Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

You. Good morning. We would like to welcome everyone to the Appropriations Committee hearing for August 16. The we will have 178 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular ordered hearing. But before we begin, I have a few Housekeeping notes to cover. We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee website at APRO Assembly CA gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

The hearing room is now open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its stream on the Assembly website at Assembly CA gov today's events. We encourage the public to monitor the Committee's website for updates. We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today, and for which the author waived presentation before the close of regularly ordered hearing.

Testimony on any such bills will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill. The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the Sergeants directed your attention to the rules of public attendance and public participation which were posted outside the door. I encourage Members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules.

Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of general courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, we will look to establish a quorum. The Chair sees that at this moment, we do not have a quorum. And so we will begin. As a Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, I had talked to author Senator Grove about her SB 14. That Bill is a candidate for suspense.

Normally, we will allow a Member, if they would like to present, to do so, encourage that they not, but the suspense file is a process in which we will continue to consider bills and evaluate their fiscal impact, as well as other impacts. And in due course, we will have a suspense hearing in which bills will either be removed from the suspense file and move forward, or they will be held in committee.

We will take up Senator Grove's Bill First, so if she'd like to come forward. I have a sign-in order of Smallwood, Cuevas, Wahob, Glazer, and Mindivar, and we'll proceed in that order once this presentation is completed. Okay. So, Senator, you're here to present on SB 14, which is a suspense candidate. You can proceed. We'll allow you have two witnesses, I believe. Okay. And then there are two that are in opposition. I don't know if they're here, but once she gets here, we'll allow her to have her two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here we go. All right. Thank you. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Senate Bill 14 is a bipartisan measure that is joint authored by Senator Cabiero, Senator Rubio, and has once amended, will include 60 coauthors, including nine from this very committee. Our Bill includes sex trafficking of a minor on the list of crimes that are defined as serious under California law, making it a strikeable offense.

While I understand the primary focus of this committee is to evaluate the fiscal impact of SB 14, I want to make it very clear that there's no price tag that you can be placed on a victim of human trafficking, especially a child. Selling a child to be raped over and over again is a crime that's so grotesque, immoral and barbaric, it should be prevented and stopped at any cost.

However, if we look at the cost in which SB 14 that have listed in the analysis that focuses on the emplacement of individuals and perpetrators that commit this horrific crime in prison and the cost of the state, I submit to you that this Bill cannot afford, we cannot afford not to pass this Bill today.

There are many costs associated with additional incarcerations that I would argue that the price that is something that we can afford in this state of California to put these perpetrators behind bars. Ensuring traffickers that are making sure that they're off the street and out of the reach of California's kids is something that we must prioritize. Additionally, the impact of trafficking on anyone, let alone a child, can be lifelong.

From the psychological issues to the physical ailments, to housing needs, to social services, oftentimes the state picks up the tab for survivors. Once a child is rescued from their trafficker, the state is responsible for caring for those children. The cost associated with rehabilitation far outweighs that of incarceration that wasn't even listed in the appropriations analysis.

A single trafficker who trafficks up to three to five victims, if not more, can increase the cost of state resources in calculating some basic funding for the resources that we came up with for rehabilitation and trafficking victims. Cal Works would be about $9,300 a year, drug rehab, about $13,475 a year, mental health services about $8,500 a year. ER visits around $3,000 a year. And that's a very conservative estimate. And California Victims Compensation Board support is roughly $10,000 a year.

Housing, as a rough estimate, is just almost $14,000 a year per the cast. LA is the largest district service provider in California that gave us this estimate. These are just for basic services. Considering the average age of a person who becomes trafficked is around 13 years old, that would create five years of services by the government at a minimum, until they're an adult, which would be about $290,765 for their care while they're minors.

One trafficker with five minors would cost the state almost $1.5 million, $1,453,825 to be exact. That's alone just for basic services without considering associated costs like police, victims advocates and so forth. Considering many traffickers victimize more than five victims, this number can get a lot higher. This also doesn't take into account the multiple ER visits, surgeries, and other intensive treatments that are common for human trafficking victims.

You'll hear from one of my survivors today, Jenna McKay, who has spent a lifetime dealing with the traumatic injuries caused by her trafficker. To receive a better understanding of what human trafficking survivors endure, I'd like to share a testimony, a brief testimony of Odessa Perkins, who was my lead witness in the policy committee. She's a constituent of mine. She was trafficked in Bakersfield, California. She was raped and abused by anyone who'd pay enough money. She's not able to be here today because she's a teacher.

Today's the first day of school. She's an intervention specialist, and she works with at risk youth. So I wanted to make sure that people understood that it's not just individuals that are here today, but other people that are not here that have the same story or roughly the same story or the same circumstance of being trafficked. Human trafficking is truly the crime of our time. And sadly, California is one of the largest hubs for human trafficking.

Just last week in my district, I was able to participate in a sting operation that was done jointly by my district attorney, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Secret Service, and there were 22 perpetrators arrested for desiring to have sex with children. It's sickening. You can recall just last month in Sacramento, a county operation performed where hundreds of human trafficking victims were rescued here. Locally, they arrested five traffickers.

One of the most evil, dehumanizing, degrading despicable crimes that you could ever possibly imagine is happening right here in the state capitol and around our state.

Senator, I appreciate the presentation. This is a courtesy to allow you to make your presentation. But if you could bring it to conclusion, if you could.

Thank you. I believe that passing SB 14 today will allow our children to be protected in this state. I know there is concern over what they think, that victims would be wrapped up in this. We took amendments to ensure that would not happen. We've worked with the Alameda County District Attorney's office that has prosecuted over 850 cases, and only one victim was charged with aiding, abetting their trafficker and within a few weeks, those charges were dropped because they saw that that individual was a victim.

California is a hotspot for human trafficking. Three Strands global is the sponsor of this Bill. We have over 80 statewide national organizations. The National Center for Exploiting Children and the LA City Council has just introduced a resolution to support SB 14. Having witnesses here to testify today, I have my first survivor, Jenna McKaye, for the Jenna McKaye Foundation. She's not only a survivor, but a fierce advocate. And she's made it her mission to protect and support human trafficking survivors.

And if Brianna Williams has been able to find parking, her sister was murdered in a human trafficking situation, and she will be here to testify as well.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

I grew up in Southern California and was following in one of my big sister's footsteps to head to college and play volleyball on a scholarship. My trafficker lured me out of high school and sold me out of an apartment ten minutes down the road from my private school and my family. While I have built a successful life, now doing my advocacy work and raising my son, I still live with the effects from my trafficking.

