Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Umberg here. Umberg here. Wilk. Allen. Allen? Here. Ashby? Ashby, here. Caballero. Durazo? Durazo? Here. Laird? Mcguire? Here. Mcguire? Here. Min?Niello? Here. Niello, here. Wiener. You have a quorum?

Thank you. We have a quorum. All right. We're holding our Committee hearings today in the O Street Building. I ask all Members of the Committee to come to room 2100. We have established a quorum, but I'd still love to see you here. All right, before we vote on the consent calendar, I have announcement that file item number 18, SB 680, by Senator Skinner, has been pulled and will be heard another date. We have seven items on the consent calendar to get today.

They are as follows. File item number two, SB 716, by Senator Alvarado-Gil. File number four, SB Nine by Senator Cortese with amendments. File item number 12. SB 748. By Senator Roth. File number 13, SB 344 by Senator Rubio, with amendments. File item number 14 SB. 558 by Senator Rubio. File item number 21, SB 731, by Senator Ashby, with amendments. File number 26, SB 591, by Senator Min. File item number 28 SB 302 by Senator Stern.

And finally, filem number 30, SB 868 by Senator Wilk. All right, let's call the roll on the consent calendar. We need a motion. Senator Durazo moves the consent calendar. Thank you, Senator Rosso. All right.

On the consent calendar. Umberg aye. Umberg aye Wilk. Allen, Alan. Aye Ashby. Ashby. Aye Caballero Buraso. Aye Laird. Mcguire Min Niello Niello aye Wiener. You have five to zero on the consent calendar.

All right. I'm sorry. Mcguire, aye. six to zero on the consent calendar.

All right, we'll put that on hold. Today we have Senator Ashby presenting for Senator Atkins on SB. 385. Senator Ashby. All right, Senator Ashby, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I rise today on behalf of Pro-tempore Atkins to present her Bill, SB 385, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last year, with reproductive freedom facing unprecedented threats from the Supreme Court and other states, California took bold and aggressive action, enacting laws to enshrine the right to abortion and contraception in our California Constitution, strengthen legal protections for consumers and providers, expand the reproductive health workforce, and ensure access to affordable care. Unfortunately, this year, we continue to see other states attack and erode access to abortions.

It's clear that we need to remain steadfast and to do everything that we can to increase the number of trained providers available to help Californians who need to come here and those who need to come here for reproductive health care. To that end, SB 385 will expand and modernize reproductive care training opportunities for physicians assistance. This Bill builds off of the success of Senator Atkins prior legislation, AB 154 from 2013 and SB 1375 from 2022.

AB 154 allowed qualifying nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physicians assistants to provide first trimester abortions. SB 1375 updated training standards and addressed workforce barriers for nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives seeking to provide first term abortion care. SB 385 would apply those same training standards to physicians assistance that SB 1375 established for nurse practitioners and certified midwives. Specifically, this Bill would also better align abortion training to physician assistant's scope of practice and provide multiple options for Clinicians to get trained in abortion care.

SB 385 would further widen access to abortion services and health care by increasing the number of practitioners available to provide this critically needed care. Physician assistance play a critical role in providing reproductive care by removing barriers to abortion training and allowing experienced providers to utilize their full training and education. SB 385 will expand the number of qualified reproductive care practitioners across the State of California, particularly important in areas lacking access to care.

SB 385 builds off the success of AB 154 and SB 1375 to further strengthen and expand access to reproductive care, while also lifting up a workforce of skilled physician assistants and giving them more opportunities to care for patients across California. While time seems to be moving backward in many places across our nation, this Bill would help California continue moving forward.

I respectfully on behalf of the pro tempore, ask for your I vote and Mr. Chair, she has two witnesses here to testify as the leads.

All right, before we turn to witnesses, and this will be true on all the bills today, we allow two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition. Each witness will be afforded two minutes to speak. After the support and opposition witnesses have spoken, and we've heard from all the so called me too's in the hearing room. Me too's are those who approach the microphone. Give us their name, their affiliation, and their position. Then we'll turn to phone testimony.

We'll hear from both support and opposition phone testimony at the same time. There will be a 15 minutes limit on phone testimony for those on the phone. Please limit your testimony, your name, your affiliation and your position. If you are a primary witness either in support or opposition, you must be here present in the hearing room. All right. If you wish to provide further input, you should submit a letter to the Committee using one of the methods described on the Judiciary Committee's website.

All right, let's hear from the two primary witnesses in support.

Good afternoon, chair. Umberg and Members. I'm Molly Robeson. I'm with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, where we work on behalf of the seven affiliates in the state to provide over 1.3 patient visits annually through over 100 health centers in California. Here today in support of SB 385. Since the US. Supreme Court allowed Texas's SB eight to remain in effect and overturned Roe v. Wade last year, abortion providers and their patients have faced an onslaught of new and unprecedented attacks on abortion.

Today, 13 states ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and an additional five have implemented viability bans. California must ensure that the abortion workforce in California remains resilient amidst these attacks on abortion, and ensure that those who are able and willing to provide abortion care can do so without unnecessary barriers. SB 385 will update the training standards and requirements for physician assistance to be in line with that of other advanced practice clinicians.

To continue to meet the needs of patients in California and those forced to seek care in California from banned states, we must ensure that we continue to expand and support the abortion workforce. SB. 385, along with other bills from the Future of Abortion Council this year, allow California to continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state. With that, I respectfully ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's, District Nine, in support of the measure. ACOC has long supported the assistance of trained advanced practice clinicians like Pas to perform or to assist physicians in providing important services related to reproductive health care. And this includes the ability to perform first trimester abortions within their scope. SB. 385 simply ensures Pas are sufficiently trained and adequately trained to perform first trimester aspiration abortions, safely and effectively.

This Bill will appropriately align their training, as the sender said, with those of nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives as approved last year, and simply nothing more. It's a simple, yet very important Bill with a very significant impact. With that, I appreciate your time and ask for your ivo. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, if you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU, California, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. There's anyone here in the hearing room who is opposed to SB three, eight, five, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, all right, let's now turn to if there's no primary witnesses, any me too? Witnesses here in the hearing room? Seeing no one, approach the microphone. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support and opposition to SB 385, we'd be grateful.

Thank you. If you're in support of SB 385 or opposition, you may press one and then zero for support or opposition. That's one and then zero, and we will go to line 283. Your line is open. Thank you. My name is Francesca Wander, calling on behalf of California State strong indivisible in strong support. Thank you. Next we will go to line 207. Your line is open. Hi, this is Betty Dimas toto and I'm calling from California State strong and the Northridge indivisible. We are in strong support.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 313. Your line is open.

Hi, I'm Karthik from Placenta. I'm supporting. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 312. Your line is open. Hi, this is Kanti Ayer, mother of two, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee questions. By Committee Members. Seeing no questions, Senator Laird moves the Bill.

That's what I was going to do.

All right. We do have a quorum. We've established a quorum. All right, thank you. Senator Ashby, you care to close?

Just thank the Pro Tem for her work and urgent. I vote.

Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the role.

This is file item number one, SB 385 by Senator Atkins. The motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk? No. Wilk, no. Alan? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Mcguire? Min? Niello? Niello, no. Wiener? You have five to two with Members missing.

All right, we'll put that on, call it's five to two. Thank you. And next, we're going to go to if Senator Becker is present. If not, I see Senator Dahle here. SB 721. I don't see Senator Becker. So Senator Dahle SB. 861.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Chair. Good afternoon, Members. I'm here presenting SB 861. In recent years, we have prior towards using less water. Rather than saving and storing more water, California needs to start focusing on storing as much water as possible. This Bill will allow water projects to receive expedited judicial review and requires that the review be completed within 270 days or less. The water projects that will receive this expedited judicial review. Under this Bill are Chino's Basin Harvest Water, Kern Fran, Las Vecaros and Willow Springs Water Bank.

The Legislature has approved expedited judicial review for sports arenas, environmental leadership projects, transit projects and housing developments. Approving expedited judicial review for water projects will ensure that Californians can have reliable access to water. I am taking the Committee amendments, and I just wanted to say that I heard this Bill in EQ and Senator Allen made me take out water storage. So this is just groundwater, basically, groundwater basins. So I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, those in support here in the hearing room, those in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's go to MeToo testimony. Seeing no one, approach the microphone concerning SB 861. Let's turn now to the opposition. Are there primary witnesses in opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone? Any me, too. Witnesses in opposition that are in the hearing room seeing no one approaching the microphone? Moderator let's turn to the phone lines.

For those who are in support and in opposition to SB 861.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of SB 861, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for supporter opposition. And Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

All right, thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Seeing none. Yes, Senator Rosso.

Just a question. The 270 days is with regard to the timing of the litigation period, is that correct? Not the steps leading and the rest of the right?

No. Environmental review is being lessened. It's basically saying, hey, you have to get it done in this time to make sure we get it done in that time. And that's exactly what we do for the other processes. But no CEQA. Overrun.

Yeah, basically, it can't continue on. There's no exemption, if that what you're asking.

No, my question is, with regards to the 270 days, that's with regard to the litigation period, not the period leading up to potential litigation. The whole process of doing the CEQA, that's not under a time period. It's the litigation part that's under a time period. Okay. Just want to double check.

All right, Senator Wilk, you have a question, I'm going to know I'm going to no. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, is there a motion so moved Senator Wilk moves the Bill? All right. Ketter? Close. Senator Dahle?

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary, if you call the roll.

This is file item number five, SB 861 by Senator Dahle. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye Wilk. Aye Wilk. Aye Alan. Aye Allen. Aye Ashby. Ashby. Aye Caballero. Durazo. Durazo. Aye Laird. Laird. Aye Mcguire. Min. Niello. Niello, aye. Wiener. Seven to zero.

It's seven to zero. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Dahle. All right, normally we'd have next Senator Becker. Senator Becker is not here, Senator Dodd. But I do see Senator Gonzalez here. I saw her here just a moment ago. There she is. All right, Senator Gonzalez, SB 252.

Okay, I got some easy ones for you today, so thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And I'd like to first begin by accepting the Committee's recommended amendments to push the divestment timeline required under the Bill out to 2031. And I'm here, of course, to present SB 252, which will provide the California Public Employees Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System to a eight to 12 year time frame to thoughtfully divest their current $15 billion of combined fossil fuel holdings.

There is strong evidence on returns and support for beneficiaries. In fact, our current UC system has divested over $1.0 billion already in the City of New York, which just sold $3 billion of oil investments. And ABP, the fifth largest pension system across the world, is just divested $17 billion of fossil fuel holdings under two years. So it can be done.

And the Bill specifically also includes the empowerment for both PERS and Stirs to refrain from implementing this Bill should they determine in good faith that it would impact their fiduciary duties under the Constitution. And that is very clear. Even with this provision and an eight to 12 year off ramp, the pension funds remain opposed and, unfortunately, continue to tout a net zero plan that won't be realized for another almost 30 years and a futile strategy of engagement with companies notorious for greenwashing.

But just to give you an idea of what our California public pensions are invested in is the following. Companies like Conoco Phillips, in which PERS has invested $350,000,000 and Stirs has invested $250,000,000, just receive approval to begin construction on the Willow project that will siphon 180,80,000 barrels excuse me, of oil a day out of the Alaskan wilderness, and will continue their long term extractive practices. And we don't think that Conoco Phillips will hit their net zero goals by 2050.

And in addition to that, we have Exxon, who CalPERS owns $1.2 billion of holdings, is strongly misaligned with their global climate goals. To cap temperature rise, they show an implied temperature rise of three degrees by 2050. Chevron the same thing over $580,000,000 invested with CalStirs, and notorious for numerous violations of fair labor practices towards its California employees. Aramco, which is a Saudi Arabian owned company, is notorious for human rights violations. So I can go on and on.

