGISTRATION
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND
INNOVATION, A SMALL FEE, SO THAT
THERE'S SOME SORT OF STATE
OVERSIGHT. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A
GOOD BILL. THERE'S BEEN NO
OPPOSITION. AND WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. MILLER. THE CHAIR, UMBERG
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR
AUTHORING THIS. BILL. MY NAME IS
KEITH MILLER. I'M HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF FRANCHISEES AND
DEALERS AND THE COALITION OF
FRANCHISEES ASSOCIATIONS. I'VE
ALSO BEEN A SUBWAY FRANCHISEE
HERE IN CALIFORNIA FOR 35 YEARS.
AS SOME OF YOU KNOW, I FOR MANY
YEARS HAVE SPONSORED AND PUSHED
LEGISLATION TO PROTECT FRANCHISE
OWNERS. MR. VICE CHAIR COULD
ACKNOWLEDGE OVER A DECADE OF
WORK DOING THIS. AS I'VE
DISCUSSED OVER THE YEARS, WHEN A
FRANCHISEE INVESTS IN A
FRANCHISE, THEY PUT EVERYTHING
AT RISK IF IT FAILS DUE TO
PERSONAL GUARANTEES, THEY MAY
LOSE THEIR BUSINESS, THEIR
SAVINGS, EVEN THEIR HOME. THERE
ARE FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA
DISCLOSURE LAWS TO PROTECT THE
INVESTOR, TO MAKE SURE THERE IS
TRANSPARENT DISCLOSURE. SO
PROSPECTIVE FRANCHISEES KNOW
WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO.
HOWEVER, WITH THIRD PARTY
SELLERS OFTEN CALLED FRANCHISE
BROKERS, THOSE PROTECTIONS MAY
BE LOST. FOR EXAMPLE, REQUIRED
IN THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES, A
FRANCHISE OR MAY NOT ELECT TO
PROVIDE ANY FINANCIAL
REPRESENTATION, SUCH AS UNIT,
UNIT LEVEL VOLUMES. HOWEVER, A
THIRD PARTY SELLER MAY BE ABLE
TO VERBALLY GIVE UNIT VOLUME TO
SOMEBODY AND NOT VIOLATE THE
LAWS. AND THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM
WITH THE LAW. THESE THIRD PARTY
SELLERS, AS ONE REPUTABLE BROKER
STATED, ARE REALLY THE WILD,
WILD WEST. AND WHAT IS WORSE,
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO
REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A
FRANCHISE BROKER TODAY. IN FACT,
BY THE TIME I FINISH THIS NEXT
SENTENCE, ALL OF YOU CAN BECOME
FRANCHISE BROKERS JUST BY
CALLING YOURSELF ONE. SO LET'S
MAKE SURE FRANCHISEES PUTTING
EVERYTHING AT RISK HAVE
REASONABLE PROTECTIONS. LET'S
MAKE SURE THIRD PARTY SELLERS
ARE HELD TO THE STANDARDS OF THE
LAWS ALREADY PASSED. PLEASE
SUPPORT SB 919. DO WE HAVE ANY?
ME TOO TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT IN
THE AUDIENCE SEEING NONE, DO WE
HAVE ANY PRIMARY OPPOSITION
TESTIMONY? SEEING NONE? DO WE
HAVE ANY? ME TOO. OPPOSITION IN
TESTIMONY. SEEING NONE. PULL IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. THE BILL
HAS BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR WAHAB.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND
CONCERNS? SEEING NONE, YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IN
THE INTEREST OF YOUR TIME AND MY
HEALTH, I URGE AN AYE VOTE. OH,
YOU'LL DO IT. OKAY WITH THAT? WE
GOT THE MOTION FROM SENATOR
SENATOR WAHAB, CLERK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 36. SB 909. THE MOTION IS
TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG A UMBERG I
WILK A WILK I ALLEN. ALLEN I
ASHBY I ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I GROSSO. GONZALEZ.
LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN MIN I NILO
NILO I WAHAB WAHAB I CONGRATS.
YOU HAVE A 9 TO 0. NIGHT NOW THE
VOTES NINE ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
YEAH. AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING
TO TURN THE GAVEL OVER TO OUR
CHAIRMAN AND I THINK HE'S GOING
TO START LIFTING THE CALLS I AM
I'M GOING TO WAIT
.