I am in therapy every week to work on my complex PTSD, and I suffer from extreme back pain from the last time that I was sold and beaten. Physical therapy, OMT therapy, massage therapy, and chiropractic care are what help ease the pain, but because my community never identified me and offered me support and resources, I never got the support that I needed. Now I go to the Chiropractor, and it's great to go in and have him ease the pain on my back.

But the problem is, after I walk around the corner to the receptionist desk and I pull out my wallet and pay for my own money for what my trafficker and my rapist did to me, and it takes up my therapy appointments instead of recovering from my trauma to what that does psychologically to me, to pay for what crimes were committed against me, against my will. Justice also would have greatly helped in my healing journey.

I had to start over with nothing and build a life while surviving with lifelong effects. My trafficker knew what he was doing was wrong, and he should have been held accountable. All traffickers should be held accountable, and all victims deserve justice. To not support this Bill would be sending a message to every victim and to every survivor that they don't matter, that their trauma is minimized. If this was your child, what would you want for them? Thank you.

Thank you, and we appreciate your testimony, and we definitely understand that you've gone through something very traumatic, and we appreciate the Senator bringing forth a Bill to try to address those issues so that others are protected going forward. Recognize that and appreciate it, and thank you for being here today. Your other witness?

She's in security.

Okay, are there any witnesses that are here to testify in opposition or neutral position to this Bill? Two minutes.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Duke Cooney. I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action, and we affirm that human trafficking is a truly reprehensible crime. However, we must stand in strong opposition to SB 14 because it will not serve our shared goal of protecting survivors and preventing future victimization. SB 14 does not even protect minors and other survivors of human trafficking from prosecution under the very law that is meant to keep them safe.

Survivors referred to as victim offenders by SB 14's lead witness in public safety are routinely charged with human trafficking related crimes during their exploitation, either because they are never seen as victims or to force them to cooperate and testify against their trafficker, these tactics are routinely used by district attorneys across California. Survivors are often forced to commit crimes by their traffickers, including recruitment, or they're working to keep other survivors with them safe and are misidentified as traffickers by law enforcement.

These survivors are also subjected to plea bargains, which can include pleading guilty to trafficking related offenses in order to prosecute those traffickers. This Bill will double, and in some cases, triple punish every ensnared survivor that has suffered prior strike convictions related to their victimization. Creating another tool to criminalize survivors, SB 14, will only make it harder for them to seek safety and healing. Already, survivors report that contact with the criminal legal system erects significant barriers to treatment, housing, employment, and immigration relief.

We pay upwards of $106,000 to keep one person incarcerated for one year.

Okay, if you could your two minutes is up. Just bring it to conclusion.

Yeah. Thank you. Those funds would be better spent supporting survivors, creating protective environments to ensure that those who are most vulnerable will not be at risk of traffic in the future. For those reasons, we oppose. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Senator Grove, you have your second witness.

I do. And thank you for the chair's indulgence.

Okay, two minutes. Welcome.

Hi. My name is Brianna Mosley. I want to start off by asking the committee, how much is a trafficked individual's life worth? How much is my life worth? What about the lives of my loved ones or your loved ones? As a child, I was trafficked by an individual who victimized countless other children. As a result, I was sent to an out of state placement in order to save my life. Out of over a hundred other children that were there, most were from California.

Many were sex trafficked prior to coming there or after returning home. We essentially were locked up on a mountain in the middle of nowhere, losing most of our childhood. Instead of locking up our perpetrators while we were there, they were walking free victimizing the next victim that would then be sent to an out of state placement. And I should mention that it cost over 8 million just at this facility to house us. Now I want to talk about my sister, Blair. Blair was a beautiful girl.

She was my best friend. My sister. In October 2001, she came to me and disclosed that she was being trafficked. Shortly after her disclosure, she was brutally raped by her trafficker and his friends. Little did I know that, but in six months, she would be dead.

This traumatic experience caused her to regress into a young childlike state, and she spent the next several months in and out of mental institutions, all at the expense of California. On April 24, 2022, she unknowingly walked into I-5 freeway here in Sacramento and was struck and killed by a car. My family will never get to see her again. We never got to say goodbye due to her body's condition.

So I ask you again, what is Blair's life worth and all the other Blairs that are to come if we don't hold them accountable? My beautiful sister returned to my family in a box of ashes as her trafficker walks free. My family would pay any amount to have her back for just one day. I pray he doesn't lead to his next victim's death as well. Because these young people's lives are priceless. Their traffickers should not be valued more than their victims. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate your testimony this morning. I will now turn to the public. We will only take those who are here to speak in favor or in opposition. Name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, respectful opposition the way the Bill is currently drafted.

Denise Aguilar, co founder of Freedom Angels, in support of SB 14.

Tara Thornton, co founder of Freedom Angels, in support of SB 14.

Dr. Angela Look from Child Protective Services in Kern County. Strong support of this Bill. And ask that you please pass the Bill.

Veronica, former youth advocate, mother of five. I support this Bill.

Elizabeth Kenny, Oakland, California I strongly and respectfully support this Bill.

Cheyenne Kenny, central committee Member for the Alameda County Republican Party in strong support of this Bill.

Peggy Delgado Fava, Executive Director for Bridge Network that works with CSEC commercially sexually exploited children and teens, youth justice involved youth, and we advocate for youth that have been impacted with sex trafficking, with criminal charges. We've advocated for them.

I'm sorry, it's just name, organization, and position on the Bill.

We strongly support this Bill. Please pass it.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Mrs. G I drove up from Orange County, California, supporting Orange County, and I am also here for my childhood friend in elementary that was trafficked, so in support of her, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Patricia Cabada, and I'm here for those that don't have anyone to advocate for them, and I strongly support this Bill.

Talia Dimato on behalf of the Tuli River Tribe, here in support thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others. Senator, as we said at the beginning, the Bill, SB 14, is the candidate for suspense. We'll take up the suspense file shortly, but I'll allow you, if you have just a short closing.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

30 seconds.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, SB 14 does not prosecute victims of human trafficking. It's a victim's rights and a victim's protections Bill. If a minor of human trafficking steps into the role of a recruiter at the manipulation and direction of her trafficker or his trafficker, current law provides tools and legal assessments to recognize them as victimization. Again, the California, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, the ... Victims Unit, the first in the nation, has prosecuted over 850 cases and only one victim has been charged.

And those charges were dropped. Again checking with Orange County. It's similar. Although the Bill is a candidate for suspense, I urge you to cast an aye vote today for SB 14 so that we can move this to the Assembly Floor. The sooner this Bill is signed, the sooner that we can ensure that children in California are protected by predators. Human trafficking survivors has come here and testified on this piece of legislation and a previous legislation for over three years and to not understand why we can't get this Bill to the governor's desk is very difficult to explain to them.

Senator, again, I gave you just a courtesy for a close.

