Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

So I just want to note that we'll allow two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition on each matter. Each primary witness will have two minutes to speak. After the primary support, I will invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, and their position. I will do the same for the opposition. After we hear from support and opposition, we'll turn to comments from Committee Members.

If you wish to further expound on your position on a bill, you can submit a letter to the Committee using one of the methods described in the Senate Judiciary Committee's website. All right, so I think the first bill is Senator Cortese's bill, and I'm going to present Senator Cortese's bill. So I'm going to ask Senator Wilk if you would do the honors.

No.

Okay. I know what happens when you say that, so stop saying that.

Up first is file item number two, SB 554, from Senator Cortese. The recommendation is due pass and send to Appropriations. And with that, Mr. Chairman, whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I'm pleased to present SB 554 on behalf of Senator Cortese. It's known as the Survivors Protection act. It's sponsored by Restraining Orders without Borders. I want to thank Alison Meredith in particular for her work on this measure. SB 554 would allow survivors of domestic violence or harassment to petition for restraining order in a California court regardless of the residency status of the petitioner.

25 states allow petitioner to be a nonresident, and 33 states explicitly allow a survivor to file a petition in a perpetrator's county. This Bill would put California in the same position as other states. I have two witnesses here today, Erica Busby, speak in support, and Nazeehah Khan with Restraining Orders Without Borders. Ms. Busby, if you're here. Thank you.

And Committee rules are two primary witnesses at two minutes each. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Erica Busby, and I'm here on behalf of Restraining Orders without Borders. Almost exactly two years ago, Restraining Orders Without Borders founder Nazeehah Khan was sexually assaulted. After her assault, she was denied a restraining order from both her residence state and the state she was assaulted in.

During her court case in California, she found that statute did not detail the jurisdiction the way that other states do, and did not include non-resident survivors as explicit petitioners for restraining or protection orders. Survivors who often represent themselves, rely on statute to support them when they testify in front of a judge or in front of their perpetrator. They rely on it to understand their rights, and the statute is failing them. This bill changes that. It safeguards California's 9 million survivors and 250 million annual visitors.

It would give California the opportunity to join 14 states with the most comprehensive restraining order access laws and the 25 plus states which implement variations of this bill, including Hawaii, which passed its own version of SB 554 in 2023. California has the opportunity to reassure 46,000 people from across the state, nation and world who signed our campaigns petition that survivor safety is a basic right, but not a luxury. I've known Nazia since before she was sexually assaulted.

I've seen family and friends stand before a justice system they do not feel seen or heard by. The suffering of sexual assault survivors does not end on the bed, street or home they were assaulted in. The injustice follows them into courtrooms, where being denied access to safety and justice traumatizes them further. As a state, we have to stop reacting to sexual assault and start preventing it.

It can take a lifetime for a survivor to feel safe in their body again, but this bill gives them the right to at least feel safe in their home. I strongly encourage the Committee's passage of SB 554. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And we're available for questions.

Great, thank you. Next witness. Did he say he had two?

Ms. Khan.

Are you just here for technical questions?

Okay, great. Anybody in the room to do me-too testimony, which would be your position on the bill and support, name and organization? Seeing none. Any witnesses here in opposition? Seeing none now. Mr. Moderator, let's go to the phones. I'm kidding. I'm so glad we don't have phones anymore. That was brutal.

That was too soon.

Okay, well, not for me, it's not too soon. With that, we'll pull it back to the Committee for questions, comments, concerns. Senator Ashby, we do not have a quorum yet.

We are missing one. This is an announcement to staff and Members. If one more Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee appears, we'll have a quorum.

So, do you have a question? Okay. Senator Niello, please.

The issue of assault, domestic violence is a very sensitive one, for sure. And normally a request for a restraining order is legitimate and granted. There are cases when that is alleged and restraining order is asked as a result of just conflict between the people, particularly in divorces. And this would increase the likelihood of a restraining order being issued against a person and therefore the person being judged guilty when it is not necessarily the case because of the inconvenience of potentially having to travel and the like.

I know that testimony can be taken remotely, but that's far less than perfect in terms of testimony and a judge's ability to assess the testimony. How do you respond to that?

So my understanding of this bill is it doesn't change the criteria that a court would evaluate. It simply provides a jurisdictional jurisdiction so that, for example, a person from out of state, if someone is abusing them here in California, they can come to the county in which that person resides, ask the court in that county to make the same evaluation as they would make if they both lived in the same county, use that criteria and make a determination as to whether a restraining order should issue or not.

That's true. What if the person against whom the restraining order is potentially being imposed lives in San Diego and the person requesting the order lives in Redding?

And I'm going to turn to the expert here in just a second. I'll let the expert respond rather than me speculating as to what the jurisdictional changes would do. Go ahead.

Thank you for your question, Senator. So currently the burden is on the survivor to have to travel or to travel to the county of the defendant or where the venue laws right now say that they have to petition where the offense occurred or their prior residence. The survivor right now has the burden of having to navigate that different court system. And I hear you and you're saying that it sounds like the defendant will now have to navigate that themselves.

A lot of survivors, myself included, I'm the founder of Restraining Orders Without Borders. I'm the person that Erica was referring to with her case. I represented myself in court. I did not have an attorney. The defendant did have an attorney, and he was able to navigate that court process in a way that I wasn't able to navigate it. So what we're doing is we're having that shifting of the burden to defendants who often have these resources and these supports.

Currently, because survivors are having to travel, for example, in the example you're giving with Redding in San Diego, they would have to figure out the San Diego court system. They are not being able to access the resources that are available to them. Their support system is not there. We're amplifying their trauma. And that was the case for me as well. So we're looking to shift some of that burden. And again, as Senator Umberg was saying, we're not putting any kind of criteria on the court on why they should grant a restraining order. We're just easing the access. I hope that helps answer the question.

Well, what current law, in your opinion, puts more burden on or potentially benefits, puts more burden on the accuser and potentially benefits the accused? This change does just the opposite. And I don't know what the approach is because I haven't been involved in the discussions of this bill nor the issue, except in observing it with some people who are close to me and seeing the abuse side of it, which I'll grant is probably a minority of the cases.

But in flipping it, maybe there's a different approach that would be a little bit more neutral relative to the rights of both parties.

I understand, Senator. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

No, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, would it be appropriate to establish a quorum?

It would be, but before we do that, you didn't mention this in your opening comments. Are you taking the amendments that will be done in the Appropriations Committee?

You're trying to slide through without doing that. Okay, with that, we are going to establish a quorum.

Yes.

[Roll call] You have a quorum.

And we have a quorum. Thank you. Senator Niello, you have anything else?

No.

I'm going to prove that I'm a dad, that I have eyes in the back of my head. Senator Ashby.

Thank you. I'll be very brief. Now that we have a quorum, I'd love to move the item. And I'd also like to thank you for bravely not only sharing your story and being willing to share it through your team and your organization, but to be the kind of person who takes that experience to make a change, to help benefit more people who, unfortunately, will land in the same position as you. The system should lend itself to the victims. So that's actually righteous and I appreciate it, and thank you.