California, though, is a leader on the environment and social equity issues. So why are we invested in these very companies? And as a state, we can do better with hard earned pension dollars. We have to stop investing in the bad behavior and ensure that we are moving forward in a transparent way and also trust the over 100 stakeholders pension beneficiaries, youth activists, environmental and labor activists in supporting SB. 25, two testifying in support today.

I have Marlea Hackett with Youth Versus Apocalypse, and Ron Rapp with the California Faculty Association, representing a broad coalition of labor supporters. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Did you accept the amendments? Just to be clear.

Yes, I did.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Umberg, and Members. My name is Ron Rapp. I'm the Legislative Director for the California Faculty Association. I'd first like to thank the author for her bravery and for her leadership on this critical issue, as well as the co authors of this important legislation. The California Faculty Association represents over 29,000 faculty, including tenure track professors, lecturer, faculty librarians, counselors, and coaches. From all 23 campuses on the CSU system.

The CFA's work on fossil fuel divestment spans several years and grew out of a resolution passed at our statewide Assembly. The majority of CFA's 23 locals have called for divestment including San Diego, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno, San Francisco, Stanislaws, Humble and more. SB 252 is also supported by several statewide unions, including AFSME, the California Nurses Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and a number of other unions representing nearly a half a million Members of these pension systems.

Although the public pension systems say they are working towards divestment in the fossil fuel industry, it appears to our Members and thousands, hundreds of thousands of Members in California's public pension systems. Little has been done to address the issues. The Members of the California Faculty Association believe it is time to end our investments in these corporations. They no longer want their retirement dollars invested in the very companies that are contributing to climate change.

A key part of our union's mission is to look out for the financial future of our retirees. Our Members, they want to secure retirement as well. We believe that divestment is financially prudent. There are a number of studies that back this up. According to Claire Brown, Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley, who's considered an expert on divestment and has studied the issue for years, the fossil fuel industry the roof.

Thank you. If you could wrap it up. Okay.

We are proud to be working with an expansive coalition to pass Senate Bill 252 with over 130 labor, climate, justice, youth, environmental all right, thank you very much on this important issue, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Other primary witnesses in support.

Hi. My name is Hannah Strata, and I've prepared a small statement. All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, I'm not here to ask for a handout or $1.0 billion. I'm here asking for the basic rights that this nation prides itself on and that we're constitutionally entitled to the right to live. My future as a young person is being ripped away.

That right.

Because investment in fossil fuels is an issue of life and death. Not just life and death for those living next to the fossil fuel projects who breathe in the pollution that kills them day in and out, but for all of the Americans who are mitigating climate disasters in their communities, how many burnt forests and flooded cities do you need to understand that every dollar in fossil fuels is death to Americans? This is criminal. Murder is a crime.

Yet fossil fuel companies get away with this using teacher money, all to make a profit. By supporting this Bill, we say that we are willing to protect the right to live. We say we will no longer allow teacher money to Fund fossil fuels, fossil fuels that end life, that create destruction. We will prioritize black and brown families who are most targeted by said pollution. We will divest from those fossil fuels, from racist policies that pollute our communities.

We will prioritize life in every single community that we can. And by passing this Bill, we can, we can prioritize people over profit of corporations. You can decide that no one is disposable. In all religions and moral codes, there's a sacredness of life, a bare minimum to protect existence. And it's in my conviction as a Christian woman to urge you to support this Bill for the sacredness of life, which we've all been entitled to, whatever religion or moral code you decide to believe in.

Because by continuing to invest in destructive, life ending industries like fossil fuels, we defile this land, we defile the American people, we defile our own founding documents, we defile the future of our youth, we defile this entire planet, and we defile the most basic right we've been giving, which is the right to live.

So in that spirit, I urge you today, please support me, support our young people, support our communities, and not defiling this land by passing a Bill that will make sure it is impossible to.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so others in support of the Bill, if you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Miriam. ID. Fossil free California in strong support.

Miguel La tore fossil free California. Strong support.

Leslie Ferguson, licensed Professional engineer, Member of Peg, the Professional Engineers of California Government union. Strong support Christina Scarenj with the Center for Biological Diversity and strong support Victoria Rome with NRDC. And I've also been asked to register support for Sierra Club California support. Thank you.

Bob Burns, Third Act Sacramento, strong support.

Diana Cassidy. Third act, Sacramento strong support. Melanie Morales on behalf of the Green Lane Institute in Sport.

Michael Lee Chang, first year Sac State. Student from Redondo Beach in strong suppor with students for quality education.

Marquis King Mason, California environmental voters in support. Thanks.

My name is Brian Cadena from the people of Clean Air and Water in Kettleman City. And I strongly support SB 252 for divestment.

Good afternoon, my name is Nellie, I'm 12 years old. I'm from Urban Promise Academy in Oakland. I'm here to representing Words for justice and Youth versus Apocalypse, and I urge you to support SB 252.

Thank you, thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Marcella, I'm 12 years old, I'm a 6th grade Urban Promise Academy in Oakley. I'm representing Words for Justice. I strongly support SB 252.

Thank you, thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Camila, I'm 12 years old, a 6th grader at Oakley representing youth Apocalypse. I strongly support SB 252.

Thank you, thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Marie Elena. I am Camille versus apocalypse and strong support.

Thank you, thank you.

Hello, my name is Alexis Garcia and I urge you to support SB 252.

Thank you. Good morning, or good afternoon, chair, Committee staff and Members. Christophe Mayor with the American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees in support of SB 252. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Carolyn Norr. I've been an educator in Oakland, California for 20 years and I'm a parent. And I strongly urge you to support SB 252.

Thank you.

I'm Cynthia Shallot, I'm a Member of CalPERS. I'm here for our Sacramento area congregations together, and also on behalf of Indivisible, California State strong thank you. I'm Megan Jumway, a retired public health nurse and grateful for her recipient. I'm here on behalf of Sacramento 350 and Sacramento area congregations together and my five grandchildren in strong support.

Thank you.

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in strong support. Thank you. Janet Cox for Climate Action California in support. I'm a CalPERS Beneficiary. Thank you. Good afternoon. Pat Ferris from Third Act Sacramento, in strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Umberg, and esteemed Members, Kyler Joaquin here today on behalf of the City and Council of San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. Primary witnesses in opposition, if you would approach.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senators Joycelyn Martinez Wade with California State Teachers Retirement System in opposition to SB 252. The Board's policy is a proposed legislation that infringes on its plenary authority and constitutional fiduciary duty in order to secure the financial future of California's teachers and other educators and ensure the trust Fund is there for the beneficiaries.

Councils believes climate change is a major threat to all business areas and we must prepare our portfolio for the global transition to a net zero economy in order to minimize risk to the portfolio. We are not waiting. We're proactively taking steps now to reduce emissions across the portfolio in both the short and long term. We're investing billions of dollars in Low carbon solutions. We're participating in solving for the lack of common and comprehensive carbon emissions data needed to manage climate change risk in our portfolio.

SB 252 moves us away from those frontline efforts to manage risk and moves us to focus on divestment, which ignores our exposure to the broader economy and undermines efforts to reduce emissions and transition to a Low carbon world. The risks associated with climate change cannot simply be divested away. We have to do the work across the portfolio and there is no way to know for certain whether the portfolio will do better or worse with divestment of a certain sector.

What we do know is that divestment reduces diversification of assets and limits Kauster's ability to shape corporate behavior for long term sustainable growth, which adds risk to the portfolio. And past experience has shown divestment is not effective and can result in long term losses to the Fund. And for these reasons, we are respectfully opposed. SB 252.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg and Committee Members. Danny Brown, on behalf of CalPERS Board of Administration, respectfully opposed the Bill. CalPERS recognizes that climate change poses a material risk to society, the global economy, and CalPERS investments. And CalPERS has a strong commitment to the reduction of fossil fuel emissions. However, as a global investor with a fiduciary duty to its Members and employer partners, CalPERS does not believe that divestment is an effective solution to this problem.

It won't change the demand for fossil fuels or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, our strategy is fourfold engagement, advocacy, integration, and investment. Through active engagement with the companies in our portfolio, we can generate transitions to a Low carbon economy. We advocate for changes by joining with some of the world's leading investors to create sustainable economies across the globe. We're integrating the risks from climate change across our portfolio to better inform our investment decision making.

And we are putting our capital to use to meet our financial returns and help drive decarbonization by investing in low carbon and climate solutions. More than 17 billion of the real estate portfolio is invested in assets that have sustainability certifications. And more than half of our infrastructure portfolio is invested in renewable and sustainable assets. Finally, our global public equity portfolio is a diversified and largely passive index Fund.

Divestment is a form of active risk taking that creates volatility and generates a tracking error, which means a divestment action could generate a positive or negative return. Some would like you to believe that divestment from fossil fuels will only result in a positive return based on an historical snapshot. We also know that commodities are a hedge against inflation, so it is no surprise that energy stocks have outperformed the market over the last few years. No one can predict the future.

And this is why CalPERS has a passive, diversified public equity portfolio rather than try to time the market. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today, and we respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Others in opposition. If you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, also here today on behalf of the League of California cities and rural county, representatives of California all respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members Megan suburbs on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in opposition. Good afternoon. Cassie mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair Members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in opposition.

Mr.

Chair and Members, Paul De Yaro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association.

In opposition. Thank you. Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support. In opposition to SB. 252.

Thank. You. For support or opposition of SB 252, you may press one and then zero, and we will go to line 323. Your line is open. They took themselves out. So we'll go to line 335. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with the California School Boards Association. We're opposed to the Bill. Thank you, thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 320. Your line is open. Tina Gallier for 350, Sacramento and strong support. Thank you, thank you. Next we'll go to line 294. Your line is open. Yes. Christine Kimball Shoemaker from Woodland, California. Longtime Member of Fossil Free, California. And strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll go to line 352. Your line is open.

Hi. My name is Emily Brandt. I'm a retired high school teacher from Fresno, California, the heart of petroleum pollution in California. I strongly, strongly urge you to support SB 252. Thank you.

Three and 261 when they come up.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Next we'll go to line 283. Your line is open. Yes. My name is Francesca Wander. I am a Member of SEIU. I'm also an active CalPERS Member as well as a Member of California Indivisible State, strong indivisible Sacramento, indivisible Yolo and indivisible San Francisco in strong support of this Bill. Thank you, thank you. And next we'll go to line 364. Your line is open. Hello.

Greg Campfire. CalPERS Beneficiary And, Member of the CSU EU union.

I strongly support SB 252.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 344. Your line is open. Line 344. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Rick Gaston, I'm from Oakland and I'm a grateful Member of Calstars, and I'm here in strong support of SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 356. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Leah Redwood and I represent Extinction Rebellion, San Francisco Bay Area and the Oil and Gas Action Network. And we strongly support SB 252.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 353. Your line is open.

My name is Kyoko Takayama. I'm a Member of the ribbon individual. I strongly support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 362. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Cheryl Auger and I'm a Member of CalPERS, and I'm calling in strong support of SB 252 representing 350 Southland Legislative Alliance, Indivisible, Altadina, Pasadena, and banned single use plastic. Thank you, and next we'll go to line 336. Your line is open.

My name is Jonathan Karpf. I'm the chair of the California Faculty Association retired Faculty Committee, as well as the CalPERS retirement specialist and a CalPERS retiree. We in the California Faculty Association urge you to vote yes on SB 252. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 113. Your line is open.

Yes. My name is Steve Murphy. I am a Member of Indivisible Yolo in strong support as well as CAS Indivisible, straight, strong support of 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 207. Your line is open.

Yes, hi. This is Benny Toto. I'm calling in full support. I'm with CAS indivisible I'm with resistance Northridge indivisible and feel the burn San Fernando Valley.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 220. Your line is open.