Authors, sir, with all due respect, nine of them committee. We'd respectfully ask for an aye vote I appreciate it. And move this Bill to this Assembly Floor.

Thank you. The appreciate you being here again and again, this was an opportunity to give you a courtesy to present your Bill, even though we alerted you to the fact that it would be on suspense. And so we thank you for the witnesses who've been here to present we do appreciate the difficulty of the circumstances that you're here, but we applaud your courage and the fact that this process has this part of it to it.

And so we'll just have to allow it to move through the process as we do our work as an Appropriations Committee. So thank you for being here.

Thank you chair briefly. Thank you, Senator Grove, for bringing this important measure forward, and I am proud to be a co author. This measure is greatly needed, as you've well stated. Just to remind people, California ranks as the number one state in the country for human trafficking cases, with over more than 1300 identified in 2021. Additionally, the state is ranked number one in the country with the number of victims. We need SB 14 to become law to protect our children. These rankings are unacceptable and disgusting, frankly, to a civilized society. If I have the opportunity to vote on this Bill leaving the suspense file, I plan to vote. I thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. As a proud co author of SB 14 and as the mother of a ten year old child, it is both terrifying and unacceptable that we are not able to vote on this straightforward Bill. Currently in the state of California, trafficking a minor for sex is not considered a serious felony. Robbing a bank, committing arson, these are considered serious felonies that would give an enhanced penalty under California's three strikes laws. SB 14 makes it clear that sex trafficking of a minor would be considered a serious felony and eligible for enhanced criminal penalty. Thank you.

Thank you. And we do have, as I see at least a number of Members here that we can look to establish a quorum.

Question for the chair. Is it every Bill that costs 150,000 or more automatically in most cases goes to suspense and this is a very normal process for every piece of legislation. It's not a policy committee, it's a fiscal committee. Is that right?

That is correct. Follow the role to establish a quorum.

Holden. Present. Dahle. Bryan. Calderon. Carrillo, Dixon, Fong. Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin. Sanchez, Soria, Weber, Wilson.

Quorum is established. We will now move to the items that are before us for presentation. The first Member to present is Senator Smallwood. Cuevas. This is SB Seven Four Nine, and this has a due pass recommendation. Okay.

Is it good?

Okay, here we go. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee Members. I am pleased to present SB Seven Four Nine, which will allow counties to use Proposition 40 Seven's, original, more streamlined process for qualified individuals to file petitions to seek records or reclassification or resentencing that lapsed in November of last year. And this Bill seeks to ensure that individuals are able to access this process.

The costs of this Bill are not only minor and absorbable, but would additionally most likely provide a cost savings to the General Fund and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. With me today is Ed Little, representing our sponsors, Californians for Safety and justice, who can address any technical questions you may have.

Thank you. We will turn to your witness if we need to. So we'll turn to the public. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or opposition to SB Seven Four Nine? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the committee. Is there a motion? It's been moved. Is it second. Well, let me allow you a chance to close if you like.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. This is out on a B-roll call with Soria. Not voting. Thank you. Let's see. Wahab. Senator Wahab.

So you have two bills. SB 403 is what you're presenting first and then followed by SB 463?

Definitely. Thank you, Chair and Members of the public. The goal of this Bill is to ban the kinds of caste discrimination that exist on every single continent in this world. Caste systems are a social hierarchy that limit human potential, crush spirits, and cause intergenerational trauma spanning centuries. People suffer in silence, forever trapped in this bondage. Caste discrimination poses a threat to California industries, from agriculture to healthcare and technology.

And the overwhelming response from people across the state in support and opposition of the Bill has exposed a hidden discrimination. Caste discrimination manifests as housing discrimination, unfair hiring practices, human trafficking, workplace bullying, harassment, gender based violence, and sexual abuse. There simply is no place for this type of discrimination. SB 403 is a simple Bill that does not harm or target any community nor religion.

It clarifies that caste discrimination will not be tolerated in California under our Fair Employment and Housing Opportunity Act, the Unrust Civil Rights Act, and the Education Code. It defines how caste systems may manifest and follows the Civil Rights Department's authority for enforcement of violations. The appropriations analysis specifically states that the fiscal impact of the Bill would be minor, if any.

Additionally, the amendments made in Assembly Judiciary potentially minimize the range of legal challenges that could arise, reducing the potential scope of litigation against this Bill and leading to a more expedited path to justice for individuals claiming caste discrimination. Caste is a civil, racial, gender, workers, women's and human rights issue, which is why the coalition of supporters across the sectors include the Labor Federation, ACLU, NAACP, the MeToo Movement, Indus for Human Rights and so many others, including the coalition of Sikh communities across California.

Indu community Members, Sikh Members, Muslim community Members, Christian, Jewish, Jane and many other interfaith communities. Support SB 43. The Bill never did and was never intended to single out any particular group. And the data is available and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have a witness?

We do. But just for an effort of time, if all of you guys who support the Bill just stand up.

Okay? Thank you. I thought you might have had a technical witness.

Samantha Gordon, the Chief Programs Officer of Tech Equity Collaborative and Thenmozhi Soundararajan, Executive Director of Equality Labs.

Okay. If they're here to present unless you don't need them to present, it's their choice. We have you down as a witness, so you have two minutes. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Holden and honorable Members of the Appropriations Committee, for this opportunity to speak in strong support of SB 403. As the Senator said. My name is Samantha Gordon. I'm the chief Programs officer at Tech Equity Collaborative. We work on addressing inequities within the tech industry, and are proud co sponsors of this Bill. Multiple national publications from the Washington Post, Slate, Wired have all written about caste discrimination within the tech industry.

The caste system, which is a social hierarchy that determines the opportunities you have in the workplace and the proximity to violence and social exclusion you may face, is a looming presence in Silicon Valley. Workers are reporting experiencing casteous slurs, discriminatory hiring and firing, sexual harassment and aggressive searches for evidence of their caste. The consequences of being, quote unquote found out as one caste or another can lead to career immobility, harassment in the workplace, exclusion from opportunity or preferential treatment if you're considered from the right caste.

California should be a place where all people can be free from discrimination. SB 403 is vital in providing protection from caste discrimination. Many legal experts agree caste is already functionally protected under other protected characteristics such as race, religion, national origin and ancestry. As caste is inextricably intertwined with and is based on the intersection of other protected identities. This Bill is declarative of existing law and therefore has minor, if any, fiscal impacts for our state.

But because of the grave discrimination caste oppressed Californians face, these existing protections must be made very clear in order to ensure caste oppressed people feel comfortable coming forward when they're experiencing discrimination. Enumerating these protections into our laws helps impacted people feel confident that they have rights and protections to nondiscrimination based on their caste. It also helps ensure that employers and HR professionals will train on these issues and help prevent workplace harms that stem from caste bias and discrimination.