THROUGH ALL THE BILLS. SO YOU
ALL CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER
COMMITTEES. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S
DO THIS. WE NEED A MOTION FOR
CONSENT. OH LET'S. SENATOR WAHAB
MOVES THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
LET'S START WITH THAT. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. UMBERG. AYE.
UMBERG AYE. WILK AYE. WILK AYE.
ALLEN ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY.
AYE. CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
DURAZZO GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD
AYE. MIN. MIN. AYE. NILO. NILO
AYE. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE. 9 TO 0
NINE ZERO. PUT THAT BACK ON.
CALL ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE. FILE
ITEM TWO, SB 1109. WE NEED A
MOTION. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR WAHAB
MOVES THE BILL. WHAT FILE? ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 1109. OKAY. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS UMBERG A UMBERG.
AYE. WILK A WILK. AYE. ALLEN
ALAN. AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE. RUSSO.
GONZALEZ LAIRD. LAIRD. AYE. MIN.
MIN AYE. MELO. MELO. NO. WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE 8 TO 1. EIGHT ONE.
WE'LL PUT THAT BACK ON. CALL
FILE. ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB 1299.
WE NEED A MOTION FOR THIS AS
WELL. SO WE'LL MOVE THE BILL.
OKAY. THE MOTION IS TO PASS THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG
UMBERG. AYE. WILK NØ WILK. NO.
ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY ASHBY.
AYE. CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE
RUSSELL. GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD
AYE. MIN. MIN. AYE. NILO. NÓ.
NIELSEN WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE 7 TO
2. SEVEN TWO. PUT THAT BACK ON
CALL FILE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB
1051. THIS ALSO NEEDS A MOTION.
SENATOR WILLIAM MOVES THE BILL.
THANK YOU FOR BEING OUR BILL
MOVER, ONCE AGAIN, FILE ITEM
FIVE, SB 1051, THE MOTION IS TO
PASS THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS.
UMBERG Ã UMBERG. AYE. WILK.
AYE. WILK AYE. ALLEN. ALLEN.
AYE. ASHBY ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
RUSSELL GONZALEZ. LAIRD. LAIRD.
AYE. MIN MIN. AYE. NILO. NILO.
AYE. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. 92090.
PUT IT BACK ON CALL. FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX. SB 1287 ALSO NEEDS A
MOTION. WAHAB. I'M SORRY. I
THINK SENATOR MINH, SENATOR MIN
MOVES A BILL. WOULD YOU MOVE IT,
SENATOR MINH? YES OKAY. SENATOR
MIN MOVES BILL. ALL RIGHT. OKAY
FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB 1287,
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. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN
MIN I NILO. NILO I WAHAB. 9 TO 0
NINE ZERO. PUT THAT BACK ON.
CALL FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB
1462. THIS ALSO NEEDS A MOTION.
WE JUST. WE JUST VOTED ON ITEM
NUMBER SIX. NOW WE'RE ON ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
CABALLERO MOVES ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SB 1462, THE MOTION IS TO
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER UMBERG I
WILK NØ. WILK. NØ ALLEN I. ALLEN
I, ASHBY. ASHBY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO I RUSSELL. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ I. LAIRD. LAIRD I. MIN
MIN I. NILO. NØ NILO. NØ. WAHAB.
WAHAB. NO. 7 TO 3. 373. WE'LL
PUT THAT BACK ON. CALL FILE ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT SB 1482 ALSO NEEDS
A MOTION. SENATOR MOVES THE BILL
. OKAY, THE MOTION IS TO PASS
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS.
UMBERG I UMBERG I WILK. NO.
WILK. NO. ALLEN ALLEN I ASHBY.
ASHBY I CABALLERO. CABALLERO. I
RUSSELL. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I
LAIRD. LAIRD I MIN MIN I NILO I
NILO I WAHAB. WAHAB I. 9 TO 1
NINE ONE. WE'LL PUT THAT BACK ON
CALL. OKAY. FILE ITEM NUMBER 11,
SB 1497, CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALLEN
ALLEN. AYE. CABALLERO FILE ITEM
11 SB 1497 BY SENATOR MENGIBAR
CABALLERO. GONZALEZ GONZALEZ.