Hello. Carlos Davidson. I'm a CalPERS beneficiary and California Faculty Association Member. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 333. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Diane Ryerson and I'm a beneficiary of both CalPERS and Calsters and a Member of 350 Humboldt and we support strongly SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 338.

Hi. This is Jane Bosberg. I'm a CalPERS beneficiary. I'm also a Member of CTA retired California Teachers Association Retired. And I am a Member of Fossil Free California. And I also lost my home to the 2017 California Fires. And I urge you to strongly support SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 348. Your line is open.

This is Eric Eileenberger speaking on behalf of East Valley Indivisibles. And we strongly support SB 252. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 377. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Francis Macias from Fresno, California. I work for the California Office of Historic Preservation. And I am a CalPERS Member. I am calling in strong support of SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 349. Your line is open.

Hi, I'm Pam Jerizzo, a CalPERS retiree living in Walnut Creek, California. I'm a Member of Sustainable Rossmore and Democrats of Rossmore, and we urge you to vote aye on SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 322.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg, Committee Members. My name is Kathy Dervin. I'm a CalPERS beneficiary retiree, and I strongly urge you to support SB 252.

Thank you. Next we'll go line 367. Your line is open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. This is Lani Faulkner. On behalf of the organization Equity Transit, the Santa Cruz Democratic Central Committee, and I am a Sierra Club Member. We strongly support SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 374. Your line is open.

My name is Laurie Rubin. I'm a CalSTRS Beneficiary. I strongly urge support of SB 252. I'm a Member of Third Act Educators. And there is no time to waste.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 334.

Hello. My name is Sheila Thorne. I'm a CalPERS beneficiary and a retired CFA Member, and I strongly support SB 252.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 368.

Good afternoon. My name is Diana Curiel. I'm a CalSTRS beneficiary, a Member of CTA NEA, retired and a Member of Fossil Free California. I strongly support SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 337. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. I'm Bill Osberg. I'm a Member of CTA. Retired. I'm a Member of Fossil Three, California. And I'm of my pension from California. I strongly support the Bill. Please, please support 252. Thank you.

Yes. My name is Martha Camacho Rodriguez and I am a Calstar's Member. And I am here for strong support from the Southern California region. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 358. Your line is open.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 366. Your line is open.

Yes, this is Julie Starrett. I'm a Beneficiary of Calsters, a Member of California Retired Teachers Association and Fossil three California and I strongly support SB. 252.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 357.

Hi, my name is Anita Gurini, I live in Ventura and I'm a Member of the Ventura Land Trust, and I strongly support SB 252.

Thank you. We'll go to line 323.

Good afternoon. Valerie Ventre-Hutton with 350 Bay Area Action in strong support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 332. Your lines open.

Oh, hi, this is Dr. Denise Robb and I am calling in strong support of SB 252. Very grateful for it. I'm a delegate for Assembly District 41 for the California Democratic Party and my union, aft 1521, represents all nine colleges of the Los Angeles Community College District. And we voted 84% in favor of SB 252, as well as the Sustainability Committee for LACCD and the Pierce College Sustainability Committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 345. Your line is open.

Hello, Suzanne Hume, educational Director and founder of CleanEarth4Kids.org, representing students, families, and teachers throughout the State of California, and I am a CalSTRS Member standing in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 343.

Megan Moscow, CalPERS. Beneficiary and employee of the Public Irrespective system. I'm tired of fiduciary responsibility being used to cover for private.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Next.

Thank you. We'll go to line 369. Your line is open.

Hello, Sandra Dildine from Oceanside, California, calling in strong support of SC 252. I'm with Fossil Free California and a Member of Indivisible 49. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 340, your line is open.

Yes, this is Jared Weatherington. I'm a parent in Point Arena, California, and I'm strongly in support of SB 252.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 203, your line is open. 203, your line is open.

Sorry. I'm Annie Koruga, the recording secretary of the Alameda County Democratic Party. We believe that climate change is real and pungent dollars.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Thank you. Line 360. Your line is open. Line 360, your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Fuchs. I'm a Member of Fossil Free California, resident of Sacramento, constituent of Senator Ashby, Member of California attorneys and state employment, hope to be a future recipient of Calper's strong support for SB 252.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 376, your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Shirley. I'm living in Santa Rosa, California, getting ready for the fire season to start up. I'm a beneficiary of CalPERS after 30 years teaching, and I'm in strong support of SB 252, also a Member of Third Act.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Line 388.

Hi. This is Nancy Tierney and Pacifica with Pacifica Climate Committee, third act, Bay Area Chapter and with the Sierra Club. Woman create a conservation Committee, strongly support SB 252.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 384.

Hi there. Thank you, Senators, for your service to our state. This is Joan Lohman, I'm with Neighbors for Racial Justice in Oakland, California. I'm also a Member of Fossil Free California in strong support of 252. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 350, your line is open.

My name is Pam Reaves, and I'm representing Marin Conservation League here in Marin County. We strongly support SB 252.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 347.

Yeah. Megan Elsie, I'm a Member of both CalPERS and CalSTRS. I'm also in the Union, California attorneys and state employment, and a Member of 350 Sacramento support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 392, your lines open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one more minute, a little less than a minute of phone testimony.

Line 394, your line is open. 394, your line is open.

Yes, Mark Savionini, representing my CalPERS Member. I strongly support SB 252. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 342.

Hi. I'm Robert Copeland from Sacramento, California. Pass the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Line in 403, your line is open.

My name is Jennifer Bean, long term Member of Aft 2121 at City College of San Francisco, a grateful recipient of CalSTRS, and I strongly support 252.

All right, thank you. Last caller.

Line 397.

Hi, I'm Anaya Sayal and I'm a Member of Youth Versus Apocalypse, and I strongly, strongly support SB 252, which is essential for climate justice.

Thank you very much. All right, thank you. That will conclude our phone testimony on SB 252. Let me bring it back to Committee, Committee Members. Questions? Comments? No question. Oh. Senator Niello.

Question for Senator Gonzalez.

Sure.

So the legitimate concerns, I think, of the pension systems aside, and given a really robust stock market for these very stocks, how will this reduce greenhouse gases?

Well, thank you for the question. And through the chair. So we've got this lovely report here that thankfully off of the work, the good work of Senator Allen, SB 964, CalPERS and STRS required to do the response to the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosure. So this includes how they're decarbonizing. The only issue I would say is that a lot of this doesn't really focus on the fossil fuel industry, which is, I think, our largest issue here.

It includes a lot of different industries, doesn't include scope three emissions, which is the indirect emissions that would really talk about the carbon intensity to the portfolio. And so I would hope that once we, if this should pass out of this Committee, if this should pass off of the floor, that we actually have some opportunity to put something on the table as divestment to really be able to pivot our investments should they see fit within their fiduciary responsibility to more green investments.

And I think it's a little disingenuous when Calperzenster says that they do believe that climate change should be part of the portfolio because oftentimes thank you to my friends from Fossil free California. They voted against easy things like greenhouse gas reduction targets for Equinor. They voted against that CalPERS did move from fossil fuels to renewable energy. They voted against it. In fact, one other thing they voted against was establishing a Fund for employees that work in the oil sector. They voted against that.

So I don't see how we decarbonize if we don't have a Bill such as this and we don't have the advocates pushing as much as they do. And we have a new economy that the workforce can transition to without this Bill.

Thank you. Further comments, Senator Niello?

Just one quick follow up. The unfortunate fact is that what they will divest from, others will buy in terms of the companies.

Well, I certainly don't think California should be in the business of supporting investments while we're in war I think that's a really tough place to be in as well. We've got a really awful situation abroad, and because stock prices are so volatile, I don't think that we should be benefiting off of that, quite frankly. But here we are, we're focused on the fossil fuel industry, on the long term, not just the short term as well, which I think is very important. But I appreciate your question.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? All right. Is there a motion?

Move the Bill.

Senator Laird moves the Bill. All right. Would you care to close, Senator Gonzalez?

I just want to thank the many activists, especially many of them that are very young, and this is really what we do. What we're here for is to do this for them. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, if you call the roll.

This is file item number seven, SB 252, by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg.

Aye.

Umberg aye. Wilk.

No.

Wilk no. Allen.

Aye.

Allen aye. Ashby.

Aye.

Ashby aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird.

Aye.

Laird aye. McGuire. Min. Niello.

No.

Niello no. Wiener. You have four to two with Members missing.

All right, four to two. We'll put that on call. Quick announcement for Committee and consultants. There will be dinner tonight. That's the good news. The bad news is we'll be here to eat it. All right, Senator Gonzalez, you have SB 674.

And, Mr. Chair, I do miss being on Judiciary Committee, just for the record.

Well, if we have extra dinner, Senator Gonzalez, let us know, and maybe we'll treat you.

Great. That would be awesome. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm here to also present SB 674, which will create statewide standards for the Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring Program. This program, which was codified in 2017, requires refineries to install and maintain air monitors along their facility fenceline, to publish this air monitoring data online, to send real time alerts to the community, and to take corrective action when dangerous levels of pollutants are detected.

In the six years since the fenceline program was launched, there have been serious deficiencies in implementation that are depriving fenceline communities of the information and protections they need to make informed decisions. In particular, real time alerts are not being sent, fenceline data is not available online, dangerous pollutants are not being monitored, and across the state, it's just very inconsistent.

So it will address the shortcomings and create a statewide standard for the Refinery Fenceline Air Monitoring Program to ensure that all pollutants are measured and that best practices and technologies are deployed. Testifying in support today, I have Byron Chan, an attorney for Earthjustice, and Jan Victor Andasan with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. I want to thank them for their hard work and support.

All right, I'm sorry. Senator Gonzalez. I cut you off. I'm sorry, Senator Gonzalez, were you finished?

Yes, I was.

All right, thank you. If you'd approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee, My name is Byron Chan. I'm a senior attorney at Earthjustice, which is a co-sponsor of SB 674. So, California is home to numerous refineries that are some of the largest stationary sources of air pollution in the state. Incidents at these refineries, like explosions, fires, and flaring events, threaten the health and safety of community members, first responders, and refinery workers.

To address these harms from refineries, the Legislature adopted AB 1647 in 2017 to implement a uniform statewide refinery fenceline and community air monitoring program. And by creating such a program, 1647 aimed to identify sources of refinery pollution, notify residents of such pollution, and inform emission reductions. Six years since 1647 was enacted, serious flaws in its implementation have become apparent.

Instead of creating a uniform statewide monitoring program, what has emerged is a patchwork of requirements from local air districts that are failing to protect public health and safety. SB 674 addresses the serious flaws in this patchwork of requirements and implements best practices to ensure data quality, provide the public with data access and notifications, and address excess emissions at refineries.

Ultimately, SB 674 is critical to realize the promise that this Legislature made six years ago to provide transparency and protection to those impacted by refinery hazards and pollution. So with that, we urge your support of SB 674, and we want to thank the Senator for authoring this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good afternoon. My name is Jan Victor Andasan. I am a staff and member at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, where we organize residents in the Long Beach, South Bay, Southeast LA, and East LA community to address industrial pollution affecting predominantly black and brown neighborhoods. Not only do I currently organize and work directly with residents adjacent to refinery operations, but I grew up next to the now Marathon facility. Growing up, I thought that these facilities were normal and having respiratory issues like asthma were normal.

My brother was born a year after I immigrated to the US. And he was born to come out of the womb needing to use a nebulizer every evening to be able to breathe. My family's story is one of many that still happen today, 26 years later, living in this region. Today, I'm joined with community members in the audience from West Long Beach, Carson, and South Gate, all of those who have been affected by emissions from refinery operations representing our communities.

We call on the Legislature to protect human health from harms produced by refineries. Through this bill, we are simply filling the gaps in the fenceline monitoring that needs to occur at all refinery facilities in the state. Every day, many residents, like my peers and myself that came for this vote and those that live adjacent to refinery, production have to decide what it will look like? Does the air feel heavier? Can I feel my throat close up?