Can you bring your statement to a close?

Thank you. This legislation has received bipartisan and overwhelming support in the Senate and passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee with a nine to zero vote. We respectfully request your aye vote on this critical antidiscrimination policy. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next witness.

Thank you, Chair Holden and honorable Members of this Committee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of SB 403. I am a caste oppressed Californian and a proud Member of the Californians for Caste Equity Coalition. All my life I have experienced caste. I was bullied in school, have faced threats of deep violence and even fled to a safe house because bigots threatened me and my family for speaking out about this issue.

But my story is just one of thousands of testimonies shared with legislatures on this urgent issue. That is why my colleagues and I are coming out of the closet to speak on this issue because we can no longer allow the exclusion and discrimination of our people be invisible in the eyes of the legal system. In our research, we found that one in four of us face physical and verbal assault, one in three educational discrimination and two out of three workplace discrimination.

And today, this room is filled with constituents from across the state from San Diego to Bakersfield, from Fresno to Sacramento, from Yuba City to the Bay Area and even Shasta County. We come here as workers from across many industries. We are farmers, truck drivers, nurses, restaurant workers, small business owners, doctors and techies, each with our own story of heartbreak, each with a joint determination to end this discrimination once and for all.

We are also flanked by civil rights organizations like the ACLU, the American Bar Association of America, the South Asian Bar Association of America, the Asian Legal Caucus, the NAACP and the California Employment Lawyers Association as well as the MeToo movement and thousands more. Given the grave discrimination, caste equity is needed and widely supported across both parties. And making it explicit ensures clarity in enforcement, training and cases that can arise.

Can you bring your comments to a close?

There is no price to civil rights. We need to be free. And we ask for the committee to stand with us and to make history across the state and across the nation. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, both of you. And we now have two witnesses who have indicated to the Appropriations Committee that they would like to testify in opposition. Sameer Kalra. Is she present? No. Ramya. Ramkan Krishana. Okay, we'll just move to public comment. For those who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the Bill, you have the opportunity to do so. Just name organization and position on the Bill. Seeing none, we'll bring it back I'm sorry. Okay.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions? Is there a motion? We need a motion. Okay. Pellerin. We thank you for your presentation of the Bill. We thank you for your efficiency and allowing us to move through the important topic. We turn to you now. If you have any closing comments.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The Bill is out. Do pass it's out with a let's see, the Bill is out. Republicans not voting. With Dahle voting no and Sanchez voting aye, I'll now move to 463.

I will say that's the fastest for that particular Bill. So thank you guys. So for 463 again, I just want to thank you all for being here. I'm here to present SB 463, which removes the presumption in child welfare laws that a parent or guardian's lack of participation or progress in a court ordered treatment program automatically means that returning the child to the home is unsafe.

There are many reasons unrelated to fitness or child safety that a parent or guardian might not be able to fully participate in a treatment program. That's from the lack of opportunities to whether it's to take time off work, to the treatment programs being available in their area, the long wait list, illness and the inability to afford the program, child welfare research and recent legislative trends suggest current risks to a child should always be the analysis, not a parent's, level of compliance.

Many marginalized groups have fear and generational trauma around the child welfare system, making them less likely to be compliant or cooperative. SB 463 eliminates a requirement for the courts to begin with the assumption that the parent is unfit solely because of lack of participation or progress in a treatment. It strengthens judicial discretion. Again, a judge is able to base it on an individual basis for that particular case and those individuals involved in that particular case to determine when deciding family reunifications are appropriate.

The court may continue to factor in the parents lack of participation as part of its overall fitness. And finally, the Bill creates no new mandates or duties, and, as the Committee analysis concludes, adds no significant cost to the state. Testifying today is Josh Tosney, a legislative representative for Santa Clara County and one of the bill's sponsors.

Thank you to Senator Wahab and to the chair and to the Committee. I work on legislation out of Santa Clara County Council's Office, and our county is pleased to co sponsor this Bill along with Los Angeles dependency lawyers. Suffice it to say, we appreciate the Committee's analysis and agree that the Bill has no significant state costs. It simply makes a modest change to an existing judicial process to enhance the court's discretion. And as the Senator mentioned, it does not add new duties or requirements. SB 463 has a broad range of support, no opposition, and has received bipartisan votes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

We'll turn to the public. Is there anyone here would like to comment either in favor or in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. This enjoys a due pass. Second it. Senator, would you like to like to close?

I really appreciate it. I just want to say, as a former foster youth, I think that parental reunification is very important to ensure stability for that child. The longer they're in the system, the harder it is for them to reunify. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

The Bill is out on a B-roll call with Dixon voting aye. Thank you. Let's see. Next on our list, Senator Glazer.

Move the Bill.

It's been moved. And seconded.

Me and Mathis linking up for you.

It's not working? I haven't pushed anything. All right. SB 33 ensures that small businesses continue to benefit from a truth in lending disclosure that we enacted five years ago. This removes the sunset. I think it's put in place for the reasons that the Committee is aware, and I will not summarize it. I have one witness to support the Bill today. Let me mention before she speaks that we are going to take amendments on the floor that resolve opposition from the Secured Finance Network, which you've heard from. Acknowledge that and introduce our witness, Heidi Pickman, the California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity.

Thank you.

I was just saying welcome.

Thank you, chair Holden, vice Chair Dahle and Members of the committee. Cameo is a statewide network of business service providers and a very strong supporter of SB 33. Not passing this Bill will cost California more than passing the Bill, and will cost small businesses money and potentially their businesses.

Axion Opportunity Fund, a Cameo Member micro lender studied loans from 104 business clients and only was able to refinance 59 of them into longer term loans with monthly payments that fell over by 60% and decreased APRs from 94% to 10%. Most businesses that were too far in debt to be refinanced closed their doors. For example, Hispanic borrowers in their sample had average monthly payments of more than 400% of take home pay.

If SB 33 fails, the state will incur new costs from having to rewrite the SB 1235 rules. It will also lose up to 12 billion in annual economic benefits to California's small businesses and employees. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll turn to the public. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or opposition?

Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the Secured Finance Network. As the Senator indicated, he's going to take some amendments which remove my client's opposition. We appreciate him doing that and appreciate the opportunity to speak today. We will be, once the amendments are taken, neutral on the Bill. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Bring it back to the committee. Are there questions of the author? Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Definitely ask for your aye vote today. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. It's out on an A roll call. Senator Menjivar.

Good morning.

Good morning.

It's the first time I've had to present to what seems like half of the Senate here.

It's a lot big committee.