Can I have a moment to respond to the Senator's comment from before? Okay, thank you. I just want to say that the intent of our bill is to even the playing field and not to move the justice system in favor of the survivor we're just looking to increase rights for survivors so that we're not taking out that courts get to decide if they want to issue the restraining order.

And of course, if a court decides that they don't have jurisdiction over the defendant, then the survivor would still have to go to the defendant's court and petition for restraining order there. So really what we're trying to do is just even the playing field right now in one that's geared towards the favor of defendants. Thank you for the opportunity to-

Let me just clarify one point. The defendant still needs to receive notice and still be served.

Absolutely.

All right. Urge an aye vote.

So that's your close?

That's my close.

Okay with that? Call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB 554. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. [Roll call] Six to one with Members missing.

All right, thank you.

You want to call it or-

We're going to put the bill on call.

The bill is out, but we'll leave it on call for missing Members.

All right. I don't think we're going to put it out yet. I think we're just going to put it on call.

Mr. Chair, would you entertain a motion for the consent agenda?

I would. First of all, I want to thank Senator Wilk for not moving to America. I'm glad he's still here. Number two. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Senator Gonzalez is filling in today. She is a returning Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yes, thank you. All right. And Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

[Roll call] Seven to zero with Members missing.

All right, we'll put that on call. Next, we're going to turn to item number three, SB 827 by Senator Glazer. I see. He's presenting. Senator Glazer, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to present this Bill to you today. And I wanted to commend and thank the Committee staff for preparing an excellent analysis that details the history in this space. But this Bill, in simplicity applies our existing statutory authority that we grant to the Department of Transportation's Inspector General. To the Inspector General at the San Francisco Bay Area rapid transit system.

It provides the BART IG Inspector General with explicit access to records and property access to confidential records unless state law explicitly precludes access. In consultation with stakeholders, I'm proposing a couple of changes. Under the existing statutory requirement for Caltrans, the Inspector General can apply criminal penalties if folks don't cooperate, as detailed in the judiciary analysis. I am proposing to remove criminal penalties from the Bill in 2020. I had a Bill that did not have criminal penalties.

It did have subpoena power to make sure they could get the information that they needed. So while I'm removing criminal penalties now, I've talked with the policy chair, happens to be here, stakeholders that I am going to continue to see whether or not subpoena power is something that should be put back in the Bill. So I just want to note that on the record.

Secondly, I'm proposing an amendment that anyone subject to an investigation or may be subject to discipline as a part of an investigation would be afforded rights, and that's the ability to have representation there at that meeting or that interview. I want to note that there are ongoing discussions that BART is having with stakeholders and the existing Inspector General about a charter that would codify that office's responsibilities. It's been in discussion and debate since 2022.

They haven't brought that across the finish line, but we are hopeful that they will continue to have those earnest discussions and codify the power of that office, which we all know and want for proper fiscal oversight. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

All right, let's turn to support. Witnesses in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. All right, witnesses in opposition seeing no one approaching the microphone. If anyone wishes to provide for me, too testimony, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Let me just ask, Senator Glazer, you've accepted the Committee proposed amendments?

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you. These amendments will be processed in the Bill after the Bill passes the Committee and while the Bill is still in the Senate, correct?

That's correct.

All right. Okay. Questions by Committee Members. Yes, Senator Gonzalez.

Just want to thank Senator Glazer again. He worked very hard on this Bill. I know it's very important to him, and we'll continue conversations on those issues. But thank you very much for sitting down with folks and being amenable to those amendments.

Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Senator Wilk moves the Bill. All right, would you care to close. Senator Glazer

Thank you for your consideration and your aye vote today.

All right, Madam Secretary, if you'd call the roll.

This is file item number three, SB 827. The motion is to pass the Senate appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. Seven/zero; we'll put that on call. Next, Senator Glazer's bill, Item Number Four: SB 869.

Thank you. This bill--along with the next bill that you will hear from me--were pieces of legislation that I worked hard on last year. But in consultation with the Policy Committee and stakeholders, I decided to call it a two-year bill to give a little extra time to do more work. And so that applies to this bill and the next one. But this bill--and by the way, I'm accepting the amendments that were suggested from Senate Banking that I think is on your docket today.

As small business borrowers have increasingly struggled to access traditional bank loans, they've resorted to alternative forms of financing to start to maintain and to grow their business. Unfortunately, the gaps in California's Commercial Financing Law have allowed some bad actors to take advantage of small business borrowers. It's not like the old days where you'd go into a brick and mortar bank and say, 'I need some money,' and they talk about the terms.

Most of the lending today is on the Internet, and it's a different playing field that many of us have--grown up have been used to. So this bill tries to level the playing field for loan and non-loan products by requiring licensure for brokers and commercial finance providers. It also regulates predatory broker practices, and it closes a loophole in California's Commercial Financing Law.

Now, it regulates predatory broker practices by requiring brokers to prominently disclose the average, minimum, and maximum annual percentage rate for financing that they put clients into in the previous year so borrowers can compare brokers. And that's a key element of trying to make sure it's a fair playing field for borrowers, is that we've now created under law that this Committee and this Legislature passed six years ago to create a standard rate in which to compare a proposal to lend money to you.

And that's the annual percentage rates, the same on your credit card. When you see that rate on your credit cards, what that money is going to cost you, and that you can compare and that now is applicable to commercial lending.

I want to mention, and I don't have to go into detail and unless people want to know more, but I'm closing a loophole to prohibit any action that can be construed as a question of judgment which prohibits borrowers from legal representation if they default on a loan. Now, there are continuing conversations about a part of the bill that requires brokers to disclose financing history. I mentioned that just a moment ago.

I commit to continuing to work with opposition, with stakeholders to ensure that borrowers are protected, but we have a fair standard in which they can be held accountable to. With me today, I have two witnesses: Heidi Pickman, on behalf of the California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity, also known as CAMEO, and Louis Caditz-Peck, who is the Senior Fellow at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, former fintech small business financing exec. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

All right. Thank you. Ma'am?

Sorry. Thank you, Chair Umberg and Vice Chair Wilk and Members of the Committee. CAMEO is a statewide network of 400 business service providers and community lenders and a strong supporter of SB 869, along with a thousand other organizational members of our coalition that supports this bill. We commend Senator Glazer, the California Legislature, and Governor Newsom for leading the country in responsible small business lending practices. SB 869 continues this leadership.

It does three things, as the Senator mentioned: regulates predatory practices by brokers, levels the playing field between loan and non-loan products, and closes loopholes in our current law. Working backwards, California's transparent price disclosure regulations are groundbreaking, and the Legislature voted unanimously last year to make them permanent. They still contain a few loopholes that can enable bad actors to quote misleadingly low prices and police themselves and slap their own wrists.

SB 869 directly addresses this needed fix and closes several other loopholes that New York State closed when it passed its disclosure laws that were based on California's. Small businesses need access to capital, be it a loan, be it a non-loan product. They kind of don't distinguish necessarily, and the regulatory framework shouldn't either and should treat non-loan products the same as loan products.