And instead of walking in the park and playing, I'm going to go to an indoor gym. In addition, more pollution data is also critical for worker health and communities on both sides of the fenceline. Again, I respectfully urge you to support SB 674. And thank you to our cosponsor, Senator Lena Gonzalez. Thank you.

All righty, thank you very much. Others in support of SB 674, if you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good afternoon, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Hello, Diego Mayen with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice in support of SB 674.

Hello. Cristhian Tapia-Delgado with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice in strong support.

Amara Eger with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition in support.

Whitney Amaya, community member from West Long Beach with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice in strong support of SB 674.

Hi. Raquel Mason registering support for the California Environmental Justice Alliance and NRDC. Thank you.

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in support, and was also asked to register support for Environmental Defense Fund and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Thank you.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California in support. Thanks.

Hi, I'm Dennis Uyat, and I'm in support. I'm the East Yard community member from South Gate.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in the room? Seeing no one else room approaching in support. Let's turn now to the opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Senators. Zach Leary with the Western States Petroleum Association. We have a respectful opposed unless amended position on SB 674. We have a number of concerns with the bill that are outside of Committee's jurisdiction, but just highlight a few real quick. One is the definition of the auxiliary facility. I know Senator Allen worked on that in his Committee and look forward to continuing that work with him in the author's office.

And the second is the requirement that the bill would require fenceline monitoring systems to cover the entire perimeter of the facility, regardless of necessity. For this Committee, want to focus on paragraph F in the bill, or paragraph H in the bill. This section requires a root cause analysis to be conducted if there are 1 hour average concentrations of measured pollutants. We believe that this should be more structured as a two step approach.

First would be to determine if the refinery was actually the cause of the emissions. And then second would be to determine what at the refinery went wrong. You might not need a root cause analysis to be able to do that. And then, if you can't determine what's wrong, do a root cause analysis. Finally, I will end with this, and I think most concerning for this Committee.

In paragraph H, subdivision four, a fenceline monitoring system approved by the district shall presumptively yield credible evidence that may be used to establish whether a refinery has violated or is in violation of a plan, order, permit, rule, regulation, or law. We don't think that this technology alone should be relied upon it when determining a violation and a subsequent penalty. The systems can't distinguish where these emissions are necessarily coming from. Could come from a neighbor, could come from the refinery.

But the investigation needs to be done. And we don't believe that the system should be part of, we believe the system should be part of the investigation but not presumed to be yielding credible evidence. And our amendments are outlined in our opposition letter. We have had good conversations with the author's office.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

The bill passes. Thanks.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition? Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Those in opposition in the hearing room wish provide me too testimony.

Mr. Chair, Members, Mike Monagan on behalf of State Building and Construction Trades, opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Genesis Tang on behalf of World Energy, producers of renewable fuels in Southern California. World Energy supports the intent of this bill. However, we have submitted a letter of concern regarding the overly broad definitions as it pertains to handling terminals. And we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office.

All right, thank you others in me too testimony.

We missed the support section because we stepped outside for a minute. But I'm Carolyn, an Oakland teacher for 20 years and a parent, and I support.

All right.

This is Miguel Alatorre Jr. representing Fossil Free California and I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Brian Cadena from the People of Clean Air and Water in Kettleman City and I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Hannah Estrada from Youth Vs. Apocalypse, and I support this bill.

All right, seeing no one else in the hearing room, let's turn now to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those on the phone who are in support and opposition to SB 674.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, it is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we will go to line 356. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Leah Redwood, and I'm with Extinction Rebellion, San Francisco Bay Area, and I strongly support the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line of 323. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Valerie Ventre-Hutton with 350 Bay Area Action in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line at 377. Your line is open. Line 377, your line is open.

All right, we will move on to 371. Your line is open.

Hi, Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 325. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Carol Weed speaking in strong support for the Democrats of Rossmoor and Sustainable Rossmoor.

Thank you. 190, your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Kristen Kessler. I live in Ventura, and I'm calling in strong support thank you.

Thank you. 420, your line is open. I'm sorry. 428, your line is open.

Hello. My name is Cory Jong. I teach 8th grade ethnic studies in Oakland. I'm a member of OEA, PTA and CalSTRS. I'm an adult ally for Youth Versus Apocalypse and Warriors for Justice, and I urge you to support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 340. Your line is open.

This is Jared Wetherington, member of the United States Bartenders Guild in Point Arena, California, and I support the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. And 415, your line is open.

Hi. This is Michelle, Michelle Hirons, I'm the CEO of HigherRing, and I am also representing Bay Area B Corps, and we strongly support the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Comments? I'm sorry. Senator Laird moves the bill. All right, Senator Gonzalez, you care to close? In your close, just a quick question in terms of the presumption. Is the presumption overcome by preponderance of evidence?

Well, it says that it may be used to establish. May be used to, let me find this section.

We can leave that. That's fine, if you come back and let me know.

I know. So we're continuing to work with the opposition, but there's a lot of remedies to correct the action. But the most important thing is what, I think is what I'm hearing here is the cause of the exceedance, of course, needs to be corrected. They need to report it out, post online, and ensure that the public knows. So we move from there.

All right, any additional close?

Just I want to thank everybody who's come out, as well, and continued to work on this for many, many years and having many refineries in the district back home, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary is a motion by Senator Laird. If you would call the roll.

This is file item number eight, SB 674 by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Allen. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. McGuire. Min. Niello. No. Niello, no. Wiener. Four to one.

All right, thank you. It's on call. Four to one. Next, I see Senator Becker here. Becker is also presenting Senator Dodd's bill.

Senator Becker, I understand you're going to present SB 313 as well. All right.

But first going to go ahead and I'll present 721. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. This Bill creates the California Interagency Artificial Intelligence Working Group to submit a biannual report on the implications and safeguards for AI technology. AI is rapidly developing technology is integrated into much of our everyday lives and encompasses everything from chatbots and self driving cars to Siri and email spam filters. With the development of neural networks in the last decade, AI has increased its personalization abilities and can more easily mimic human like decision making. Existing law has created a framework to analyze the impact of AI technology within state agencies. However, this Bill gives us an opportunity to look at the impact of AI holistically and suggest guardrails to protect against misuse of manipulation for both state agencies and the general public. It creates a working group composed of a series of appointees from various government agencies with cross interests in the field. Among their goals will be to recommend a definition of AI study the implications of usage, determine proactive steps, direct misinformation and overexposure of technology to children. Increased transparency in the Creation Diploma to AI will ensure ethical use of and public trust in the technology. One witness with me to testify is Leo Nitake. Sorry, last name incorrect. Nitake, the deputy Executive Director of TechNet.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Leah Nitake with TechNet. While we don't have a formal position on SB 721 at this time, we do appreciate being asked to speak to several aspects of the Bill. First, as noted by the author and the analysis, there are numerous beneficial use cases of artificial intelligence, and we appreciate the study first approach that the Bill takes to regulating this type of technology. Additionally, this Bill would clearly identify the relevant state agencies to oversee and regulate AI. Right now, there are a number of bills on this topic, as well as a number of state agencies and departments that are currently studying, reviewing, or actively regulating this technology. A more comprehensive, unified approach would be extremely beneficial. The Bill would also require the study of and recommendations on the potential impacts of AI. This is crucial to understand before creating any sort of sweeping regulations or restrictions. We greatly appreciate the conversations we've had with the author on this issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together moving forward. Thank you.

Others in support? Anyone else? Primary witness in support? Let's turn now to those who wish to provide me too testimony and support here in the hearing room, seeing no one approaching the microphone, opposition, anyone opposed to SB 721, now would be the time to approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, any me too testimony. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support of opposite or opposition SB 21, we'd be grateful.

Thank you. For support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. For support or opposition, we will go to line 439. Your line is open.

Yes, I support this Bill and I'm a Member of Fossil Free California.

All right, ma'am. Thank you. Others in support of opposition, SB 721.

We have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Yes. Senator Ashby.

Just one quick question, and this sort of goes with I know you're going to present SB 313, too. Just have one question about how they sort of work together. If you create the working group and then his passes as well, would you defer to the new Department, or would the working group be in the Department or how does that.

Yeah, we are in discussions, and I'll address that in the next Bill. But, Senator Dodds Bill does a couple of things, but one of it is an office within the Department of Technology, and we're sitting in conversations with him.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Others questions? Is there a motion? Senator Laird moves the Bill? All right, do you care to close Senator Becker?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary, if you call the roll.

This is file item number three, SB 721 by Senator Becker. The motion is do pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird. Laird, aye. McGuire. Min. Niello. Niello,aye. Wiener. You have six to zero.

All right, six to zero. We'll put that on call. Next is SB 313 by Senator Dodd and Senator Becker will be presenting.

Thank you. As Fortune discussion with Senator Ashby. This is in the same General area. 313 establishes the Office of Artificial Intelligence. It also requires any AI that is communicating with the public on behalf of the state to be identified and to identify itself as artificial intelligence. AI is transforming our society and impacting our lives in countless ways for enabling personalized healthcare to enhancing the safety and efficiency of our transportation systems. As with any new technology, safeguards must be added as the risks emerge. This Bill establishes the office of AI within the Department of Technology. It also requires data agencies to clearly identify as artificial intelligence if and when it is being utilized to communicate directly with a human. By staying aware of when AI is being used, we can create a future where AI systems are designed, deployed, and governed responsibly, prioritize the well being of all people. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Those in support of SB 313, if you'd approach the microphone seeing no primary witnesses, approach the microphone. Anyone wish to provide me too testimony in regard to SB 313? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching. Let's now turn to the opposition. Anyone opposed to SB 313, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderate, if you would, open the phone lines for those who are in support and opposition to SB 313.

Thank you. For support or opposition of SB 313, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition of SB 313. Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

All right, questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions, is there a motion?

I'll move the Bill before you move it for me.

Senator Laird moves the Bill. All right. Senator Becker, you've done an excellent job for Senator Dodd. I suggest that he probably have you as the presenter in future for future bills as well, so all right, thank you. Anything else you'd like to say in close?

I appreciate your auctioneer skills here. Going through quickly and respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Dodd.

All right, thank you. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is file item number six, SB 313 by Senator Dodd. The motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird. Laird, aye. McGuire. Min Niello. Niello, aye. Wiener. You have six to zero.

Six to zero. The bill's on call. All right, so we're looking for authors. Believe it or not, we've shown we will take one from the Committee if we don't have Senator Limon or Senator Minervar. I saw Senator Menjivar here just a little while ago, but in their absence, we'll take Senator Laird. So we'll now turn to item filem number 24, SB 756, by Senator Laird. So for those of you following along in your programs, that's item number 24, SB 756, by Senator Laird. Senator Laird, the floor is all yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And those at home should not be confused thinking we haven't done items eight through 24 or something such this Bill. Senate Bill 756 authorizes the waterboard staff to obtain inspection warrants for both water rights and water quality violations for unlicensed cannabis investigations, and to participate in unlicensed cannabis site inspections alongside law enforcement, with criminal warrants when requested and upon approval by a judge. It also allows the Water Board to serve unlicensed cannabis cultivators with enforcement documents using physical methods that provide receipts, such as FedEx and the United States Postal Service, since unlicensed cultivators typically refuse accepting mail to evade enforcement. Although the Water Board can currently seek inspection warrants for water quality violations, the same authorizations do not exist for water rights violations. And there's no explicit authority that allows the Water Board to accompany law enforcement, despite the waterboard often being asked to participate so they can provide technical expertise on water violations and California experiences extreme weather as we have, over 90% of waterways are significantly polluted. And this Bill really synchronizes existing systems so that people can work together and aren't held back by conflicting regulations. It's a drug enforcement, this is not a drug enforcement Bill. It's a process Bill. It has support from environmental and water organizations, and there's no registered opposition. I have a representative of the State Water Board here in case there's technical questions, and I would ask for your aye vote.