Okay. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you to the staff for working on this very important Bill. For me. SB 372, I'm proud to say, is a bipartisan Bill. And it would work to protect the privacy, ensure the safety of transgender and nonbinary individuals as they're working in mental health; these are individuals that we keep calling for in every single corner of California, in our hospitals, on the streets.

We're turning to them as if we want them, like seven Elevens on every single corner, because we know the crisis is real in every single issue that we're talking about addressing here in the state of California. This Bill will also protect individuals under the Secretary of State's Safe at Home program by eliminating the use of previous names at the Department of Consumer Affairs for licensed professionals who have changed their legal names.

After working with DCA, the Bill was amended to explicitly clarify that DCA's license Certification system will identify if a licensee has an enforcement action affiliated with the former name. Going through all the policy committees, I'm thankful for some of you here that actually heard this in policy committee, working with everyone to ensure that we were closing that gap, providing protections for consumers, but also providing protections for the professional.

The details of any enforcement record will be also made available upon request, in compliance with the Public Records Act. By only displaying a DCA's licensee's current legal name, the state can protect, like I mentioned, both the privacy and safety of its licensed professionals. It strikes that balance between consumer protection and integral licensing privacy. As you saw and noted, and it was noted in the analysis, the DCA anticipates only minor in absorbable costs.

I respectfully ask your aye vote today, as this is very similar to another Bill that is on the agenda today that, again, will only have minor costs. With me today, Mr. President. I mean, Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn over to two individuals that are here to testify.

Very good. Please, you have two minutes.

Good morning, Chairman and Members of the committee. I'm Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association, and we are one of the few proud co sponsors of SB 372. This Bill is co sponsored by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, the State Association of Psychiatrists, the California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies, the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California, the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, and the California Association for Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors.

When we drafted this Bill in response to feedback from our Members and their concerns about transgender individuals being outed on the licensing websites on the Department of Consumer Affairs. And so this Bill would modernize the websites under DCA to ensure the privacy of individuals that have transitioned by eliminating the use of their dead name, which refers to their name assigned at birth. The version before you reflects amendments discussed with the Department of Consumer Affairs and the policy committees.

We appreciate efforts to help us address concerns raised by various boards under DCA's jurisdiction. We believe this version balances the privacy of licensed individuals and consumer protections at a reasonable and absorbable cost for the state. The ability to file complaints and receive information regarding completed disciplinary action remains intact for consumers. And we think the approaches adopted in this Bill are based on what the California State Bar currently has in effect. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Morning, Chair Holden and Members of the committee. My name is John Drebinger, senior advocate with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, also a proud co sponsor of the Bill. Many of our Members employ providers who have transitioned and would be protected by this Bill. And today I respectfully request your support for SB 372. The recent and heartbreaking killing of O'Shea Sibley is a stark reminder that many queer individuals face violence simply for being true to themselves and their identities.

By protecting their identities while preserving vital consumer protections, this Bill would provide a simple fix with a major impact. For trans providers who wish to live a normal life without the looming fear of being singled out and targeted, SB 372 could very well be life saving. We firmly believe that SB 372 is a necessary investment for the well being and privacy of those providers and licensees who tirelessly care for some of California's most vulnerable. Thank you for your time and for considering this important measure.

Thank you for both of your presentations. Department of Finance.

Good morning. Michele Perrault with Department of Finance. We would concur with the cost assessment of minor and absorbable from the Department of Consumer Affairs and have a neutral position on the Bill.

Very good, thank you. We'll turn to the public. Is there anyone that would like to speak in support or opposition name, organization, and position?

Good morning. Sumaya Nahar with the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. We're also one of the proud co sponsors of the Bill in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. Senator, would you like to close?

Appreciate it, Mr. Chair, with respect to ask for an aye vote.

Okay. The Bill is out on a B-roll call. Thank you. Dr. Egman. Is she here? Good morning.

Nice to see everybody this morning. I am here to present SB 355. Still. I'm here to present SB 355. And this is an update to a Bill I did in 2015 which provided a billion dollar out of the greenhouse gas auction money to provide solar for Low income housing, multifamily rooftops, so the tenant gets the actual benefit and not somebody else. As we all know, the solar revolution oftentimes leaves poor people behind because they don't have access to putting it on their roof.

This is for renters, especially in areas like the Valley where the Assembly Member and I live, and the Assembly Members and I live. It gets blazing hot. And so this provides and people need to use their power all the time. It's not an option if you can just leave your windows open or not especially combined with our air quality. So this Bill goes far in addressing many of those issues.

It went into effect saying it had to be multifamily rooftop solar, and it took a couple of years to get online. This just expands it to say it can be used for other non attached buildings, but are still by renters, and the benefits have to go directly to the renters. This is just an extension. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I have Rocky here to be very brief.

Absolutely. Good morning. Actually to the chair of the committee, the committee staff. My name is Rocky Fernandez. I'm with the center for Sustainable Energy. We're in strong support of SB 355. We're part of the program Administration team for the program. And we have plenty of data on what's working and what barriers are still holding this program back. That's why we're here to support SB 355.

Our data shows that under current law, those who started and then withdrew their applications because they did not meet the eligibility currently under the law shows that many of these projects could come back into the program if we make these changes. And we thank the Senator for this Bill and urgent aye vote.

It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. Department of Finance?

No file.

Okay, we'll turn to the public. Is there anyone that like to speak in favor or opposition? Seeing none. This enjoys a due pass. Is there a motion? Oh, we've got a motion. Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Just the money's already there. Let's get it to the people. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. It's out on an A-roll call with Dahle voting no, and Sanchez not voting.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Cortese, you're presenting 636 that also enjoys a do pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 636 is an accountability measure. It would require utilization review to be done by doctors licensed in California. This would only apply to private workers' comp cases. The Bill would go into effect January 1, 2025. Under current law, doctors doing utilization review, denials and modifications for workers comp cases do not have to be licensed in California. Therefore, if a reviewer not licensed in California makes a utilization review decision that results in harm to a patient, that doctor is not accountable to the California Medical Board. This lack of accountability for malpractice is a danger to patients.

SB 636 begins the process of guaranteeing injured California workers a fair process. The bill's costs have been described as negligible. I want to thank the committee for working with my staff to clarify the intent of SB 636. Though we can't cross the resulting amendments in this committee, I'm committed to taking amendments on the Assembly Floor that my staff did discuss with your offices.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

We've worked out a version of our Bill that's as simple and clear as possible in accomplishing our goal requiring utilization reviewers to be licensed in California private employee situations. Here with us today is Steve Cattolica, one of our sponsors, the California Neurological Society. If there are any questions of him on the Bill, he's available to answer those and thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

No file.