SB 869 takes away the unfair advantage that unregulated non-loan financing companies have over regulated lenders by providing all types of small business financing companies with the same rules to play by, a hallmark of market competition. Additionally, the bill presents several other predatory practices that the Senator mentioned about skirting bans on confession of judgment and confidentiality clauses that bully small businesses from speaking out, a victimize. Closing these loopholes and creating a competitive market for small business finance will catalyze good lending to small businesses.

The opposition wants to narrow the bill so loophole remains and they remain unregulated. They are the same opposition who unsuccessfully sued California last year to overturn our transparency price disclosure regulations, the same regulations this legislator voted unanimously--

Ma'am. If you could go ahead and wrap it up?

And I'm done.

You're wrapped. All right.

I'm wrapped.

All right.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thanks. Next witness.

Honorable Members, my name is Louis Caditz-Peck. I'm a Senior Fellow at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. We're part of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition, which includes both for-profit financing companies and non-profit advocates, and is part of the coalition of over a thousand organizations that supports this bill.

Personally, I'm also a small business financing executive formerly and a former appointed member of the CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board. Small businesses today are routinely steered by brokers into unnecessarily expensive financing because it pays the broker a higher fee.

This echoes one of the causes of the subprime mortgage crisis, as Senator Min observed in the hearing yesterday. In fact, reports describe subprime mortgage brokers who lost their mortgage brokering licenses after that crisis, just moving over to the totally unregulated Wild West of small business financing brokering. I'd like to walk you through an advertisement that was just passed out--thank you--from a merchant cash advance company to brokers. The financing company, the merchant cash advance company in this ad, offers brokers--trying to attract the broker's business huge commission payouts.

The financing company offers brokers 'max upsell, 12 points.' In other words, the financing company quotes a price to the broker for a given small business, and that broker is then permitted to turn around and upsell the borrower. They can add a hidden fee as high as they believe the borrower might take, up to 12 percent in this case. A 12 percent broker fee. We see 15 commonly as well.

The advertisement goes on to ask brokers, 'with a deal this good, why would you even consider submitting your deals elsewhere?' In other words, the financing company is explicitly trying to avoid competition, not by lowering their prices so borrowers choose them, but by overcharging borrowers so that the financing company can pay the brokers huge commission payouts. This bill would allow the DFPI to license brokers so that small businesses can seek accountability if mistreated. It would also help small businesses distinguish between brokers offering affordable products--

All righty. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I urge your support.

Thank you. All right. Opposition.

Sorry, I'm just going to do a quick tweener. Margaret Gladstein here. On behalf of the Secured Finance Network, we are not supporting or opposed. We are working with the author and appreciate his commitment to keep working with us. Concerns about section 2265.

All right, thank you. Let's go to opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Chris Rosa, on behalf of Rapid Finance and Capita, us with a respectful opposed unless amended position. First of all, thank you to Senator Glazer and to his staff for the many meetings that we've had and thoughtful considerations of our amendments. Those conversations have been productive and we look forward to more. I want to stress the fact that Capitas and Rapid we share the same goals as the author and his sponsors.

We hardly support the licensure of providers of commercial financing products in a manner that's equivalent to the licensure of those providing commercial loans. Secondly, we support the commercial financing brokers to be licensed in the same manner as the licensure of entities providing brokerage of commercial loans. And lastly, we support adding robust protections to California law ensuring consumer protection from the unscrupulous behavior of commercial financing brokers. How to accomplish this is the real trick.

As you all know, as crafters of policy, we still have some divide on how to do that, but we are having good conversations and we're thankful for that. So thank you so much. Again, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members, my name is Pat Joyce. On behalf of Ford Financing, a sales based financing company that would fall into the provider bucket under this proposed licensing framework, we have an opposed, less amended position. I'd like to acknowledge some of the comments from yesterday's Committee hearing since some of the Committee Members are here today. I think the trick here is how do you balance an effective licensing framework with effective regulations and effective requirements while avoiding constraining the supply of capital in the market?

And that's the trick. And how do you weigh that? And I think right now the way the Bill is currently written is it's out of whack and needs to be rebalanced. So I think moving forward we're going to have those conversations on how do you go about doing that. There are still some outstanding issues, but we do appreciate the author taking the amendments referenced in the analysis, especially the removal of the fiduciary duty requirement. Thank you.

And as it relates to the other kind of sticking point, is the lowest APR that the broker is required to disclose the analysis references that acknowledges more work to be done. So look forward to working with the Bill sponsors and author as we move forward.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's now turn to. Yes, support or oppose?

In between Carolyn Bill Hunter on behalf of the Revenue Based Financial Coalition. Again, we're not opposed to the Bill, but we'll be looking forward to working with the author as the Bill continues to move through the process.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. So now let's take to testimony. Give us your name, your affiliation and your position. Support, oppose, or in between. All right. Those who wish to testify in me too fashion, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approached the microphone, let's now turn to Committee Members. Committee Members, questions. Senator Min, then Senator Niello.

I was one of the people who heard this Bill yesterday in banking, and just want to reiterate some of the comments I made. I did cut my teeth earlier in my career working as a policy advisor around the time when we had the subprime mortgage crisis. And a lot of the products that we're seeing today targeted at small businesses really do resemble, both in substance and in some of the marketing techniques, what we saw during that crisis. And it's very troubling.

It's one of the reasons I authored SB 666 last year to try to address some of the junk fees and opaque pricing that we see in this same space. And I just think it's important to start to get a handle on this. What we've always seen in these types of financing markets is the capital goes to unregulated spaces. It's regulatory arbitrage. And as much as we want to say that markets always work, we've seen too many examples of places where consumers get taken advantage of.

And this is a space where, in California, a lot of the small businesses are owned by people who are immigrants, where maybe they're not the most sophisticated actors. English may not be their first language. I've seen it in my district, and I just think it's important we get a handle on this.

Now, I do want to reflect the comments made by Mr. Joyce that it's important to get the balance right, to make sure that we're not just constraining access to capital and access to credit for these types of borrowers. But that being said, I think this is an appropriate first step to try to create a licensing scheme. I think we need to start addressing this. We're hearing anecdotally, and I suspect the data will come soon, far too many examples of grossly abusive tactics and products. So I want to thank the author and would move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was in the meeting yesterday, so it's deja vu all over again. And for those of you who were present yesterday, I apologize for the redundancy. But I do want to repeat what I said yesterday. First of all, if regulations are too restrictive or confusing, the end result of that approach to regulatory writing is a restriction in whatever supply of the product that we're trying to regulate. So we need to be careful about that.

And to that point, the substitute for the fiduciary responsibility, the statements in the Bill, as I said yesterday, is, to me, impossible, but at least difficult to understand. And just so everybody knows, I'll read it, that commercial financing broker owes a duty of care to and has a duty to act in the highest good faith toward a potential recipient, including the duty to exercise the utmost honesty and integrity toward the potential recipient.

I just would have a hard time enforcing that on either side of it, quite frankly. And relative to the APR estimation, what is not in the Bill and is mentioned by some is that maybe a disclosure that really needs to be made is what the compensation is to the broker for providing the loan. And any borrower that saw that kind of compensation compared to something else would have to question it.