Primary witnesses in support of SB 756? Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Any me too. Witnesses in support of SB 756? Seeing no one approached the microphone. Let's now turn to the opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition to SB 756, seeing no one approaching. Me, too. Witnesses in opposition to SB 756, seeing no one approach the microphone. Moderator if we would turn to the phone lines for those who are on the phone in support or opposition of SB seven, five, six, please queue them up.

Thank you. For support or opposition of SB 756, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition.

While we're waiting, just Senator Laird.

We have no one in queue.

All right, thank you. Just confirming you've accepted the Committee's amendments? All right, let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Seeing none, Senator Allen moves the Bill. All right, Senator Laird, do you care to close?

I'd appreciate an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is file item number 24, SB 756 by Senator Laird. The motion is due, pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird. Laird, aye. McGuire. Min. Niello. Niello, aye. Wiener. You have six to zero.

Six to zero. All right, that Bill is on call. We're still looking for authors or volunteers here from the Committee. Seeing no volunteers. We're looking for Senator Limon. Senator Menjivar Senator Rubio. I'm sorry. I do have a Bill. I could present my Bill. We've done consent calendar. But you want us to open the roll on the consent calendar? We'd be happy to do so. All right. Madam Secretary, if you would open the roll on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar with the chair voting. Aye Wilk. Wilk, aye. Caballero. Laird. Laird, aye. Min. Wiener. Nine to zero. Eight to zero. Sorry.

All right. I've got it. Good. I'll present my Bill. Yes.

It's SB 235.

Up next, file item 31, SB 235 relative to civil discovery. The recommendation from the Committee is do passed to approps, Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator Wilk. And my script says I'm to thank the chair in Christian Karpuski for working hard on this Bill. Thank you Mr. Vice Chair, as well. Throughout my legislative career, I have striven to bring disparate sides together and I've done so in this Bill. Both the consumer attorneys as well as defense counsel oppose. But let me just tell you what issue this is attempting to address. One of the challenges in civil litigation is the challenge of resources being outcome determinative in litigation, and they're outcome determinative often because of the discovery process. Discovery process, whether it's depositions or it's production of documents or responding to interrogatories can be extremely expensive, and the side with the greater resources often can use the discovery process basically to leverage the other side. One of the key elements in discovery in order to actually get to the merits or even settle a case, is the production of documents. The production of documents, particularly in business cases, but in all other cases, are vitally important to really assess the merits of the matter. And what this Bill does is this Bill takes some lessons from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular Federal Rule 26, and says that early on in litigation, very early on in litigation, each side is required to produce, for example, the witnesses that are known, the documents that are known, the other information is known, and the insurance policies that are known so that the two sides can come together and have an informed conversation concerning settlement and what this looks like for the future. I understand that the consumer attorneys have suggested a number of amendments. For the most part, I am not averse to those amendments. I also understand the defense counsel have asked that we take more time and make this a two year Bill. I actually think that with the courts becoming more and more congested, that the time is now to pass this Bill dealing with discovery abuse. And I ask for an aye vote. With me to testify is nobody I'm it. So Mr. Vice Chair.

Must be nice being chair of the Committee. Any members in the room that want to do a me too in support? Seeing none, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Mr. Belote, two minutes.

Mike Belote speaking on behalf of the California Defense Counsel. We agree with Senator Umberg. Discovery needs a lot of work. Everyone hates discovery disputes. Lawyers, judges, everyone thinks that they are time consuming, expensive, nonproductive. But discovery is important. And what this is doing is moving us slightly from the state culture on discovery to the federal system under Rule 26. But it takes only a little part of it and that is the automatic early exchange of information. The problem is the federal system has other protections. It has more active case management by judges, it has early meet and confer process. The lawyers are supposed to meet and come up with a joint statement on management of discovery. So we think that a lot of that has to be talked about before you just export one piece from the federal system into the state system. We don't disagree. He's a fine litigator. And we pledge to continue this dialogue whether it could be done this year or not. We'll see, but we are talking about a major culture change in discovery in the state system. And if it's not done right, we also think all cases don't necessarily need to be treated the same. Simple cases can be treated differently than very complex, evidence based cases. Big products liability, big employment cases, and that sort of thing. So we pledge to continue working collaboratively. And if it can be done this year, fine. But it's a very complicated matter. Thank you.

Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California. We have an opposed unless amended position, we've been working with the Senator for the last few weeks on this Bill in the last few years on this issue. One of the main amendments that we've been discussing recently is about how this statute is triggered. So the Consumer Attorney strongly feels that either party should be able to trigger this statute, and then the other party has to comply within 60 days. We think that's a very necessary amendment, at least as we're starting out, working on this statute to allow the parties to trigger it, rather than just having it be the default. So we look forward to continuing discussions and thank the author for his work.

Great. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any Metoos in opposition in the room? Seeing none. Let's transition over to the phone. So we'll take testimony in favor and in opposition to file item 31, SB 235. Moderator are you there?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 235, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 448. Your line is open. Line 448, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Susan Pelican from Woodland, California, and I am in favor of SB 235. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 183. Your line is open.

Jamie Huff, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in strong support. Thank you.

And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you, moderator now we'll pull it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Senator Ashby moves the item. That's it. Okay. Where's our secretary at? Do you have to call the role too? Yeah, well, hopefully she gets back while you close. Oh, there okay, we're right on schedule, Senator Umberg you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And let me associate myself with Mr. Belote's comments. I think that's right. I think that this is attempting to change some of the culture. I have concerns about how, as I mentioned at the outset, how discovery is becoming such that is outcome determinative. Absolutely, in the federal courts, there's much earlier intervention I would like to see earlier intervention in state courts to get matters rolling, to get matters resolved sooner and get matters resolved on the merits. So, having said all that, I continue to pledge to work with consumer attorneys and with defense counsel to create a product that does exactly that. With that, I urge an aye vote.

Great, again w have the motion is from Senator Ashby. Recommendation is due passed as amended to approps and secretary. Okay. Did I say amendments? Really? See, I missed lunch. I should have had lunch. Okay. With that, let's call the roll.

This is file item number 31 SB 235. By Senator Umberg the motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Wilk, aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. McGuire. McGuire, aye. Min. Niello. Niello, aye. Wiener. Seven to zero.

All right. Seven ayes, no no's. And we'll leave it open for members to add on.

You. Okay. Up next is going to be item number nine, SB 702, Senator Limon, regarding Gubernatorial Gubernatorial appointments, and the recommendation is due pass to Senate approach and whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Thank you, chair and members. SB 702 requires the Office of the Governor are to maintain on its website a list of all state boards and commissions, including the purpose, membership list and information on when they convene. The Bill also requires an annual report with aggregate demographic information of individuals appointed to the state's boards and commissions. The annual report will serve as a tool to identify gaps in representation, encourage outreach to communities, and address barriers to seeking an appointment. I have reintroduced this Bill because it is essential to gather the facts to help us institutionalize best practices and gains made to diversify the state's boards and commission. California has an express commitment and statute to ensure that state boards and commissions are diverse and reflective of the state. However, no formal mechanism exists to evaluate the Gubernatorial boards and commission's appointees. Additionally, the report in SB 702 follows precedent and state law that requires a similar report to judicial appointments. The collection of Gubernatorial appointee demographic data is a critical step to achieve and maintain gender, ethnic and geographic equity on boards and commissions. Today, with us to testify in support of the Bill, we have Helen Torres on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, HOPE.

Good afternoon, or. Yeah, good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman and Vice Chairman and Committee Members. As mentioned, my name is Helen Torres. I'm the CEO of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, HOPE. Hope is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to ensuring political and economic parity for Latinas through leadership, advocacy and education to benefit the communities and all status of women. Hope is grateful to the work of Senator Limon on this critical topic. SB 702 seeks to create transparency in gumbutorial appointments by requiring an annual report to be released sharing the demographic data of all appointments made. This report would include self reported demographic data including race, gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, religion, and party affiliation. Currently, though, the appointment process does exclude race and sexual orientation are not collected. However, we would like to ensure that there is no exclusion and that both race and sexual orientation is included in the process. HOPE believes in ensuring that California's governance is generally representative of the rich diversity of the state, it is important to note that research shows that diversity in government leads to policies that better reflect the interests of those that we are representing. Similarly, the Governor's office recently shared a report on the State's Judiciary branch in California. Including the data we wish to see with these commissioners, we believe that it shows how possible it is to collect and release demographic data. I wanted to share a few quick stats on the diversity of our state. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, roughly 5.3% or a little over 2 million people in California are Members of the LGBTQ Plus community. In addition, the center of Disease Control and Prevention also predicts that roughly 23% of adult population has a disability. And in California, we're proud to be the home of 1.8 million veterans. Ultimately, if enacted, the data will be a tool to highlight where disparities in representation exist, what communities and voices are missing from these tables. We understand that many of these appointments are legacy appointments made by previous governments, and know that this Governor is committing to diversifying his appointments. However, we want to ensure that the commitment remains as other leaders come to the table for years to come. Overall, it's for California to create a formal mechanism to ensure its governance reflects its state. We believe democracy is more robust when everyone sits at the table. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 702 today. Thank you.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of SB 702, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero in support or opposition of SB 702, and we have no one in queue at this time.

Thank you. Any other primary witnesses? Seeing none. Any me too's in the room? Come up to the mic.

Chair and Senators Michelle Teran Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in strong support. Thank you to the author for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any metoos in opposition? Seeing none. Let's go to the moderator and the phone lines. We're taking testimony in both support and opposition to Senator Limon's SB 702.

Thank you. Moderator. With that, pull it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, concerns.

Proudly move it.

We have a motion from Senator Ashby. Seeing no other mics raised,

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I like the way you close. Okay, we got the motion from Senator Ashby. Again, the recommendation is due past two approach with no amendments, and if the secretary could call the roll.

This is file item number nine, SB 702 by Senator Limon. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Wilk. Wilk, aye. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. McGuire. Min. Niello. Niello, aye. Wiener. You have five to zero.

Five to zero. We'll leave the roll open so members can add on. Okay. Up next will be Senator Wiener. No, I was just messing with you because you didn't wait for the chair to call you up. But that's okay.

Other chairs have liked.