Thank you, Members of the public that would like to comment in support or opposition, name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Morning, Mr. Chair. George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, in support as co-sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you. See no others, we'll bring it back to the committee. Is there a motion? Pellerin moved. Fong second. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The bill's out on a b roll call. Mathis not voting. Senator Weiner. Presenting SB 90, has a do pass.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, colleagues. SB 90 will cap the monthly copay for insulin at $35 a month for tier One and tier two plans. It aligns California law with what Congress and the President recently did with respect to Medicare so that people do not have to choose between taking insulin and buying food or some of the other horrible choices people living with diabetes have to make.

We've worked intensively with both the departments and others to try to really focus the Bill and not to have unintended consequences. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today is Gonzalez On behalf of our sponsor, the American Diabetes Association. If there are any questions thank you.

Thank you. Moved by Dr. Weber. Second by, I believe, Pellerin. No, Soria. We'll turn to the public. Is there well, first, Department of Finance?

No file.

Thank you. Turn to the public. Support, opposition, seeing none. Senator Weiner...Bill is out on an A-roll call. Congratulations. Senator Allen, you're presenting SB 389 and SB 681. And I believe you're also presenting for Senator Newman on a couple of bills. Yes. Okay.

In fact, when I saw my colleague here, I thought, Weiner Bill, I'll be here for a while. But that was actually wonderfully efficient. So, yes, I'm going to present two bills of my own, SB 389, 681. And then with your indulgence, I'll present Senator Newman's, SB 386 and 568. Please proceed. I'll get started with 389. So, this is a Bill that will provide the state Water Resources Control Board with the ability to verify the existence and scope of claims to senior water rights.

And we've worked for a long time on this Bill, and I'm really pleased to say that we've been able to resolve the concerns of the opposition coalition. I want to thank them for their continued effort in getting this important policy right. As the state faces increased drought and water shortages, it's become increasingly more challenging for the board to do the job that we tasked them to do. Given their need to account for diversions they lack sufficient information about.

So by providing the board with the ability to ask for proof of these rights and relevant information, the board's then going to be able to make more informed decisions which will benefit all holders in the system, regardless of their kind of right. This is ultimately about ensuring that the system operates in the way that it's supposed to before we run out of time to fix it.

And I have with me here today Matt Baker, who's policy Director of the Planning Conservation League, to help answer any questions you may have.

Okay. Good morning, chair and committee Members. Matthew Baker, policy Director for Planning and Conservation League, sponsor of the Bill. We urge your support. I'll leave it at that unless there are questions.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

Yes. Michele Perrault, Department of Finance. We are opposed to the Bill at this moment, although we would note there are direct costs associated with the Bill are cited as minor absorbable. We would note that the broad use of the authority could result in future General Fund costs. Riparian and pre 1914 water right holders do not pay fees into the Water Rights Fund to support the Water Board for its oversight.

Therefore, any future waterboard workload related to these types of claimants that is not absorbable within the existing resources would be borne by the General Fund. If the future cost pressures build for the state to review all these rights, there could be significant state costs and potential for litigation. We would also note that there is a potential state reimbursable mandate.

Turn to the public. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor or opposed to the Bill?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members, Karen Lang, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District in oppose unless further amended, we were part of the coalition, and I want to say thank you to Senator Allen and his staff for being so lovely. I know that was a lot of work to get where you are. The district is a public agency that provides wholesale drinking water to three communities in San Joaquin.

The language under discussion, there's a couple wording changes we would urge the sponsors to be comfortable with. It's a public agency that will have to expend public resources to defend their water right if it comes to it with the board. And for that reason, they're just hoping for a further refinement on the language. But I know you've done a ton of work and I want to say thank you and I apologize that we're not there yet. Urge more changes to the Bill and then we can go neutral. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is this for additional support of the Bill? So sorry. Hi, I'm Suzanne Hume. Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. See no one else that would like to speak in support or opposition. We'll turn back to the committee. Is there any comments? Moved by Dr. Weber, second by Hart. Senator, would you like to close?

There's certainly been a lot of conversations on this Bill so far and we're certainly looking forward to further conversations, but certainly ask you to give us the opportunity to continue to hone this and get to a place where we can really let the waterboard do the work that we entrust it with.

We appreciate your work. We appreciate your good work. This Bill is out on a B-roll call, Soria not voting. Thank you. Okay, so 681.

Yeah, 681. This is about the Political Reform act.

So some of you may know that under current rules, bills that amend the Political Reform Act have to be available for public review in their final form. Final form. No commas off, for twelve days before being passed by the Legislature. So we've run into some problems. Some PRA reforms have been impeded by timing conflicts because of end of session legislative deadlines and their twelve day final form requirement.

So this will facilitate updates to the act by shortening the final form requirement to eight days, while retaining the existing twelve days for forgotten amends. This change will maintain a public review period that's longer than required of any other legislation, while easing the ability to make critical amendments to the PRA bills on the floor. I know the FPPC estimates very minor costs. They're supporting the Bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

No file.

Anyone from the public that would like to comment on the Bill? Seeing none, is there a motion from the committee on SB 681? Moved by Brian, second by Papan? The Bill is out on a b roll call.

Great, thank you. Well, next with your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I'll go to Senator Newman's bills. The first one is an elections Bill, SB 386, and he's at the California Transportation Commission as the Senate's ex-official representative. I think he's down in San Diego, so he wasn't able to be here in town today.

But this Bill makes three minor changes to our elections codes. First of all, it deletes an obsolete reference to presidential election selection. It extends the signature verification period for state and local initiative, referendum and recall petitions. And it would require elections officials to post specified election information on their websites. It will allow county elections officials to more efficiently manage their time and resources. And I ask for an aye vote.

It's been moved by Brian. Is there a second 2nd? By Hart? Is there Department of Finance? Turn to the public, seeing no one from the public that would like to speak, we will bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions from the committee. Senator, the Bill is out on a b roll call. Okay, great.

And then finally, there's a Bill relating to e-waste. So this Bill will require an individual this is SB 568.

It will require an individual or an entity in California to attempt to locate a licensed in state e-waste recycling facility prior to exporting that waste abroad. So something like less than 20% of our e-waste is properly recycled. The remaining 80% is just being recycled improperly or dumped into landfills. Oftentimes it's toxic. And of course, much of the improperly recycled e waste ends up in developing countries where it's processed by hand. It exposes workers to hazardous substances such as mercury, lead and cadmium.

California's e-waste recycling market, which is already among the largest in the world, is projected to grow by at least 15% by 2027. And we do have a unique opportunity to become a global leader in the market for safely reclaiming rare and valuable minerals that are contained in the e-waste. So this Bill will yield economic benefits for the state. It will reduce the likelihood that toxic e-waste materials and find their way into locations abroad with weaker environmental standards. And I want to personally thank Senator Newman for his work on this and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

No file.

Anyone from the public like to speak?