And to that point, I also said yesterday that I have lots of experience on being the borrower side of loans. And quite frankly, my assumption is that the person that I'm dealing with, however nice and reputable the organization is, they don't have my best interest at heart. They have their best interest at heart. And also these contracts that people are signing are unilateral contracts. That is, they're written by the party providing the loan in this case.

And good luck in trying to get language of it changed. And so caveat. Mtor is the best approach for anybody with these loans. That's what I would advise any small business. But I know Senator Glazer and I trust that he'll continue to working on it and so I support the Bill at this point.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Other questions? Comments? Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, Senator Niello hit on my concerns on the Bill, so I'm going to support it today. The reason why I'm supporting it today is because I trust you and I know you'll continue to work with the opposition and try to find that sweet spot that benefits everybody. So, thank you.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no further comments or questions, Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Well, Senator Niello, kind of hit some key points that we've been working hard on, which is that we don't want ambiguity in the space. We want someone who's a lender or a broker to know what the rules are and not have it be in squishy spaces. And that's what we have worked on and what we'll continue to work on. I have my commitment to do that.

I didn't note at the beginning, this is joint authored by Senator Limon, the Chair of our Banking Committee, who, her and her staff worked on the Bill and will continue to work with me on this Bill if it goes forward today. I want to note that access to capital is very important. We don't want to dry it up. It's a part of creating a robust retail community.

But I also want to emphasize in my close the point that Senator Min has made, which is that the folks that are borrowing money, they don't have an MBA in finance like some folks do around this table. Oh, yours is in accounting. All right. And I think you spoke yesterday in the hearing about things that kept you up at night when you were making these borrower decisions. And you're a very sophisticated businessman.

But a lot of the folks out there, they just have a dream and a hope to provide for their family. And you all have been into so many shopkeepers spaces to see the wonderful, vibrant community that is our small business retail sector. And we want to make sure that we set the table right. They're going to make choices as to what they served, but we want to set the table right so they can be treated fairly and honestly. That's the purpose of the Bill. Without respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Glazer. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the. Oh, is there a motion? Senator Min moves. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number four, SB 869. The motion is to pass to Appropriations. Umberg aye. Wilk aye. Allen. Ashby aye. Caballero aye. Gonzalez aye. Laird aye. Min aye. Niello aye Stern. Wiener. Sorry, eight to zero with Members missing.

All right, we'll put that on call. All right. The final Bill in Senator Glazer Day here at Senate Judiciary Committee is number five, SB 875.

Thank you, chair. I'm Bergen. This continues my work to take thorny issues that have been around a long time and try to find a pathway forward. And if you look in the analysis, you'll see the history of legislation in this area. It goes back years and years and years.

First, I want to accept the Committee amendments, as we all know that if you have an elderly mom, dad, friend that's going to need extra help, that navigating the process of finding a safe setting for an aging family Member or friend who needs help is very, very challenging. Now, in that space, there are referral agencies that can assist in making placement decisions in many circumstance.

Now, these agencies try to match up the services that are out there based on an examination of that person's needs, the senior's need, and they have contracts with various facilities to try to do that, sometimes in very short order, because sometimes when that crisis happens, it's immediate. Maybe they're in the hospital, maybe they went to the emergency room and you have the realization that they need that extra help. So referral agencies are compensated. They're compensated by the facility if a person chooses that facility.

But in the landscape of regulation and law today, there really is almost no oversight or disclosure about that interaction and that relationship. A person doesn't necessarily know how that person is being compensated. And in current law today, there's some very minimal provisions that provide a requirement that referral agencies don't send someone to an unlicensed facility, as an example. So this Bill raises the bar to protect seniors by creating a licensing requirement for referral agencies.

It also proposes to ban certain practices, and it requires referral agencies to give consumers important disclosures before referring them to a facility. Let me explain specifically what those are in this Bill in terms of the consumer protection one, it bans referral agencies from having any direct or indirect financial interest in any medical facility doing business with the licensee. You can do that today. Can't do that under this Bill.

Number two, it requires background checks of referral agency employees that have direct contact with consumers not required today would be required under the Bill. It requires referral agencies to have liability insurance coverage.

It prohibits a referral agency from holding the consumer's power of attorney or property for that consumer and it requires referral agencies to cease making referral to a consumer if the consumer requests and additionally, it requires referral agencies to disclose to consumers what conditions the referral agency will be paid a referral fee by the facility not required today. How a family may request the referral agency to cease contact with the family and cease referrals.

It requires a link to the Department of Social Services website for information on inspections, complaints and citations of facilities. Requires a description of the referral agency's services, their privacy policy, and a statement about their personal information may be sold or shared and how a person can opt out of that, and a statement that the list provided is not comprehensive of all options available for residential care in their area, but it has a link to the Department of Aging's soon to be released website for more information so they can compare facilities. Last year, I introduced this Bill with only a disclosure requirement. Only a disclosure requirement.

After feedback from the opposition, I agreed to amend it to include this licensure structure, explicit language about liability requirements to provide a written disclosure, not just a verbal disclosure, and a requirement that disclosures should be in the same language in which the licensee negotiates a referral. Okay, but I know I haven't satisfied everybody, and we met yesterday with some of the opposition to talk about ways in which we can try to marry our similar interests. And let me mention one last thing.

Historically, if you look at the vetoes on these bills in the past, Governor Brown vetoed the Bill because he said that it went too far and he didn't want licensure. And so that was a reason that he didn't like the Bill that was put on his desk. Senator, excuse me. Governor Newsom vetoed the Bill and felt that there needed to be greater consumer disclosures, which we're attempting to do here.

And I know that we have to satisfy him that this Bill is going to be placed on his desk. So that's some important history in this long trail of work to try to provide some protection on this very stressful situation where you have a family Member or friend who needs extra help. And yet the law is very minimalistic at best of protections on disclosure and any kind of licensure of those who are involved in this referral space.

So with that, I have folks here to testify in favor. I appreciate you hearing, taking the time to hear this longer explanation than you might be used to. Monica Miller represents Act Eight and Cliff Berg representing A Place for Mom.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Monica Miller Representing Act Eight. My client is a consumer driven organization who started working on this Bill many years ago, I believe four years ago with Assembly Member, then Ian Calderon. My organization really believes strongly that consumers need to have protections.

They work with families when they're trying to identify and put a loved one into a residential care facility for the elderly and really felt like there weren't a lot of protections on the books and disclosures made to consumers and as a result, brought this piece of legislation to me. I then, fortunately, was able to work with the industry to make sure that the Bill could be implemented.

It made sense for us to come together, and when we initially started this conversation, it was all of us have veto authority of what was going into the Bill. We wanted to make sure the insurance requirements were acceptable to some of the smaller homes, that they could meet those insurance requirements. We wanted to make sure that there were proper disclosures.

We wanted to make sure that there was the ability for a family, once they have made a decision, regardless of what that decision is, because that is solely up to them, whether they choose the referrals that were sent to them by the referral agencies, whether they went online and found a facility themselves, whether they decided to hire an in home worker. Those decisions are something that the family needs to make on their own.