You know, that's what happens when somebody gives you a gavel. It can get ugly at times. Do we have a script on this one? Give me 1 second. No, you've been very patient. Thank you. All right, we're going to start with, I guess, we have a couple of bills from Senator Menjivar, so we'll start with file item number 10, SB 372, having to deal with the Department of Consumer Affairs. The recommendation is due pass as amended to Senate approps. Senator Menjivar, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, chair. Good afternoon, Committee Members. I am so excited to present to you SB 372, a bipartisan authored Bill that is looking to protect when individuals legally change their name for our transgender individuals, our non binary individuals, individuals who are fleeing perhaps a very serious domestic violence relationship. Individuals who get a divorce, get married, and change their name. As it stands right now, individuals who obtain their license under DCA Department of Consumer Attorney Affairs and legally change their name on the Breezy System online system, their name, their old or dead name, still follows them around. And I want to make sure that our therapists, our mental health workers, do not have that dead name following them around. Because what's happening right now, that oftentimes our therapists who are transgender nonbinary, are being outed when someone looks up and their name does not match what the name says outside of their office or on their business cards in similar situations. This Bill is not looking to change a license number. This Bill is not looking to remove any disciplinary actions that follow an individual, because the license number of the individual under DCA will stay the same throughout the process. I'm thankful for the work that the Committee staff has done with my staff. I will be taking the Committee amendments. I will be adding language to ensure that there is a process in place for individuals, the consumers who are calling in to obtain the name of the individual, their dead name or previous maiden name, that within 10 business days, they'll have a response on the original name. We're seeing a lot of discrimination around our transgender community, and this is just an added protection for this community. I'm very excited to be introducing this to you and here to provide testimony, my key witnesses are Dr. Tristan Buzzini, a clinical forensic psychologist and gender affirmative care specialist, followed by Paul Yoder, legislative advocate for the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Great. Before we start, I want to remind everybody that the rules of this Committee two primary speakers, two minutes each. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman and esteemed members. My name is Dr. Tristan Buzzini. I am a licensed clinical psychologist in our State of California and a civil servant working directly with some of our most underserved, vulnerable and dangerous patient populations. I am also a transgender man. It has been a decade since I was granted a confidential, court ordered name change and had my original birth certificate sealed. This fact is directly correlated with my safety as a transgender man. My dead name, name assigned at birth, being strongly associated with a female identity, making it an immediate source for outing me as transgender. Despite this, I have been subject to harassment, threats, loss of job opportunities and income, and been publicly outed without my consent as a result of our State's current practice of dead naming, transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record. As a result of these disclosures, I have had new clients refuse to work with me or cancel care abruptly, been threatened with violence and sexual harm working with patients in our correctional environments, been subject to extortion attempts, and had provisional job offers rescinded after my licensing record was checked. Consumer protection has been cited as the primary opposition to the passage of SB 372, yet the act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees puts our lives and livelihood at risk on a daily basis and directly affects access to care from ethical, hardworking and upstanding professionals, increasing the risk of harm to both licensees and consumers. The act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record is a discriminatory practice that impacts our personal and professional lives and impedes our ability to serve the public. The passage of SB 372 would allow us to engage in our work with respect, dignity, and safety that all people deserve. I thank you, Chairman and esteemed members, urging your aye vote on SB 372.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. Thank you for the amendments and Committee amendments. They make the Bill better by limiting what is shared online. The safety and privacy of transitioned persons and others would be protected under this Bill. Victims of domestic violence that have legally changed their name may wish for information to be kept confidential. Likewise, individuals that have transitioned may be harassed or discriminated against when their transition is shared on the BreEZe System, the state breeze system. Safeguards for consumers to ensure that a complaint can be filed under either name are included in this Bill. If a disciplinary action was taken under the dead name, that information would remain linked to the license number and available for the public to review. Additionally, if a consumer would like to re engage with a licensee, that would be possible as well. Lastly, this Bill is similar to an existing process at the California State Bar. That's the script, the off the script part is what I think I've learned in my life is that supporting people who have transitioned or who are transitioning. Part of that is protecting them from harassment and hate and harm urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Yoder. All right, others in support. Any other primary witnesses in support? Those who wish to provide to testimony, please give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Priscilla Ketos on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sochele Pasyala, on behalf of Access Reproductive Justice in support.

Thank you.

Holly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates California in support.

Craig Pulsipher, Quality California, in support. Thank you.

George Soares with the California Medical Association in support.

Christophe Mer with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. In support.

Kathleen Houston, I'm a licensed Marriage Family Therapist and a board certified behavior analyst, and I'm in support.

John Drebinger, with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies proud co sponsor and in support.

Jennifer Alley. With the California Psychological Association also in support.

Thank you, Anna Paganelli, licensed marriage and family therapist working with transgender clients for the last 20 years. Strongly in support.

Sumaya Nahar with the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also one of the co sponsors of the Bill. Thank you.

Angela Blanchard, on behalf of the California Dental Association, in support.

Michael Lee Chang, Sack State first year undergrad student, in support. Ignore this CFA has not taken you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. I'm Dr. Kareem Mcintosh Thako. I'm a licensed Marriage Family Therapist, as well as a licensed clinical psychologist and President of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association. We are in strong support, and we thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you, others who are in support. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. Primary witnesses in opposition, please approach the microphone.

Chairman Umberg, members of the Committee, my name is Jonathan Burke. I'm the assistant Executive officer of the California Board of Psychology. As of April 7, 2023 meeting, the Board of Psychology adopted an opposed position to SB. 372. Board of Psychology protects consumers of psychological services by licensing psychologists, regulating the practice of psychology, and supporting the evolution of the profession. The Board supports and agrees with the author's intent in protecting licensed professionals by ensuring transgender and nonbinary licensees who change their name legally should have their new identities reflected and be protected from potential abuse because of their gender identity. However, the Board has several concerns with the Bill. These concerns include the impact on consumer protection, given that consumers will not have the ability to view current or past disciplinary actions. The proposed language would require the board to keep the previous name and or gender as private or confidential, and would require the board to establish a process to allow consumers to submit a request in order to obtain the records instead of having the public records available online. This could prevent members of the public viewing the license history of their provider, including any disciplinary actions relevant to their choice of provider. Another concern is that the proposed language does not differentiate between licensees who are changing their name because of gender changes and licensees who are changing their name due to a court order marriage of divorce. All previous names would now be considered as private or confidential, and consumers will face hardship in locating a psychologist who provided services in the past. This, in turn, may also cause barriers in consumers submitting a written request to a licensee to obtain their patient records. Since licensees are required to keep patient records for seven years without being able to identify the licensee, the consumer will be effectively prevented from exercising the statutory right to submit a written and assigned request for the records in their treatment of services. The board is dedicated to protecting consumers first and foremost, as well as the safety of our licensees. A more tailored approach focused on transgender or nonbinary licensees who want their public records to reflect their identity while preserving the record of disciplinary actions and providing a targeted procedure for consumers to locate and identify past providers of services to obtain records is a more optimal approach. We respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Others in opposition saying no one else approaches the microphone. Those who wish to testify in me, too. Opposition to SB 372, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approached the microphone, let's now turn to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up. Those on the phone who are in support or opposition to SB 372.

If you're in support or opposition of SB 372, you may press one and then zero, and we will go to line 235. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, this is Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers California, chapter one of the co sponsors in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line of 207. Your line is open.

Yes. Hi, my name is Betty Toto from Northridge, California. As a mother of a queer daughter and a mother in law to a Trans man, I am in complete support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 470. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hello. Yes, I'm actually calling in support of Senate Bill 252. I believe I got out of queue.

All right, ma'am, we're already past that Bill.

I apologize. I joined in late.

All right, thank you so much. All right, thank you. All right, those in support or opposition to SB 272? I'm sorry, strike that. SB 372.

Thank you. And we have no more in queue.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee members. Seeing no questions or comments, is there a motion? Senator Caballero, you have a question?

Not a question. I'd just like a clarification because I think I heard that disciplinary actions would not be possible. And I thought I heard that that was taken care of in the Bill.

It is.

it is

All right, other questions, comments? Seeing none, is there a motion Senator Caballero moves the Bill. All right, you have a question or comment, Senator Allen?

Sorry, I just wanted to just listen carefully to the comments of the opposition with regards to consumer information and just making sure that nothing that we're doing here, which I absolutely support, is going to harm certain consumer protections with regards to access to professional information. I know it's a late opposition. I mean, I'd love to get a sense of.

So, currently, the State Bar has a process very similar. They have a consumer line because they allow for their lawyers to reflect their legal name, be changed in their online system. So what the State Bar did is set up a line for consumers to call in should they want to find previous history, previous disciplinary history on that lawyer. So that's the same kind of process. We're in communication with DCA to put together that process for consumers, which is why we included, after collaboration with the Committee, the 10 days, within 10 business days, they will have the dead name of the individual, the maiden name, or the new married name. So they can go back to the BreEZe system and find the disciplinary action, but if they have the license number of that individual, that stays with them throughout their life. So even if you still are able to put that license number into the Breezy system, and everything still populates.

Okay. All right. By the way, you've accepted amendments.

yes.

Right. Those amendments address some of the concerns that you've raised, Senator Allen. All right. Other questions? Comments? Is there a motion? Senator Caballero has moved the Bill. All right, Madam Secretary, would you like to close, Senator Minjvar.

Thank you so much. Chair and Committee Members, I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you'd call the role.

This is file item number 10, SB 372, by Senator Menjivar. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg. Umberg, aye. Wilk. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Laird. McGuire. Min. Niello. Wiener. Four to zero.

All right, four to zero. We'll put that on call. All right, next. Senator Menjivar, file number 11, SB 373. Floor is yours.

Thank you again. I'm here to also talk about something else under DCA. This time, SB 373 is talking about address privacy currently, right now.

And you accept the amendments?

Yes, I do accept the amendments. Same amendments as the other one. I appreciate the work to ensure that we're protecting consumers and giving them access to file any complaints, should they have some. What is happening right now? As we moved in the pandemic towards telehealth, we've seen the largest increase of telehealth services. Individuals who are seeking mental health are doing that through telehealth. A lot of mental health professionals also, during the pandemic, moved their practices into their homes or started just working out of their homes.

That has posed an increased risk of being attacked, being harassed by their clients. Mental health professionals don't always deal with clients with severe mental health illness, but sometimes they do. My wife is a licensed marriage family therapist, and over the summer, she had a client that crossed the boundaries, a client who grew an infatuation with her and started calling her when he got drunk and started talking inappropriately to her and would always regret it.

Had he had known where we lived, he would have been able to come to our house and push that boundary even further because he couldn't stop calling her. Their addresses right now is on their license. It's on the Breezy system. So what you see right now is when you provide mental health to a client right behind you, because your license has to be visible, is their address. So this is SB 373, is looking to protect our professionals.

And there are, under DCA, other professions that already took out the number of the street address for our licensees. So I'm looking to do is to reflect the same thing that other boards are doing. SB 373 is asking to only include the licensees' county, city, zip code, and state to protect both the privacy and safety of its licensed professional. SB 373 is just taking a simple step to protect our mental health professionals.

And with me to testify is Anna Paganelli, a licensed marriage and family therapist. And John Drebinger--I am so bad with last names. I apologize--Senior Advocate of Policy and Legislative Affairs, California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies. Just because I just butchered their last name.

All right, thank you, Senator Menjivar. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much for having me. My name is Anna Paganelli. I'm a licensed psychotherapist in Santa Cruz and have been working for about 20 years. We're so grateful for this Bill to be introduced. The issue around telehealth is really a profound one. We really want to encourage people to be able to provide telehealth services, but their risk to therapists has just escalated so much.

I don't think there are very many therapists who don't know of one of their colleagues being stalked, having people come at them. The worries that we have about our own family's safety has been profound. One of the issues that we have is it's really hard to get therapists to work with some of the most highest-risk and highest-volatility clients. We need that. We as a state need that, our communities need that. We do not need any more barriers to it.

And one of the barriers that people have is about their own safety and the safety of their families. When you have somebody's home address on there, and one of the issues can be it comes up later on in your career, it might be that earlier on, you work in public service. You then move into private practice. You are working out of your home, but those same clients can find you from before. We have issues around domestic violence, perpetrators seeking people out.

If you've ever had to call CPS on somebody, you could have somebody who's a perfectly reasonable client in certain circumstances, get extremely agitated and angry and they're very focused on finding you and on doing harm. And we need to reduce the number of barriers to having people, clinicians, work with clients across the board. This Bill would help do that. The other thing is, for those of us who work with, I've worked with kids who are gang affiliated, kids who are dealing with drugs.

One of the things we never want is to have the people who help promote those, so hardened gang members, come toward us. We don't want to have any availability. We don't want our home addresses exposed. It's hard enough for our family sometimes with people that we work with, and we don't want them to be worried that somebody's going to come to our house. We ended up getting a really large dog to help protect our family because it just got too scary. So I really urge you to, an aye vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and Members of the Committee. John Drebinger with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies (CBHA). CBHA represents behavioral health providers across the state that provide vital mental health and substance use services to over 1 million Californians. Our members experience firsthand the challenges associated with having their home addresses publicly available. As you've heard from the author and from my co-witness, there are often times where they're working with populations that will leave them vulnerable to stalking and harassment.