Suzanne Hume. Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we'll bring it back to the committee. Is there a motion moved by Hart, second by Papan. This Bill is out on an A-roll call with Dahle voting no and Sanchez not voting. Thank you very much, Members. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, we have one final Bill to hear today, and that's SB 385 by Atkins. It's been moved by Bryan, second by Soria.

Good morning, Chair. On behalf of Senate Pro Tempore Atkins, I am proud to present SB 385. As other states continue to erode access to abortion, it is clear that we need to remain steadfast and do everything we can to increase the number of trained professionals available in California and for those who come needing reproductive health care.

To that end, SB 385 would improve reproductive care training opportunities for physician assistance and enable them to provide first trimester abortions within the scope of their clinical practice education and training. There are no costs to the Physician Assistant Board associated with this Bill. And SB 385 is complementary to follow prior laws that allow advanced practice clinicians to perform abortion and would further strengthen and expand access to reproductive care here in California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And here to testify is Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologist.

Thank you, Ryan Spencer. On behalf of the American College of OBGYN's district Nine. ACOC has long supported the assistance of trained advanced practice clinicians like Pas to perform and or to assist physicians in important services related to reproductive health care, and that includes first trimester abortions within their scope. SB 8385 ensures PAs are sufficiently and adequately trained to perform first trimester abortions safely and effectively.

This Bill, as the Assemblywoman said, will appropriately align their training with those of nurse practitioners and nurse midwives as approved last year and nothing more. A simple, yet very important Bill, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

Yes. We would concur that the Physician's Assistant Board does indicate there's no fiscal impact and we are neutral on the Bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment seeing none. This is a motion, it's been seconded, and would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, the Bill is out on a B-roll call.

SB 55 Umberg SB 68 McGuire SB 82 Siarto SB 223 Menjivar SB 235 Umberg SB 293 grove SB 373 Menjivar SB three seven four Ashby SB four, four nine Bradford SB 475 Min, SB 505 Rubio, SB 515 Stern, SB 579 Umberg, SB 595 Roth, SB 599 Cabiero, SB 609 Cabiero, SB 617 Newman, SB 622 Allen, SB 668 Dodd,

SB 669 Cortesi, SB 706 Cabiero, SB 743 Nguyen, SB 775 Padilla, SB 793 Glazer SB 808 Dodd, SB 812 Roth, SB 819 Eggman, SB 833 Maguire, SB 883 Committee on Public Safety, SB 887 Committee on Business Professions and Economic Development.

Thank you. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Okay, vice Chair and seconded by Fong, please call the Role on the consent calendar.

Holden aye. Dahle aye. Brian aye. Calderon aye. Cabrillo aye. Dixon aye. Fong aye. Hart aye. Lowenthal aye. Mathis aye. Papan aye. Pellerin aye. Sanchez aye. Soria aye. Weber aye. Wilson aye.

Consent calendar is approved. I will now take up the Suspense calendar. Madam Secretary, please read the suspense calendar.

Okay. SB 2 Portentino, SB 10 Cortese, SB 14 Grove, SB 18 Maguire, SB 19 Siarto, SB 28 Glazer, SB 29 Glazer, SB 46 Roth, SB 50 Bradford, SB 54 Skinner, SB 58 Weiner, SB 61 Dodd, SB 67 Siarto, SB 69 Cortese, SB 70 Weiner, SB 71 Umberg, SB 81 Skinner, SB 94 Cortese, SB 228 Roth, SB 234 Portentino, SB 240 Ochoa Bogh, SB 241 Min, SB 244 Eggman, SB 248 Newman, SB 253 Wiener.

SB 258 Roth, SB 261 Stern, SB 263 Dodd, SB 267 Eggman, SB 271 Dodd, SB 272 Laird, SB 273 Wiener, SB 281 Maguire, SB 282 Eggman, SB 301 Portentino, SB 303 Allen, SB 306 Caballero, SB 311 Eggman, SB 314 Ashby, SB 318 Ochoa Bogh, SB 319 Maguire, SB. 321 Ashby, SB 327 Laird, SB 331 Rubio.

SB 337 Min, SB 339 Wiener, SB 343 Skinner, SB 344 Rubio, SB, 350 Ashby, SB 353 Dodd, SB 354 Ochoa Bogh, SB 357 Portentino, SB 362 Becker, SB 367 Seyarto, SB 368 Portentino, SB 369 Nguyen, SB 377 Skinner, SB 381 Min, SB 387 Dodd. SB 390 Limon, SB 391 Blakespear, SB 401 Limon.

SB 407 Wiener, SB 409 Newman, SB 414 Allen, SB 416 Laird, SB 418 Padilla, SB 422 Portentino, SB 425 Newman, SB 430 Dodd, SB 433 Cortesi, SB 435 Gonzalez, SB 440 Skinner, SB 445 Portantino, SB 447 Atkins, SB 452 Blakespear, SB 456 Menjivar, SB 482 Blakespear, SB 484 Newman, SB 491 Dorazo, SB 496 Limon.

SB 499 Menjivar, SB 506 Laird, SB 414 Archuleta, SB 519 Atkins, SB 521 Smallwood-Cuevas, SB 525 Durazo, SB 538 Portentino. Just want to clarify that. SB 514 was Archuleta, SB 539 Stern, SB 540 Laird, SB 548 Neelo, SB 553 Cortese, SB 555 Wahab, SB 557 Limon, SB 567 Durazo, SB 572 Stern, SB 589 Alvarado Gill, SB 596 Portentino.

SB 601 Maguire, SB 605 Padilla, SB 607 Alvarado Gill, SB 613 Seyarto, SB 616 Gonzalez, SB 623 Laird, SB 628 Cortado, SB 631 Cortese, SB 646 Cortese, SB 648 Dahle, SB 657 Caballero, SB 659 Ashby. Alvarado Gill correction, it's SB 606 Alvarado Gill, SB 665 Allen.

SB 666 Min, SB 671 Portentino, SB 675 Limon, SB 680 Skinner, SB 683 Glazer, SB 685 Caballero, SB 688 Padilla, SP 690 Rubio, SB 716 Alvarado Gill, SB 751 Padilla, SB 753 Caballero, SB 773 Glazer, SB 777 Allen, SB 779 Stern, SB 781 Stern, SB 791 Maguire, SB 803 Becker.

SB 813 Roth, SB 814 Roth, SB 816 Roth, SB 831 Caballero, SB 857 Laird, SB 868 Wilk, SB 872 Min.

Thank you. The Suspense file is deemed approved. We'll now move to public comment. We'd like to open up the floor to the public comment on bills not presented to the committee today. And then, of course, please be sure to limit your comments to your name, organization, if any, and your position on the Bill.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members, if you'll indulge me. Two measures. Chris McKaley on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce in support of Senate Bill 430 Dodd regarding a tight house exemption.