And we wanted to make sure that cease contact was something that was afforded to them so they wouldn't continue to get emails, phone calls, et cetera. Having personally experienced this with one of my loved ones, with my mother in law, it's a very challenging time. You're standing in a room, in an emergency room where a social worker is handing you a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. I didn't know what to look for from my mother in law.

I had never had to go through this. She was young. She was only 68. And we knew she could no longer live alone and care for herself. She had a cat. She had some memory, care issues and some other things that needed to be addressed. She wanted to be in a room by herself. She didn't want to have a roommate. She wanted to have her. So anyhow, we urge your support today on this legislation, and thank you for your time, and thank you for your staff as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank the author and his staff for all the work he's put into this Bill, spending the last year working with those who have concerns and want to change this to the Bill. But I would say, by way of introduction thought, this Bill clearly is a huge step forward for consumer protection in California. There is minimal law in California as it goes to referral agencies.

In fact, there are only two code sections in the health and safety code. One basically says a placement agency, of which a referral agency is a subcategory, can't send someone to an unlicensed facility. The other basically says, you can't send someone where they won't get appropriate medical care. Other than that, there is no regulation. So you might say, hey, why did my client a place for mom join forces with Monica's consumer group on this Bill? Well, because a, they think it's the right thing to do.

Protect consumers place for mom is dedicated to helping families find the right facility for a family Member. It's an important niche in our society. I think today many of us have experienced, as Monica did, the situation of having a loved one, a family Member who needs care. I personally got a call from an emergency room in Las Vegas that my mom was in the emergency room, that she was okay, but she needed to be put in a place where she could get some support.

And I had to build up the next day on Committee and wasn't about to get on an airplane and fly to Las Vegas. Couldn't do it, but I was able to use a referral agency. California Legislature has struggled for a number of years. We started working on this Bill in 2015. Senator Mendoza introduced it.

Senator Glazer's Bill retains the spirit and the essence of those bills by requiring a substantial number of disclosures to families that interact with referral agencies so that they know what the referral agency does, so that they know how they're compensated, so they know what their rights are. The Bill also adds extensive additional protections, a new right to cease contact. The amendments that went in before Senate Human Services Committee greatly expanded consumer protections at the request of the governor's office. Thank you, and we urge your support.

Thank you. All right, let's turn to the opposition. We'll get to the Me toos in a second. Those in opposition, please come to microphone.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Yasmin Peled on behalf of Justice and Aging, we're here in respectful opposition to SB 875. I want to thank the Senator and his staff for their ongoing conversations with us and appreciate that we'll continue to have those conversations. As you've heard from the author and the sponsors, there is a need to better protect consumers who use referral and placement agencies for rcfes. Existing law prohibits agencies from providing inappropriate placements but does little else.

Unfortunately, we think that the current language in SB 875 has the potential to cause more harm due to confusing terms, ambiguity, and some minimal enforcement. We also strongly urge an opt into the selling of a person's personal data rather than an opt out. The primary business model of these referral agencies is that facilities compensate them to make referrals to individuals and families.

SB 875 requires that disclosures are made to consumers about the nature of that compensated referral, but we think right now that those disclosures are still inadequate. The Bill requires that they receive compensation for a referral, but fail to disclose that non paying facilities are being withheld. So this leaves consumers with less choice and incomplete information about the offers being presented to them, often in times of crisis. And this was a key issue in the governor's veto of the previous Bill. AB 499.

The author and sponsors have argued that by adding rcfes to this preexisting licensing scheme, that they're going above and beyond to regulate themselves. Unfortunately, we think that this licensing scheme is inadequate as currently drafted. We think that the licensing requirements here in the Bill are not much more than information that is already available through the state's business registration procedures and that this licensing process lacks sufficient scrutiny for who can receive a license.

And finally, while we're appreciative that the author has agreed to accept the Committee amendments, we still, again, don't believe those are comprehensive enough to ensure that consumers are aware that there may be other facilities that better suit their needs, but they're not being told about them because those facilities aren't getting. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chairman Umberg and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Blanca Castro. I'm the state long term care ombudsman for California, and I'm here on behalf of the 35 long term care ombudsman programs and over 600 certified long term care ombudsman representatives.

We advocate for residents who are currently in residential care facilities for the elderly, and the reason I'm here today is we see firsthand what happens when an individual is placed in a placement that is not meeting their needs, they can't afford, they have memory care complex needs, they're understaffed, they're not even in the community, and they're not even serving or they don't serve culturally appropriate LGBTQ plus residents. Currently, there are about 700 and 469 licensed RCFEs in California.

Senate Bill 875 is still a work in progress. It is not ready for public policy. Our main concerns, and we met with every one of the staff on this Committee and really appreciate meeting with Senator Umberg, Senator Glazer yesterday. But I have to say that real registration and real licensing includes things such as what is your operational plan?

Making sure there are staff that are qualified to provide and refer people to a licensed referral placement that meets all their needs, making sure that each licensee can furnish not only fiscal background and sustainability, but making sure that the referral agency that they are using facilities that they know what their record is. Have they been cited? Are they understaffed? Do they have infection control, a number of other things that are not in this Bill.

Thank you very much.

We are urging you to please vote no. We know it's going to go through, but it is not ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's now turn to those who wish to provide their name, their position and their affiliation.

Sawait Seyoum on behalf of Disability Rights California, and we are opposed, unfortunately.

Thank you.

Good morning. First, Mr. Berg should have gotten on that plane, I think. Roxanne Gould, representing Sixbeds.org. It's an Association of small six beds or fewer residential care facilities for the elderly in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Heather Harrison with the California Assisted Living Association in strong support of the consumer disclosure. Thanks.

Thank you.

Amber King with Leading Age California also in support.

All right. Seeing no one else who wishes to testify in support or opposition, we're going to bring it back here to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions by Senator Caballero.

Senator Glazer, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I'm going to support the Bill, but it seems to me that some of the opposition is, it doesn't go far enough. And so I'm assuming you're willing to continue discussions, keep it fair and have it make sense, but appreciate the work that you're doing on this. I think this is really important because families really are in crisis when they need this information.

Thank you. May I respond to that chair?

Yes, go ahead.

That I have asked the opponents for specific amendments at this state. I got a little more specificity in the testimony today, but yesterday and before, haven't gotten specifics, and I've asked them tell me what other consumer protections we can have. And so I thank you for what you've said, and I'm very committed to continue to find a way to do better.

All right. Thank you. Other questions? Comments? Did I hear a motion, Senator Caballero moves the Bill. All right, Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Just want to say that the language in the measure, just so that people didn't misunderstand some of the testimony, there's language that says the list provided is not comprehensive of all options available for residential care facility in your area. That's a requirement, disclosure requirement. That's in the Bill today. With that, it's a tough place to legislate, and I'm open for any folks who want to join in this effort as it has a long history, as the analysis shows, with four different authors over eight years.

But I appreciate it if you would continue to let me work on this Bill going forward with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Glazer. Madam Secretary, I'll have you call roll.