Currently, the only option for folks to keep their information private is to pay for and maintain a PO box, which can often be cumbersome to their practice. Also, we want to know that SB 373 offers a really simple solution to address this issue while still allowing consumers to identify a provider on Breeze, verify their license status, and also file a complaint if necessary. Importantly, this idea is not novel.

As you've heard, several boards under DCA already operate this way, and SB 373 helps bring the same protections to mental health providers. We appreciate your time and consideration of this issue.

Thank you very much. Others who are in support of SB 373, if you'd approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon. Sumaya Nahar, Political Solutions on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, one of the proud co-sponsors of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association. Also a proud co-sponsor.

Kathleen Houston, licensed marriage family therapist in support of the Bill.

Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako at the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Dr. Tristan Buzzini, licensed clinical psychologist. Strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kristoff Mayor, AFSCME California. Support of the Bill.

Thank you very much. All right, let's turn to the opposition. Principal witnesses in opposition to SB 373. If you'd approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's do the me too. Witnesses who wish to testify in opposition to SB 373, seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you would queue up those who are in support and opposition to SB 373, we'd be grateful.

Thank you. For support or opposition of SB 373, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for opposition or support. We will go to line 235. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, one of the co-sponsors in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 207.

Yes, hi, this is Betty Toto calling from Northridge California. I'm an elected Los Angeles Democratic Party County Committee Member and I'm in full support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 484. Your line is open.

Yes, there was a technical difficulty on the last Bill. I could not comment. My name is Jeanette Abbott Wicker. I'm in Orange, California. I wanted to be full support of SB 372.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you. Moderator now we'll pull this back to the Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Can I have a motion? Is that by you, Senator Ashby? You've been on it today. Thank you. So, we have a motion by Senator Ashby which is do pass as amended to Senator Probes. With that, Senator Menjivar, you may close.

Thank you again, Committee Members, Chair for I guess for not engaging in the conversation with me.

That's truly a good thing.

Good thing? Yes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. With that, Secretary, call the roll.

This is file item number 11, SB 373 by Senator Menjivar. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umberg? Wilk? Wilk aye. Allen? Allen aye. Ashby? Ashby aye. Caballero? Durazo? Laird? McGuire? Min? Niello? Niello aye. Wiener? You have four to zero.

Okay, the tally is four yes, no noes. So we'll leave that open for Members to add on. Thank you for coming in and presenting today. Do we have any more? Senator Rubio is here. Always a pleasure. Let's see, where is she? Senator Rubio. Come on up. So, this is file item number 16, SB 662. Oh, I accidentally struck off 15. I have such confidence in her that I thought it was going to pass. Okay, file item 15. Thank you, everybody.

SB 618 Rubio regarding child support enforcement. And the recommendation is do pass to Senate Human Services Committee. With that, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Today I'm presenting SB 618, which will make it easier for Low income parents to financially support their children and themselves by eliminating the unjust interest on child support money that is owed to the government under existing law in California. Custodial parents who receive public assistance are entitled only to a portion of the money because the rest of.

The balance is intercepted by the government to pay back the cost of public assistance if the payment is not collected. California piles on a 10% interest rate which does not benefit directly the child, which it was the intent. This egregious 10% interest rate is one of the highest in the country and continues to undermine the economic stability and already unstable Low income families. This also increases their debt to unsustainable levels and exacerbates racial inequalities and racial wealth gaps.

Since this debt does not go away after the child turns 18, the debt continues to burden the most vulnerable and Low income insecure families. And unfortunately, most of the parents impacted by these policies are BIPOC individuals elderly, disabled or living only on Social Security. With me today. I have two witnesses. Mariko Yoshihara with the Truth, justice and Child Support Coalition and Anne Stool dreher. If they can come up and present. Thank you.

And before we start, I remind everybody of Senator Umberg's policy, which is two primary speakers, two minutes apiece.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mariko Yoshihara. I'm here on behalf of the Truth and justice and Child Support Coalition, a statewide coalition of organizations that seek to change policy to better support Low income children and their families. As mentioned by the Senator, at the heart of the problem is this policy that requires parents who receive public assistance to repay the state by intercepting their child support when those parents cannot afford to pay their debt to the state grows rapidly because California adds this 10% interest.

As a result, today parents owe over $6.5 billion in unpaid child support debt to the state and approximately one quarter of the debt is unpaid interest. California's Egregious 10% interest rate is one of the highest in the countries and 16 states charge no interest at all. Eliminating the interest rate is a crucial racial and economic justice issue because child support debt disproportionately impacts families of color.

And we know that when we implement proposals that shrink the government debt, like eliminating this 10% interest rate, parents are better able to support their children and themselves. To be clear, this Bill does not impact any debt or interest that is owed to the parent. This only impacts interest on debt that is owed to the state. And California's own research shows that 95% of this debt is uncollectible anyway because it is old, sometimes decades old.

And historically, child support orders have been set up at amounts too high for a Low and comparant to a four to pay stacking the deck against them from the very start. The Legislature has shown tremendous leadership in the last few years to transform our child support program to put families first by showing commitment to fully pass through child support payments to families. But we have to remedy what has already occurred in the program and support the families that are struggling right now.

And eliminating the predatory 10% interest rate will help families immediately we strongly urge your support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Anne Stuhldreher, and I direct the Financial Justice Project in the Treasurer's office for the City and County of San Francisco. We were set up about five years ago to assess and reform our city's fines and fees.

I had no idea when I started this job how much I would hear from so many parents with Low incomes about our system of child support and how state policies like our 10% interest rate on the debt that parents owe to government makes it harder, not easier, for parents with Low incomes to financially support their children and themselves. I heard a lot from people like Freddie Persons.

Freddie is 77, lives on a $900 Social Security check, and is retired after working for 36 years as a janitor at the Bayview Plaza Mall. Until recently, the government automatically garnished $300 from his monthly $900 check. The reason? Decades ago, Mr. Persons fell behind on his child support payments. He long ago paid off and met his child support obligation to his ex wife and his children. But because of the 10% interest rate on the debt that he owed to the government, Mr. Person's debt ballooned.

He could not keep up, and his paycheck was garnished into his 70 s. The 10% interest rate balloons the government debt to levels that are almost impossible for a parent with a Low income to pay. In California, a parent who owes the average $15,000 in debt could pay $50 every two week for 30 years, and they'd actually owe more on the debt than when they started.

Since the interest owed exceeds their annual payments, someone making the same payments in one of the 16 states that charge no interest would have nearly paid off this debt in 12 years. The 10% interest rate on government debt makes it harder for parents to financially support themselves and their children. All of those payments could be used by them to support themselves and their family, to buy food, school clothes, pay for college, pay the rent, et cetera.

I'm asking for your I vote to end this 10% interest rate on the government debt and help put money in the pockets of struggling parents so that they can support their children and themselves. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any me too speakers in support? Okay with that, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition seeing? None. Any me too testimony in opposition? Seeing none. Let's go to the phones. And again, we will be taking testimony both in support and opposition to SB 618. Moderator thank you.

For support and opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero. For support and opposition, we will go to 502. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Gail Yen with Root and Rebound, in strong support of SB 618. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 506. One moment. 506. Can you push one and then zero again? All right, 506. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Rachel Freitas and I'm expressing support for SD 6118 on behalf of the Truth and justice in Child Support Coalition and Legal Services of Northern California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go to line 495. Your line is open.

Yes. Hello. My name is Francesca Wander. I'm an economic justice activist in Senator Angelique Ashby's district, encouraging a strong aye vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And you're a lucky constituent.

Thank you. We'll go to line 450. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Castillo and we are in strong support of this proposal. Thank you on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 512. Your line is open.

Line 512. Your line is open.

Yes, hello, Stephen Goldberg from Legal Services of Northern California, in strong support of the Bill.

I couldn't hear that. Did you hear that?

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

All right, great. Thank you for that testimony. Thank you. Moderator going to pull it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Senator Ashby.

Yeah, we have a really long agenda, and I don't need to be verbose on this, but this actually happened to me. I was a young single mom, and I received support from the State of California and needed some help. At a time in my life, I lived in low-income housing, I used food stamps. And when I was a young single mom, I was working full time and going to law school. And my son's father did have this exact thing happen.

His wages garnished to pay back the county or state. And he couldn't pay it back. And he was remanded, actually, into custody. And I was at the time in law school, working in the Public Defender's Office in Sacramento County, and actually appeared in court on his behalf and said, I'm not sure I understand how you expect him to make up the debt while being incarcerated. So this doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

It's hard to be a young parent who is reliant on the welfare system. It's also hard for the person who has to help pay that back. And I think this is a fair compromise. And I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward, and I'm happy to move it.

Okay, thank you. Senator Ashby. Seeing no one else, we have a motion, so you may close.

I appreciate your time. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. With that, again, the recommendations do pass to Senate Human Services Committee. So the secretary could read the roll. Call the roll.

This is file item number 15, SB 618 by Senator Rubio. The motion is do passed to Senate Human Services. [Roll call]. Four to zero.

Okay, 40. We will leave the roll open so Members can add on. And I guess we can transition now to item number 16, SB 662. Regarding court reporters, and I don't have the recommendation. She's always ahead of me. This is the first. All right, great. With do pass to business and professions. So with that, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, please allow me to highlight three cases. Case number one in California in 2018, Jameson versus Desta. Barry Jameson was injured and sued for damages. Barry Jameson lost the case, then appealed. The Appeals Court denied the appeal because there were no court records of his case. Case number two, a resident in the Central Valley was denied child support a review of the transcript showed the judge made a mistake when reviewing her paperwork, and the decision was reversed.

Case number three a victim of domestic violence was evicted. She was wrongfully denied the right to use her domestic violence to prevent the eviction. An electronic recording was successfully used to appeal her eviction. Here we have three cases with three very different circumstances. But one thing is very clear, and all three cases were impacted one way or the other by the need to have a record of the proceedings, regardless whether the transcripts are taken by a court reporter or made accessible by an electronic recording.

Without either, poor people are left without access to equal justice under the law. Members. Hundreds, thousands of cases every year go without a record. Imagine the number of poor, vulnerable people without the financial means to pay a court reporter who are left to fend for themselves in such vulnerable cases such as child custody cases and cases where even their lives are at risk by an abuser and they're forced to walk away without a record of the proceeding that later puts them at a disadvantage.

Today, you may hear statements about how this Bill will eliminate court reporters, which is absolutely not true. You're also going to hear statements about how the court are to blame for the shortage in court reporters and how they don't have enough staff. However, I'm not here to point fingers or say who's to blame. That's not my job. I'm here to solve a problem. This is detrimental to the safety, health and well being of California families.

We do know that court reporters are the gold standard for recording the proceedings in court cases. But we also know that there is a major shortage currently in our courts. But until we fulfill the promise of the gold standard, it is our job to take care of people who are needing our help today and cannot wait for justice later. Senate Bill 662 will help in three ways. First, it will allow for electronic recordings only when there are no reporters available in the court.

Second, it is a workforce development Bill that will entice new candidates to join the profession so that we can help address the shortage. Finally, this Bill is the most aggressive pathway of getting more court reporters who are eligible in the courts immediately. By way of example, in 2022, there were 222 candidates who took the certification test, and only 54 passed it. Today, the difference, which is 168 candidates that didn't pass the test would be sitting around for years waiting to be certified.

This Bill will allow the candidates to start working immediately, earn a salary, and fill the court reporter vacancies, which are desperately needed. This Bill will allow candidates up to three years to get fully credentialed and put us on a path to not only restore the jobs that we lost during the Great Recession, but also expand the profession, which is what we all want.