AYE. MIN. NILO. NO. NILO. NO. 7
TO 2. I BELIEVE EVERYONE'S HERE.
SEVEN, TWO. THAT BILL'S OUT.
FILE ITEM 14, SB 1228. IT WAS
PULLED. FILE ITEM 14 SB 1228.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALLEN ALLEN.
AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ AYE.
LAIRD. LAIRD AYE. MINH MINH.
AYE. NILO. NO. NILO. NO WAHAB.
WAHAB. AYE. 10 TO 1 AND ONE THAT
BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM 15 SB 976.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. WILK NOT
VOTING. ALLEN ALLEN. AYE.
CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. MINH
MINH. AYE. NILO. VOTING WAHAB.
WAHAB. AYE. 9 TO 0. NINE ZERO.
BILLS OUT. OKAY. FILE ITEM 16 SB
1089. CHAIR VOTING AYE. WILK NOT
VOTING. ALLEN. AYE ALLEN. AYE.
ASHBY ASHBY. AYE. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. MINH. WAS THAT
ENOUGH? WE DIDN'T GET THAT. NOT
VOTING. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
MINH. AYE. 9 TO 1 NINE ONE.
BILLS OUT. NUMBER 16. YES YOU
VOTED. YOU MOVED IT. OKAY. FILE
ITEM 17, SB 1037. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ALLEN ALLEN. AYE. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ AYE. LAIRD. LAIRD AYE.
MINH MINH. AYE. NILO. NO. NILO
NO. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. 9 TO 2. 9
TO 2. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM 19 SB
989 NEEDS A MOTION. WILK MOVES.
WILK MOVES THE BILL. OKAY, THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS NUMBER
A. UMBERG. AYE. WILK. WILK. AYE.
ALLEN AYE. ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY.
THIS IS 19. IS YOUR BILL ASHBY.
AYE. CABALLERO. CABALLERO AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. LAIRD. LAIRD.
AYE. MINH MINH. AYE. NILO. NILO.
AYE WAHAB. AND I JUST WANT TO
RECOGNIZE MY SYSTEM WAS NOT IN
LINE WITH THIS. WHAT BILL NUMBER
AND WHAT FILE? ITEM 19 SB 989 BY
SENATOR ASHBY. AYE WAHAB. AYE
ALL RIGHT. FILE ITEM 23 SB 1498
ALSO NEEDS A MOTION. I'LL MOVE
IT. SENATOR MOVES BILL. OKAY.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. UMBERG UMBERG.
AYE. WILK NOT VOTING. ALLEN.
ALLEN. AYE. ASHBY. ASHBY. AYE.
CABALLERO CHAPARRO. AYE. RUSSELL
RUSSELL. AYE. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. AYE. LAIRD LAIRD. AYE.
MIN. MIN. AYE. NEAL AYE. NILO.
AYE. WAHAB WAHAB. AYE. 10 TO 0
ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 24, SB 1303. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. WILK ASHBY. AYE ASHBY.
NOPE. HE VOTED TWICE. SO GOOD.
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, ASHBY.
AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE
LAIRD. LAIRD. AYE. MIN. MIN AYE.
NHIÀU. NØ. NIELSEN. NO. WAHAB
WAHAB. AYE. YOU MOVED THE BILL.
OH AYE. YES SO I WAS JUST MAKING
FUN OF SENATOR MINH. THAT'S ALL.
LET'S. WHAT'S THE VOTE? 9 TO 1,
NINE ONE BILLS OUT. 925 LARRY,
FILE ITEM 25, SB 1097, CHAIR
VOTING AYE. ALAN ALAN. AYE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE. MINH
MINH. AYE. NHIÀU WAHAB. WAHAB.
AYE. 10 TO 0 ZERO. BILLS OUT.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 26 SB 1190.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALAN. ALAN.
AYE. CABALLERO CABALLERO. AYE.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ AYE. MIN.
MIN. AYE. NEAL. HI NEAL. AYE.
WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE 11 TO 0 11
ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 27, SB 1286. CHAIR VOTING
AYE. DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. NEAL.