This is file item number five, SB 875. The motion is do pass to Senate appropriations. Umberg aye. Wilk aye. Allen. Ashby aye. Caballero aye. Gonzalez aye. Laird aye. Min aye. Niello aye. Stern. Wiener. You have eight to zero with Members missing.

All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Glazer. Next. Senator Nguyen, thank you for your patience. I know this is an issue you've been working on for a long time. The floor is yours.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first say I accept the amendments. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, your staff, caucus staff, and also thanking all our sponsors and all the others, whether they're supporters or opponents of the Bill, for their efforts to coming together. And with that effort, we have come to the amendments that we today will be accepting. And I just got the language and I signed it just to make sure.

And so we'll hand this over to staff in a few minutes. The Committee analysis reflects the language that has been agreed upon by everybody. And I believe that with this adoption, these languages, the opposition to this measure will be now remove. However, the timing of this. Well, the timing of my writing of this speech yesterday and me receiving this right now, we will be ready and committed to.

I've signed the amendments and will be ready to present to Appropriations Committee as we move forward with the Bill. As proposed to be the amendment, SB 625 clarifies and expands the law relative to handling blood samples that are taken from newborn babies during genetic screening tests for treatable inherited conditions and disabilities. Current law mandates that all infant born in California be screened for inherited conditions that can be affected if identified early.

SB 625 does nothing to change the current law regarding the screening test. However, the current law is rather not completely clear about what can and will be done with the leftover blood samples after the screening test has been completed. Unbeknownst to most people, including myself, California currently retains and stored these blood samples for an indefinite period of time and allows them to be used by researchers.

SB 625 would now allow parents to opt out of the process of retaining, storing and using their baby's blood for research purposes if they choose not to. So this really gives the parents the options that after that's been used by the state, that the parents can now decide whether the state should be able to retain the blood sample indefinite.

I have here with me today Ms. Valerie Noble, President of the California Health Coalition advocacy group, here to testify, and I want to thank her for traveling here to this hearing and for her tireless efforts to making sure that we continue to move forward and hopefully make SB 625 successful and signed if I can at this time. Mr. Chairman, allow Ms. Noble to speak.

Ms. Noble, floor is yours.

Honorable chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Valerie Noble, President and co-founder of California Health Coalition Advocacy, proud sponsor of SB 625. CHCA is a statewide nonprofit organization that works to protect consumer options related to health choices. Each year, over 400,000 newborns in California undergo mandatory screening for a variety of genetic diseases. The newborn screening program is an important public health measure that ensures early detection of potentially fatal conditions.

And as the Senator said, this Bill, SB 65, in no way changes the mandatory nature of the program. It continues to be mandatory. The California biobank houses millions of residual newborn blood specimens that are available for ongoing research into genetic diseases. The newborn screening program and the biobank are vital, but transparency and adequate protections for genetic privacy are lacking. In California, the residual blood samples from newborn screening becomes the property of the state, and they're stored indefinitely in the biobank.

This policy of storing the samples indefinitely began over 40 years ago. These samples are made available to researchers, including third parties. Although most parents and guardians are aware of the genetic testing that is performed on their newborns, they are poorly informed about what happens to the residual blood samples after the testing is completed. Of parents surveyed, 78% did not know that the samples are stored indefinitely, and 92% did not know that the samples could be used for research by third parties.

Currently, a parent or guardian is not able to opt out of the storage and medical research done on the residual blood samples at the time the sample is taken. After the sample is taken, they can put in a request to the biobank asking that the residual newborn sample be destroyed. But that is a policy of the California Department of Public Health and it's not protected by any codes or regulations.

Further, there has been a growing concern over the use of residual blood samples by law enforcement for purposes of pursuing suspects which might undermine the trust parents have in the newborn screening program. The use of the residual samples for law enforcement.

If you could wrap it up, please.

Okay. Well, we've been working with the opposition. We've come to an agreement, as the Senator said, so we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Others in support seeing no one else approach the microphone. Opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members Megan Loper, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, as the Senator and her sponsor said, we appreciate the work that we've been able to do with your Committee staff, with the Senator and her staff and the sponsors. And the California Hospital Association is able to go neutral with the amendments that will be taken in appropriations and here to answer any questions. Thank you for the work.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, George Soares with the California Medical Association echoing the comments of the previous speaker. Happy to answer any questions, but the CMA will go neutral with the amendments and approach as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee Awet Kidane with the California Children's Hospital Association, echoing my comments of the previous speakers. Thank the author for working with the opposition and we look forward to seeing the new Bill in print. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Roxanne Gould, on behalf of the American Nurses Association in support.

Thank you.

Hello. Kelly McMillan. On behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition, we were opposed to the version of the Bill currently in print, but appreciate the work of the author and the Committee on the proposed amendments, particularly to remove the opt-in requirement for critical screening. Once the proposed amendments are in print, we are prepared to move it to a neutral position.

All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's now turn to Committee Members. Questions, comments, seeing no questions, or Senator Caballero? Senator Caballero moves the Bill.

Senator Nguyen, you may close.

Again, thank you for all of our partners here today and also for you yourself, Mr. Chairman, and the staff for helping us get to where we are. And I look forward to moving forward and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I know you've worked very hard on this, and I appreciate your flexibility coming to a place where we balance privacy rights and public health. So with that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number seven, SB 625. The motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations. Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye. Wilk aye. Wilk aye, Allen. Ashby. Ashby aye. Caballero. Caballero aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez aye. Laird. Laird aye. Min. Min aye. Niello. Niello aye. Stern. Wiener. Eight to zero with Members missing.

All right, we're going to put that on call. Thank you very much. I see Senator Padilla here. Senator Padilla. Senator Padilla is our penultimate author. Senator Wahab is our final author. Senator Padilla, item number eight, SB 764. Whenever you're ready detectors.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. It's certainly my pleasure. First to present to SB 764 and Child Content Creator Rights act. First, I'd like to note and begin by accepting Committee amendments which will be taken in approach and thank the Committee staff for your collaboration.

Senate Bill 764, the Child Content Creator Rights Act, would require family content creators, as defined, who are compensated for filming their minor children in more than 30% of their content to set aside a percentage commensurate with that percentage of the content produced for the benefit of the minor when they reach the age of majority. Currently, as many of you know, California law is one of the first in the nation, nearly more than three quarters of a century ago to protect children in the Kugan act.

But this act only applies to minors performing in production who are under contract, does not apply to what we now know to be vlogging and vlogging content, and this new statute defines it as such consistent with existing law, the rise of social media has seen family content creators explode in popularity, with many parents filming the daily lives and earning thousands of dollars or more in revenue, sponsorships, and advertising.

Some of them regularly include their children in their content, filming intimate details of their personal lives for an audience of millions to see. This obviously raises questions about the rights of children who are drafted into this emerging entertainment landscape. Videos about peak moments such as homes, pregnancy, births, new babies get more views. Incentivizing families to post more and more videos of their children, which obviously, aside from the potential for financial exploitation, may have negative impacts on the child's well being.

From an emotional and psychological standpoint, SB 764 applies Kuganak protections and more to modern entertainment and vlogging content creators in today's reality. Last year, Illinois enacted legislation to protect the financial future of these youth content creators, but California, who has been a world leader in this space, has yet to do so.