The second Bill, on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management and the LA area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition to SB 616 Gonzalez related to paid sick leave. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, an opposition, strong opposition to SB 567 by Senator Durazo for the reasons stated in our letter, which reflect the concerns raised in Assembly Judiciary, both in the analysis and from the Dais, respectfully request your no vote at the appropriate time. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Alton King. I'm here today representing ARC, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, who are proud supporters and co sponsors of Senate Bill 94. We're fully supportive of it, and we ask that you may support it. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Andrea Cao with the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition to SB 525 Durazo thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the committee. Rony Berdugo here on behalf of the California Hospital Association, the association of California Healthcare Districts and a broad coalition of opposition stakeholders to SB 525 by Senator Durazo. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Connie Delgado on behalf of the 33 District and municipal hospitals of the District Hospital Leadership Forum in opposition to SB 525 Durazo thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, here to speak on behalf of the co sponsors for SB 684 by Senator Caballero, California YIMBY, California Community Builders List, San Diego, and the Central Valley Urban Institute, all in strong support of SB 684 Senator Caballero, thank you so much.

Good morning. John Shaban for California Nurses in opposed unless amend SB 525. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, in support of SB 496 Limon, and in support of SB 70 Weiner, which they are the sponsors of,

And also on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association, in opposition to SB 525 Durazo.

Good morning. Yvonne Choong with the California Association of Health Facilities, representing over 900 skilled nursing facilities in opposition to SB 525 Durazo. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Members, Tim Madden, representing the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, the California Rheumatology Alliance, the California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology are all in opposition to SB 525,

And also representing the Grossmont Healthcare District, who has an opposed, unless amended, position to SB 525. Thank you.

Good morning. Sarah Nocito, on behalf of the Latinx Physicians of California and the United Chamber Advocacy Network, both in opposition of SB 525. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division, here in support of SB 506 Laird, SB 553 Cortese, and proud co sponsor of SB 616 Gonzalez, thank you.

Good morning, chair Members Stanicia Boatner, on the behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support of SB 19 Seyarto, in support of SB 240 Ochoa Bogh,

in opposition to SB 525 Senator Durazo in opposition to SB 623 by Senator... Thank you.

Good morning, chair and committee Members, Mar Velez with the Latino Coalition for Healthy California and on behalf of over 60 organizations across the state. In support of SB 435, the Latinx and Indigenous Disparities Reduction Act. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Megan Loper, on behalf of the United Hospital Association, in opposition to SB 525.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Dennis Cuevas Romero, on behalf of California Health Plus Advocates, advocacy affiliate for the California Primary Care Association, in opposition to SB 525 Durazo and in opposed unless amended position to SB 779 Stern thank you.

Good morning. Troy Polk, on behalf of the California Board of Psychology, here in support of SB 816 and SB 887. Thank you.

Cosette Short on behalf of the alliance of Catholic Healthcare...representing California's Community Safety Net Hospitals, Rady Children's Hospital, and Loma Linda University Health in opposition to SB 525.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're in support of Senate Bill 50 Bradford, in support of Senate Bill 58 Wiener, in support of Senate Bill 271 Dodd, in support of SB 311 Eggman, in support of SB 435 Gonzalez, sponsors of SB 445 Portentino, in support of SB 456 Menjivar, in support of Senate Bill 519 Atkins, in support of SB 557 Limon, and in support of Senate Bill 567 Durazo. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, Autumn Ogden Smith with the American cancer society cancer action network. Here's a proud co sponsor for both SB 344 Rubio, and for SB 496 Limon. Thank you.

Talia Dimato, on behalf of several clients. So I apologize. I am here in support on behalf of Dry Creek Rancheria and the Tuli River Tribe for SB 18 Maguire, on SB 51, Bradford I am here on behalf of Steezy and California Normal, both in support. SB 302 Stern, also California Normal, in support. SB 540 Laird, also California Normal, in support. And on SB 833 Maguire...in support.

Erin Levi on behalf of the California Assisted Living Association and Universal Health Services. In opposition to SB 525. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Peter Kellison, on behalf of the California Association for Health Services At Home, in opposition to SB 525.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Julie Holburn, single mom from Newport Beach and protective parent of William and Emmy Holburn. I'm here in support of SB 331 and 690. I'm also a victim of long standing abuse. I hope and pray that you are voting yes on both of those. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Roxanne Gould, on behalf of six beds. It's an association of small six beds or fewer residential care facilities for the elderly and developmentally disabled, in opposition to SB 525 Durazo.

Good morning, Ryan Snow, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, in support of SB 616 and SB 506. Thank you.

Good morning. Ruth McDonald, on behalf of Sacramento Act area congregations together in support of SB 253, SB 261, SB 301, SB 306, and SB 567. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Members. Marlon Lara, on behalf of Cal Pace, the statewide association of programs of all inclusive care for the elderly in San Ysidro Health, in respectful opposition to SB 525 Durazo. Thank you.

Cheyenne Kenny, on behalf of the Alameda County Republican Party, I am opposing SB 407. Thank you.

Elizabeth Kenny from Oakland, California. I oppose SB 407.

Thank you. Mrs. G, in support of SB 14. And I oppose SB 407. Thank you.

Good morning. Tara Gonzalez, and I would like your support on SB 14, and I would like you to oppose SB 407.

Hello, Veronica, mom of five, part of Mom Army organization. I support SB 14. Opposed SB 407 Thank you.

Hi. Suzanne Hume cleanearthforkids.org, in strong support of Menjivar 499 along with Safe, healthy playing Fields, nontoxic Communities, the Field Fund, Angelinos for Green Schools, California Nurses for Environmental, Health and Justice, Beyond Plastics Facts, San Diego Sequel and North County Climate Change Alliance. That was all in support of Menjivar 499. Also Clean Earth 4 Kids is supporting SB 337 Min, SB 301 Portentino and Newman, SB 538 Portentino, SB 244 Eggman, SB 303 Allen, SB 28 Limon,

SB 228 Roth, SB 344 Rubio, SB 605 Padilla, SB 688 Padilla, SB 253 Wiener, Gonzalez and Stern, SB 262 Stern, Becker, Gonzalez and Wiener, SB 306 Caballero, and SB 539. All in strong support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That looks to conclude our public comment. I see no other Members of the public coming forward. We have on the consent calendar two Members to add on, I believe. Okay, let's open up the roll call on the consent calendar. Or who are we adding? Pellerin and Wilson. They're good. Got it. Okay, so we have Pellerin and Wilson, who we need to have here to vote on the consent calendar, but all others are free to...

The work of the committee is completed for today. This meeting is adjourned.