NO. NO NO. WAHAB. WAHAB. AYE. 9
TO 2 NINE TWO. BILLS OUT. OKAY.
FILE ITEM 29 SB 1421. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. CABALLERO CABALLERO.
AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE
AYE. MIN. MIN. AYE. NHIÀU WAHAB.
WAHAB. AYE. NHIÀU. HØI. NILO.
AYE 11 TO 0 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT.
FILE ITEM 1330 SB 1444. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ
AYE. NILO WAHAB. ALL RIGHT.
WHAT'S THE VOTE? 9 TO 0 NINE
ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM 31,
SB 1504. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. NILO
WAHAB. WAHAB AYE. 10 TO 0 TEN
ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM 32
WAS PULLED. FILE ITEM 35, SB 913
CHAIR VOTING AYE. DURAZZO FIVE.
YEA. SO AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ.
AYE. NILO HI. NEAL. AYE. WAHAB.
WAHAB AYE. 11 TO 0 11 ZERO.
BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM 36 SB 919.
CHAIR VOTING AYE RUSSELL TWO.
RUSSELL AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ.
AYE. 11 TO 0 11 ZERO. BILLS OUT
39 FOR VOTE ONLY. YES. FILE ITEM
39, CHAIR VOTING AYE. ALLEN THIS
IS ITEM NUMBER 39. THIS IS 1424
BY SENATOR GLAZER. YES, IT WAS
MOVED. YEA ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE.
ASHBY CABALLERO. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. LAIRD MIN. HI.
MEN. AYE. NILO WHAT ARE WE ON?
LAST ITEM, 3939. GLAZER 5014.
YEAH. OH, NO. MELO. NO WAHAB.
1234 5 TO 2 252. YEA DO YOU WANT
ME TO GO BACK THROUGH AGAIN. GO
BACK THROUGH ONE MORE TIME.
OKAY. ASHBY CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. LAIRD. WAHAB. 6
TO 2, 6 TO 2. WE'RE GOING TO
COUNT THOSE WEE GUYS AS EYES. SO
THE BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. CAN
I HAVE TO GO ON. ALL RIGHT. I'M
SORRY. CAN I ADD ON FILE? HE
ALREADY SAID COLUMN 31. WE KNOW
YOU SAID IT WAS OUT. DID YOU
CLOSE THAT OUT? UNFORTUNATELY,
WE CLOSED IT OUT. SO ALL RIGHT.
LET'S. YEAH, WE NEED TO GO BACK
THROUGH SOME. WE HAVE TO GO BACK
THROUGH. OKAY, ONE LAST TIME ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR TO RUSSELL.
TO RUSSELL? AYE. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. 11 TO 0 11 ZERO.
CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB 1109,
CHAIR VOTING AYE. Dð RUSSELL TO
RUSSELL. AYE. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. AYE 10 TO 1 AND TO
ONE. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOUR SB 1299. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
DURAZZO. DURAZZO. AYE. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE 9 TO 2 NINE TWO.
BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE
SB 1051. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
RUSSELL TO RUSSELL. AYE.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ AYE. 11 TO 0
11 ZERO. BILLS OUT. FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX SB 1287 CHAIR VOTING
AYE. RUSSELL TO RUSSELL. AYE.
WAHAB 10 TO 0 TEN ZERO. BILLS
OUT. FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB
1462 CHAIR VOTING AYE. DURAZZO I
DURAZZO AYE. GONZALEZ. IS THAT
IT? YEAH. SHE LEFT. YEAH ALL
RIGHT. OKAY. THREE. FOUR FIVE.
SIX. 8 TO 3. 8 TO 3. BILL IS OUT
. FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, SB
1482, CHAIR VOTING AYE. DURAZZO
GRASSO. AYE. 10 TO 1, 10 TO 1.
BILLS OUT. I THINK THAT'S IT.
AND JUST MAKE SURE. OKAY. YEAH.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ERIC. THANK
YOU EVERYONE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
WELL LET'S MAKE SURE. SEE WHAT
IS IT 989. YEAH 1912 IS ON. YOU
JUST SAY IT'S OUT. IT'S OUT.
9989. NUMBER 19 IS OUT. NUMBER
12. YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.