As social media becomes more integrated into our daily lives and a growing share of the entertainment landscape, we need to update our hard fought, excuse me, labor protections and safeguards the financial future of our children. SB 764 would recognize that children deserve financial protection and compensation for being filmed, and I would respectfully ask for your I vote following my lead witness who is Mr. Ed Howard with the University of San Diego School of Law, Children's Advocacy Institute.

Thank you very much. Mr. Howard. Welcome back.

Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. I first want to thank the author for introducing such a child an important child protective measure. Thank the Committee for its Superb Analysis and the suggested amendments, and please help answer any questions if you have, but otherwise we'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Howard. All right, others in support, seeing no one else approach the microphone in opposition. Those in opposition, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approach the microphone. Those who wish to provide me to testimony, please approach seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's come back to the Committee. Committee Members, questions, comments. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate what you're doing in this Bill and would suggest that you consider going further to set up the same protections if the child is used for any purpose. I'm not talking about sexual exploitation. I'm just talking about who knew that parents would be making so much money by posting the life happenings of their children on a media where the whole world can see it.

But there are a number of ways that minors are making money and the parents have access to that money because they're the guardians. And so if they're involved in sports activities, if they're involved in different things, that music, art, I think we need to protect children in that regard, and I would suggest I'll move the Bill when it's appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support generally what you're trying to do, but I think it needs much better definition. And my understanding is that it's silent with regard to how much money we're talking about. And if it's just a small amount of money, is it worth doing that? And my understanding is you're working on amendments to address that particular issue.

The other thing is, and particularly since you're comparing it to the 1939 law with regard to children in entertainment under contract, if the vlogging, and by the way, I didn't even know that was a thing, but I understand it, if the vlogging is about a family and it's a parent basically communicating about his or her family, but not necessarily a particular child, I'm not sure that it's in that case applicable unless the child is a primary performer in the vlogging.

And as this is proposed, it doesn't specify that. And I think there's a significant difference there relative to any potential compensation of a child in that activity. And the last point is the inclusion of a private right of action generally. I have huge issues with the private right of action as it's executed in the State of California, which, by the way, is only one of four or five states in the country that has this.

But that point aside, I don't understand why there would need to be a private right of action, because a private right of action is the ability for a citizen or an attorney to sue a violator of a state law or regulation without having to prove any damage has been done. But the allegation if action was taken by a child, if you amend the Bill, as I'm suggesting, there would be real provable damages and therefore a legitimate cause of action. So I don't understand why the right of private action is applicable in this case.

Mr. Chairman, Senator, I think the statutory language is proposed here does propose a particular statutory cause which would include actual punitive and cost recovery options for the plaintiff in this case.

Just to clarify that, in other words, the law would specify what some of the damages would be as opposed to the legal action and the court deciding what it would be.

Right. The avenue of petition provides for the opportunity to recover actual punitive and costs.

Which could be possible anyway depending upon the court action and what a trial action decided.

Correct.

But just to clarify, this action must be brought by the victim as opposed to a third party. Correct?

All right, that's my point. The private right of action is not applicable in that case.

No. Well, we can debate that adds additional incentive to not violate the law, but it doesn't provide for a third party to be able to enforce the law.

Well, the applicability where the statute would be applied was where it is clear that the content creates, includes the image of the minor children, and is the focal point of the contact content. We are working and we are accepting amendments that we would anticipate taken up at approach that would basically require a minimum threshold of revenue generated.

So the intent of that would be to be excluding incidental, family oriented, typical scenarios where people are sharing on a more narrow audience, typical kinds of things that families share on social media platforms. This is specifically designed to address where there is a threshold, met or above, of substantial income that is generated based on the appearance of the minor children in the content.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? So, just to be clear, this does not provide a right of action on behalf of my staff when I show them my grandparents, my grandkids, videos and so forth. Right.

Mr. Chairman. It does not. And I artfully tried to clarify that with.

Right. Okay, just to be clear. All right.

Are you requesting a specific amendment?

Yeah, I just want to be clear because I realize I subject them to pain sometimes, and I just want to make sure that I'm not actually incurring any sort of liability on my part. All right. Is there a motion? Senator Min moves the Bill. Would you care to close?

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

This is file item number eight SB 764. The motion is to pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg aye. Wilk no. Allen. Ashby aye, Caballero aye. Gonzalez aye. Laird aye. Min aye. Niello. Stern. Wiener. You have six to one with Members missing.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator. On call. Our last author is here. Senator Wahab is here, and I know that there are Members that are engaged in other activities. If their staff could let them know. We're down to our very last author. Our last two bills. We would be pleased to have them show up. All right, Senator Wahab, first off, happy birthday.

Thank you.

Yeah. We're pleased that you've chosen to celebrate your birthday with Senate Judiciary Committee.

Place to be right?

Of course.

Well, right. Many want to do that. All right, first item number nine, SB 402.

All right, thank you, Chair and Members, I also just want to thank half for working with us on this particular Bill. I have accepted the given amendments on this Bill. SB 402 is a Bill with a specific goal of expanding the number of licensed mental health professionals eligible to initiate a 5150 hold, which is a 72 hours hold for individuals that are experiencing a crisis with county designation.

Community based organizations and the licensed mental health professionals working with them are on the front lines of our district as well as the rest of our state, building trust based relationships with people facing mental health challenges. Licensed mental health professionals follow very strict and specific requirements to place an individual under a 5150 hold. The person must be a danger to themselves12 a danger to others, and three, be gravely disabled.

These requirements are meant to protect individuals and the licensed mental health professional alike and ensure the personal safety of someone undergoing a crisis. Just like medical doctors, therapists and social workers take oaths of their professions, they are trained extensively to provide resources and deescalate mental health challenges and connect individuals to different levels of care. Not every single person needs the same level of care, and licensed mental health professionals understand that an involuntarily hold is an absolute last resort.

SB 402 ensures that licensed mental health professionals who don't work for the county or contract with it are eligible for county designation to Institute these types of holds as a last resort.

All right, witnesses in support.

No witnesses today.

No witnesses in support. All right, opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members, Michelle Cabrera with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California. We had an opposed position on the original version of the Bill. We very much appreciate the author's willingness to amend the Bill to ensure county designation and just are in the process of reviewing the proposed amendments to ensure that they reflect the intent of the author as well as the committees in providing that important safeguard. And so we continue to work with the author and appreciate the Committee's input as well as the progress made on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you others.

Good morning. My name is Clare Cortright I'm the Policy Director for Cal Voices. We are respectfully in opposition at this time, but also in conversations with the author because the Bill is moving fast. We didn't have a chance to do a letter just for judiciary. We do think there are some issues that are germane to this Committee that we did not have time to raise in a letter. And specifically, this Bill is a fundamental alteration to the existing law.

It would authorize a very large number, unknown number of additional practitioners to write holds, and this does raise civil rights issues and due process issues for our community. The goal is to supplant the police by authorizing additional folks to write holds. But the police have two roles in this matter. One, they might do the assessment and actually physically place the hold, but they're also involved in detention and custody and transport.