The Bill only complements the investments made by the Legislature to help recruit and retain positions that pay, in some cases, up to $118,000 a year, and some get $10,000 in signing bonuses. Members, this is a win win solution to help expand the profession with good paying jobs, and that will not only leave vulnerable people without access to court reporters, but will give them equal access and justice under the law. Thank you.

And today with me, we have two witnesses Jennifer Wagman, attorney with the Family Violence Appellate Project and co sponsor of the Bill, and Alison Kefford, an attorney for Weave. Thank you.

And before we start, I want to remind everybody of Senator Umberg's Hard Rule two primary speakers. Two minutes. Because we've not been very good today, but you look like you're going to do it very fast. All right.

My name is Jennafer Wagner. I'm the Director of programs at the Family Violence Appellate Project proud co sponsor with the Legal Aid Association of SB 662. I'm here today on behalf of over 35 domestic violence and legal aid organizations. Since the 2018 California Supreme Court decision requiring free court reporters for indigent litigants, not much has changed for Low and moderate income people in California courts.

Despite tens of millions of dollars of increased annual funding for court reporters, there are still about 1200 certified shorthand reporters in courts. Most of California's CSRs choose to work in the private market, where they also earn six figure salaries. We can't mandate where people choose to work, but this Bill will help by allowing nationally certified reporters and graduates of California reporting schools to work in courts for up to three years, and by holding courts accountable to hire and retain court reporters.

However, right now, thousands of hearings happen every day without any record. People leave court without understanding what the court decided or why, and dangerous and wrong decisions cannot be appealed. This is a crisis. No court reporter is required when an elderly person sues the contractor who defrauded him, when a sexual assault survivor seeks a civil protection order against the supervisor who assaulted her, or when a domestic violence survivor seeks a restraining order.

If these people are Low income and file a request, they can get a free court reporter. But they will have to come back to court month after month until a court reporter is available. Undocumented immigrants seek court findings needed for a crime victim visa. For instance, Bianca M asked the la Superior Court judge to find she was abused and abandoned by her father before coming to the US. So she could apply for special immigrant juvenile status with the Ins. The judge said he would not.

He did not believe the program should apply to someone like Bianca. Without a transcript, the California Supreme Court wouldn't have reversed that trial court, since the burden was on Bianca to prove the court did something wrong. Similarly, in the case of Elmasian v. Flores, our client was wrongly denied the right to use the domestic violence defense to being evicted for acts of abuse against her. Because her trial was electronically recorded, we were able to successfully appeal her eviction.

Electronic recording is not the gold standard, but it is acceptable. It's what we use right now for evictions small claims, limited civil cases, criminal misdemeanors, and infractions. The electronic recordings we get are clear and clean. And legal aid organizations do use them to appeal wrongful evictions every day. Current court rules already mandate high quality recording equipment. Electronic recordings are owned by the court and stored safely in the same manner as other digital court records. We are in a crisis.

The situation needs all the court reporters who can be hired, all the provisionally certified reporters who can be licensed, and the expansion of electronic recording. We urge your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Kind of a little over. All right, go ahead.

Hello. My name is Allison Kephart. I'm the Chief Legal and Compliance Officer with Weave, Sacramento County's primary provider of services to domestic violence and sexual assault victims. Thank you for considering this important issue. As you may know, Weave represents victims in domestic violence restraining order cases and related family law matters such as child custody and divorce.

Our work is at the trial level, meaning we navigate daily the process of presenting evidence and testimony to the court so that our judges can make findings of fact about what did or did not occur in each case. Access to official records of court proceedings is critical for survivors to understanding this process and ultimately, the orders the court makes. It's also critical in the event that an order is wrong or places a survivor or their children in danger.

Right now, having an official record depends on a certified court reporter being available and the survivor either qualifying for a fee waiver or having the resources to pay for an expensive private reporter. For most survivors, these are insurmountable barriers. Thousands of cases are heard each month in Sacramento County alone, and for many, many of them, there is no transcript of what was said, what the judge considered, or why orders were made. This is enormously impactful even in circumstances where an appeal is not on the horizon.

For example, a judge might make findings that a restrained party continues to possess firearms despite being ordered to relinquish them. Those findings could help law enforcement locate and remove the weapons. Those findings could also provide crucial context for a judge considering a renewal of the restraining order and can be very relevant for the next judge who's asked to make custody orders for the party's children. Custody litigation for victims can span years and multiple court appearances.

Custody orders are full of detailed details and nuances, many of which are resolved during a hearing. Clarity about those details can and does reduce further conflict without official records of prior hearings or trials. It's nearly impossible for future judges to have the full context in these cases and it hinders their ability to make safe orders. Electronic records of court proceedings are not new.

Standards and processes already exist in this state that can be leveraged to meet the current need and ultimately better serve litigants and the judicial system. This Bill is an opportunity for California to embrace a technology solution to a statewide issue. We should not miss that opportunity. And I urge your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any too testimony? Name, organization and your position.

Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Brown. I'm the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the California Lawyers Association. The California Lawyers Association strongly supports this Bill and has a letter registered in support. In addition, on a personal level, I'm a certified family law specialist, been practicing family law for more than 25 years. This is important legislation. I urge your aye vote as a family law practitioner as well.

Reminder everybody name, organization, position. Thank you.

Magali Zagal on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence in Support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Nancy Drabble, the CEO of Consumer Attorneys of California. We strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Aviva Simon, on behalf of the Judicial Council, in support.

Thank you.

Hello, Danielle Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, a coalition of a statewide coalition of legal aid providers in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Sharif Elmallah, on behalf of the California Trial Court Consortium and court Executive officers across the state in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Mike Belote for both the California Judges Association and the California Defense Counsel in support.

Thank you, sir, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? And in the name of fairness, the prior speakers went over a minute. So give you collectively five minutes. Just.

Thank you.

To be fair, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SCIU California. So courts are just starting to use the $30 million in recruitment and retention funds for court reporters and civil and family law. To this date, only 18 courts have actually used the money and less than half are actually advertising for their vacancies. Voice writing certification, which is quicker and easier to obtain, just has only been offered since last fall. But enrollment numbers at court reporting schools have already substantially increased.

So there are 5500 court reporters licensed in this state and 2000 bench officers. There is enough court reporters to fill the need. This is not a court reporter staffing shortage. This is a recruitment and retention problem. Expanding electronic recording is unnecessary when courts have systematically pushed court reporters away from the profession since 2009. It started with layoffs of court reporters and family and civil laws, and then they left any remaining vacancies unfilled. So given the court's history.

I strongly doubt they will take every effort to find a court reporter if ER is available. The real solution is to require court reporters in family and civil law and ensure that all litigants have equal access to accurate transcripts. And most importantly, electronic recording is still unreliable. Legitimizing its use is irresponsible and would deepen the divide between the haves and the have not in our justice system.

We question why the solution is always electronic recording when it comes at the cost of accurate transcripts and this predominantly female profession. The courts have not been held responsible for laying off court reporters and depriving litigants of transcripts. We already gave them 30 million for recruitment and retention. And all that's missing now is a requirement for official court reporters to cover these types of cases.

I have with me Melissa Buckman, a family law attorney who will now describe how an ER transcript kept a client and her children in danger. I respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I am Melissa Buckman, a Los Angeles family law attorney. And I want to tell you about a client who failed to get a domestic violence restraining order for her and her children against an abusive ex husband because of electronic recordings. When she came to me, the facts of abuse were clear. Getting a restraining order should have been pro forma. The ex husband arranged my client's deposition over zoom.

They represented a court reporter would be present when we received the transcript, though it was missing much of my client's testimony. We told the judge the transcript was flawed, but the husband insisted it was flawless because it was certified by a court reporter. And then the judge looked at us like we were crazy. At the next hearing, the judge opined he no longer found my client credible.

Per the judge, if we had a problem with the transcript, our only recourse was to cross examine the court reporter in court. Except we then found out that there wasn't one. It was done electronically. The same kind of system this Bill introduces to courtrooms across the state. And there is no established recourse for correcting an electronic recording. Eventually, we convinced the recording service to reevaluate their work, and they found 55 pages. An hour of testimony was missing. But it was too late.

The judge had already made up his mind. He denied the restraining order, delaying justice for over a year and a half, until a dependency court substantiated all the abuse allegations. We applied to the Family Violence Appellate Project to take the appeal, and they declined. Good transcripts are the lifeblood of the American judicial system, and this Bill does seem like it gives Low income victims a record. But as you can see, a bad transcript can be worse than no transcript at all.

This Bill is written by people with good intentions. Senator Rubio's expansion of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act gave new protections for victims. But we must consider the unintended consequences of legitimizing electronic recordings as safe substitutes for live court reporters. Abusers thrive off chaos and confusion. Exactly what electronic recordings inject into the judicial process. Cross talk, similar sounding voices, thick accents, people who talk too fast are common issues for court reporters. Remedy in real time. But after the fact, transcriptionists cannot.

And with electronic recordings, there is no recourse for mistakes. Consider that people with means will continue to hire court reporters for their hearings, and the result is two entirely separate decisions.

Thank you. You could wrap up one for the.

Rich and one for the poor. This far more inferior. I respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. All right, others who are in opposition, if you would approach the microphone and give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the United Public Employees Union, which represents court reporters in Sacramento, Yuba Yolo, and Sutter County in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members Pat Moran, with Aaron Reed and Associates. Representing the Orange County Employees Association. Representing court reporters in Orange County. We are opposed. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman Members Ed Howard, on behalf of the California Deposition Reporters Association, which represents the small business, freelance facet of the profession, in strong opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Kelly McCarthy, former court reporter official at Santa Clara County Superior Court for 23 years, currently a firm owner in Santa Clara County, providing private court reporters in specifically Santa Clara County Court. Strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michelle Caldwell. I'm a Member of the Board of Directors of the California Court Reporters Association, and I'm an official court reporter with Santa Clara County Superior Court. On behalf of the court reporters in Santa Clara County Superior Court, we oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, Caitlin Houston, certified shorthand reporter in Sutter County and then also Director for the California Court Reporters Association, in very strong opposition.

Thank you.

Hi. Christoph Mair with the American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Tamara Houston. I am a certified shorthand reporter, number 7244 from Sutter County. I'm currently serving as the President of the California State Association of Court Reporters. We are strongly opposed. And see, this bill is very, very dangerous. We request your navel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else in the room in opposition to SB 662? Seeing no one else approaching, we'll now turn to the phone lines for a maximum of 15 minutes of support in opposition to SB 662.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. And we will go to line 514. Your line is open.

Yes, hello, my name is Stephanie Leslie I'm a licensed California stenographer and incoming President of Deposition Reporters Association. I'm located in Orange County, California. I'm calling to register a strong opposition to SB 662.

Thank you. Next, we got line 554. Your line is open. Line 554. Your line is open.

My name is Paige Hutchinson. I'm a certified shorthand reporter in Riverside, California, license number 13459 calling in opposition.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 544. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Adriana Montez. I'm a court reporter for the Los Angeles Superior Court, and I'm a Member of Blackrin FCIU. I'm calling in opposition.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 473. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Carol Herrera. I'm an official court reporter in a very busy family law courtroom with La Superior Court. I'm also a Member of SCIU 721, and I strongly oppose SB 62. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 314. Your line is open.

Hi. My name is Carolyn Dasher. I'm a retired court reporter from La Superior Court. I'm the past President of the California Court Reporters Association, past President of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association, and I'm an SCIU Member. And I'm calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 304. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Andrea Chavez. I'm an official court reporter in Orange County and a Member of the California Court Reporters Association, the Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association and Ocea. And I'm calling to register my very strong opposition to SB. 662.

Hi. My name is Maria Mayhew. I'm an official court reporter with the Los Angeles Superior Court in a very busy family law courtroom with many DVROs. I'm a Member of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we'll go to line 516. Your line is open.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 527. Your line is open.