So authorizing additional folks means additional police involvement, and that is obviously where the issues with use of force and folks getting hurt come from. We also respectfully disagree with the author a bit on the quality of holds issue. She would like licensed professionals to do this instead of police officers. But we do have an issue with licensed professionals writing holds that are not appropriate. That's why the judicial end of the system exists.

And when I was representing folks, we are looking at anywhere from 17% of holds to 26% of holds that were getting dropped through the judicial system as not good holds. So this is a fundamental alteration to the system. It does raise the due process problems. We also have a problem with systemic bias and systemic racism in the system, including in Alameda County, which is the Senator's county, where black Americans are 11% of the population, but 55% of the holds that were written.

And there was a recent lawsuit against Alameda County's John George Hospital that disability rights settled about this issue. Folks are ending up in the acute end of the system with a clear racial bias, and that is related to the lack of availability of services.

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, others who wish to testify.

Debra Roth with Disability Rights California. Also here on behalf of Mental Health America of California, we are opposed. We appreciate the author's willingness to work with us and hope to get to at least a neutral, perhaps a support.

All right, thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. John Mckenzie, Doctorate of Nursing Practice. One of the things that I noticed in this Bill, and I definitely appreciate the expansion of those that may have the authority to.

I'll give you 30 seconds.

We're done. We're actually done with primary support and opposition. So go ahead.

Sure.

Absolutely. One thing I did notice in reading this Bill is the word nurse is not located anywhere in any of these adjustments to the Bill. I would encourage the writer to potentially include licensed psychiatric nurse, to include nurse practitioners and physician assistants that have accomplished the appropriate training.

All right, thank you. All right, others wishing to testify. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Let's now bring it back to Committee. Committee Members, questions, comments? Seeing no questions or comments. Is there a motion? Senator Ashby moves the Bill. All right, Senator Wahab, care to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I also want to make it very clear this does not remove police officers from this process. It just adds for frontline staff to actually tackle the issue we are having, which is mental health, as well as allowing for police officers to focus on crimes such as retail theft, rapes, murders, and things like that. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. If you can call the roll.

This is file item number nine, SB 402. The motion is do pass as amended. Umberg aye. Wilk aye. Allen. Ashby aye. Caballero aye. Gonzalez aye. Laird aye. Min aye. Niello aye. Stern. Wiener. Eight to zero with Members missing.

All right, our last Bill. Before we get to our last Bill, one bit of housekeeping. There are Members of this Committee who are engaged in other legislative business. And so what we're going to do is assuming that this Bill doesn't take us all the way till noon, we're going to recess, and then after this last Bill, we're going to call the roll for all those that are present so that they can vote. And then I'm going to come back at noon and we'll open the roll one more time.

All right, Senator Wahab?

Thank you. Again, I want to thank the Chair and Members and specifically also give a thank you to the Committee staff for helping us with these proposed amendments. I do accept the proposed amendments. So for the most part, California affords its children some of the weakest protections against childhood marriage in the United States. Data shows that 90% of women who were in childhood marriages report physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.

However, California also lacks a real understanding of the number of child marriages taking place within the state. Currently, children in the State of California require the consent of one parent and a court order to be married for child marriages. Only marriage certificates with a court order are being reported to the state, leaving a significant loophole for marriages lacking a court order. SB 575 closes that loophole. This Bill directs county recorders to issue a report on all child marriages between 2019 to 2024 to the state registrar.

This Bill also establishes a study to determine the impact of extra legal child marriages and gather essential data to determine the scope of this issue.

All right, thank you. Those in support, please approach the microphone. Those opposed, please approach the microphone. Are you opposed? Yes. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members Ruth Dawson with the ACLU of California Action and also with our friends, the National Center for Youth, and just wanted to confirm our official revocation of our opposition yesterday. Very much appreciate the author and her staff and the Committee staff for their hard work. Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right, other questions, comments? Seeing no questions or comments, let me just make a comment. Thank you. Senator Wahab, I know you've worked very, very hard on this issue. It's an incredibly important issue. Young people, particularly young women, who are being forced into marriages is something that is unacceptable as a policy matter. And I know this is an area of great interest to you, and I really appreciate us trying to define the issue. Those state sanctioned marriages are relatively, actually, they are very few.

But other forced marriages, for whatever reason, culture, religion, that's an issue. And trying to get to the heart of this so that we can address the challenges, that's commendable on your part. So I thank you for that. Senator Min.

Yeah, sorry, I thought you were talking about comments from the general audience. I just wanted to add on to that. And I know this is something that some of my constituents have pushed pretty hard for a few years. And obviously it's tricky because you don't want to prevent legitimate relationships between people that might be just a year or two apart in age. But I appreciate your taking the amendments and thank you for that.

And thank you for this Bill, because the problem of child marriage being used as a way to get around statutory rape laws is a real problem. And so I think this is an important Bill. Thank you. So I'll move it at the appropriate.

Senator Min has moved the Bill. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. All right, Madam Secretary, I'm sorry, would you like to close?

No, I appreciate it. I will say that I want to thank the chair as well as the Committee staff. This is an issue that's very important. And specifically, the reason why we are targeting data is that we have seen discrepancies in data from nine marriages happening to all the way to 23,000 marriages happening in a single year. So I think that this is incredibly important and again, closes the loophole. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much, ma'am. Secretary moved by Senator Min. If you call the roll, this is.

File item number 10. SB 575. The motion is to pass to send appropriations. Umberg aye. Wilk aye. Allen. Ashby. Caballero aye. Gonzalez aye. Laird aye. min aye. Niello. Stern. Wiener Seven to zero with Members missing.

All right, we're going to put that on call. We're going to go through all the bills here one time, and then we're going to recess until noon, and I'm going to come back then. I'm sorry. We're going to go through them right now, and then you get a second chance. Yes. All right, thanks. Okay, Madam Secretary, let's go through the.

Roll on the consent calendar. Allen Caballero Caballero, aye. Stern. Wiener. Eight to zero on consent with Members missing.

All right, we're going to put that.

File item number two, SB 54. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, we're going to put that on call.

File item number three, SB 827, chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, put that back on call.

File item number four, SB 869. Chair voting I, Alan Stern Wiener eight to zero Members missing. Put that on call file item number five, SB 875. Chair voting I, Alan Stern Wiener 820 Members missing.

All right, put that on call file.

Item number seven, SB 625. Chair voting aye eight to zero.

Put it back on call file item.

Number eight, SB 764 chair voting aye, all right, six to one, with Members missing.

All right, put it back on call.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that back on call. So what we're going to do is if the Members who are currently engaged in other legislative business, if they are finished before noon, then I may, at my discretion, open the roll earlier. But if not, we're going to open the roll at noon for final tally. All right, so we're in recess. Thank you. Senator Wiener here, and I'm going to ask the secretary to please open the roll one last time. Are you guys ready? You guys ready? Senator Allen? Senator Wiener. Okay. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

10 to zero consent calendar is adopted.

File item number two, SB 554. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

9 to 1 bills out.

[Roll Call] [Roll Call]

Bill is out.

That is the last item.

We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank.