Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Business Professions and Economic Development Committee. Today, we are going to begin as a subcommittee, until other members can arrive. But I do have a couple committee announcements that I wanna just highlight. We have 11 bills on our agenda today at the request of the author's file item number three, SB 993 by Senator Ochoa Bogue, and file item 11, SB 1351 by Senator Eric Gein will not be heard today.

So if you guys are here for that, I apologize, but they have pulled their bills. Thank you. So we do not have any bills on our consent file. So I do wanna highlight that as- as much as possible. We're gonna typically start as a first come first serve for any of the authors that are gonna be presenting.

A reminder to everyone that in this committee, we accept testimony from members of the public and witnesses at the microphone, over there. Two lead support and two lead opposition witnesses are allowed two minutes to present. You will be timed, and everyone adding as a Me Too in support and opposition will come at the very end to state their name, their organization, and whether they oppose or support the bill. Again, seeing as we have no quorum, we are gonna start as a subcommittee.

And so and I just wanna flag which Senator was first.

Okay. Okay. Sorry. You were in the crowd. So, we're gonna start with Senator Blakepear with file item number two, SB 936.

Senator, whenever you wanna start.

All right. Okay. Good morning. Thank you, Chair and colleagues, for the opportunity to present SB 936. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee for their Hard work on this bill.

SB 936 takes a measured approach to addressing the rise of nitrous oxide misuse in California. Nitrous oxide is a colorless, odorless gas with an addictiveness similar to crack cocaine that poses serious public health, safety, and waste management concerns. It has become a popular recreational drug, and improper inhalation is known to cause dizziness, impaired brain function, loss of motor control, asphyxia, and death, and rep and rep repeated exposure has been linked to long term neurologic damage.

While nitrous oxide has legitimate usage in controlled settings, such as in dental offices, bakeries, and automotive shops, use outside of these environments creates significant risks. Large tanks that are labeled for culinary use are widely available through retail shops and online marketplaces, and they're often marketed with flavored varieties and branding that appeal to young consumers.

And I'll just show as an example what you can buy in a smoke shop or in some liquor stores. This is a hot whip nitrous oxide with an easy to inhale fixture that you can put on the top. And this is $34 advertised right here in Sacramento and purchased. And it says that it says do not inhale, but then it is also flavored watermelon cream charger. So this is just an example of how easy it is to get something that is deadly and addictive.

Driving under the influence of nitrous oxide can cause impairment and accidents. One such incident in my district involved a father falling asleep behind the wheel after consuming Nitrous and crashing into a fence. The father then threw the canister of Nitrous Oxide under his car, grabbed his two children who are aged two and four, and fled the scene.

These types of incidents are hard to track because nitrous oxide does not appear on traditional breathalyzers or drug tests, making it difficult for law enforcement to detect impairment or enforce the current law. In addition, discarded canisters are hazardous and expensive to re recycle.

Pressurized canisters can explode during collection or processing, damage equipment, and endanger workers' lives. It also costs the county upwards of $60 to recycle each of these containers, which far exceeds the cost of actually purchasing them. This one is purchased for $34.99. For all of these reasons, several California counties and cities in California, including Orange County, which I represent, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, have already restricted the retail sale of nitrous oxide tanks.

SB 936 builds on these local efforts by establishing a clear statewide standard.

Specifically, SB 936 would prohibit the retail sale of nitrous oxide canisters larger than eight grams while preserving legitimate uses in medical, dental, and culinary and automotive settings. Importantly, the bill does not ban nitrous oxide outright, and it does not affect standard eight gram whipped cream chargers that are commonly used in culinary applications. SB 936 also does not create new possession crimes.

Instead, it focuses on restricting the sale and distribution of high risk products using civil penalties and regulatory tools rather than criminalization. We have taken a series of amendments to address some of the opposition concerns, clarifying that restrictions apply only when a distributor knows or reasonably should know that a product will be used for inhalation, ensuring items like balloons or bags are not accidentally captured.

The amendments also move the bill into the Health and Safety Code for more effective enforcement and make clear that local governments can continue to adopt and enforce stricter restrictions if they choose. By targeting the specific products most commonly associated with misuse, this bill aims to reduce youth access, prevent impaired driving, and protect workers in California's waste management systems. With me in support, I have two supervisors, Supervisor Katrina Foley of Orange County and Supervisor Michelle Buschnell of Humboldt County.

You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Wahab and members. Thank you for hearing SB 936, and thank you to Senator Blakespear for bringing this bill forward. I'm Katrina Foley, vice chair for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. SB 936 is, about the nitrous oxide products, how they're packaged, flavored, marketed, and sold.

In addition to the comments by Senator Blakespear, I bring personal knowledge of the devastating impacts of the unregulated sale and distribution of nitrous oxide in our communities. I've personally engaged with families living through the wreckage of nitrous oxide addiction. Families who've endured experiencing the lives of their beautiful, talented, creative, athletic, young adult children destroyed in no time.

I've personally engaged with families who watch their young adult children, siblings, and loved ones develop a psychosis, mirroring schizophrenia, reaching out to the county for involuntary commitment in and out of emergency rooms and on repeated involuntary holds. I've personally met patients who suffer from neuropathy, loss of balance, tingling of the hands and feet, and other neurological symptoms that they may never recover from.

I've spoken to neurologists who worry about the increase in young adults they treat due to nitrous oxide abuse. I've personally heard from first responders who see the aftermath of crashes. People passed out while cars are running, empty canisters and balloons scattered everywhere, lives injured and worse, lives lost and families forever changed. I've seen how quick and easy devastating high becomes an outlet for people struggling with addiction, and I've personally seen it tear apart families, destroy stability, and leave people trapped in a repeated crisis.

These oversized canisters with slick graphics, some larger than fire extinguishers, sold in flavors like Strawberry and watermelon along with balloons and attachments designed for inhalation

Thank you.

Are for recreation, not for any public purpose. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today to support SB 936. I'm Michelle Bushnell, Humboldt County supervisor.

Thank you to Senator Blakespear. I am here not just with facts, but with urgency. Nitrous oxide, lapping gas, whippets are no longer a harmless novelty. It is a growing epidemic and public health concern, especially among young people. Easy access flavored cartridges, as you have seen, and aggressive marketing my thingy is not gonna go up.

So sorry. Oh, there we go. Aggressive marketing, have turned into substance, into something more far more dangerous. I have personally been affected by nitrous oxide. Ten years ago, my car was stolen by a young woman who wrecked and killed a man, hit a man while she was doing whippets while driving.

The man was killed on the freeway. She left him like an animal and drove off and said she had hit a cow. It was terrible and she had been doing nitrous. She was 21 years old and she had been doing nitrous for about five years. Also, this young lady is Anisha, 19 years old, was killed five months ago by someone that was driving while doing nitrous.

They wrecked and hit a PG&E truck. The driver did. She was ejected and killed instantly. This is Nicholas Cartier, 21 years old, an employee of mine who was found dead with a whippets in his hand. 21, he lived in my apartment.

And when I cleaned out his apartment, I found 10 black garbage bags full of nitrous in his apartment. I urge you to take consideration of how dangerous nitrous is and to understand that this is an epidemic. I have constituents in my district begging for some kind of regulation and legislation around this.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? I don't know if you guys are walking towards them.

Lead opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go to Me Too's both in support and opposition. State your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Good morning, chair, and members. Ryan Shermer with California Narcotic Officers, and Association. We're in support of the bill and support all of these nitrous oxide bills this year. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the boards of supervisors of the counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Clara, as well as the urban counties of California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. George Suarez of the California Medical Association in support.

Thanks.

Jack Worston from Nossaman on behalf of the city of Ventura in support.

Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Alex Alaniz on behalf of the American Nurses Association of California in support.

Tony Hackett on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support.

Haley Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Good morning. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, cosponsor of the bill as well as the California Cannabis Operators Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. John Kennedy, Rural County representatives of California. Happy to be a sponsor of the bill along with the others.

Good morning. Cassandra Moore on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jack Yanos, Bethworkology in support. Thank you.

Reed Addis on behalf of Rethink Waste in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other me too's, we're gonna move on to committee comments. Would anybody like to comment? Senator Archuleta?

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And imagine if these were beer bottles and wine bottles and whiskey bottles and alcohol. Obviously, we would be jumping right across the counters to go ahead and stop it. And I think with our young that are dying, and we just heard someone who was killed by a driver who's obviously impaired by this.

I was so proud to the work I'm doing, and the Senate and the committee, all of us are doing that stop the drunk driving that we hear about.

But, obviously, when, young people have access to something like this, that's gonna cause even further problems than we can even realize. Next generation coming up, Imagine the lives we're gonna save by stopping this sort of thing. But, Senator, I do ask when you mentioned that that container there obviously should be banned, no doubt. But when you mentioned that eight grams, that would be permissible. Explain how that would be a difference because I would like to see it stop completely.

I mean, the the focus on this size is that this this is a size that's being routinely abused right now because of its, you know, obviously, its size. And it's being they're being sold as if they're for culinary uses, but they're actually for illicit uses to get high. And so we're focusing on this because it's just such a prevalent problem.

Well, I I I support the bill when it's appropriate. I'll move it. Thank you.

Anybody else? Seeing none, I I do just wanna say, just as as the former chair of public safety, we do see a lot of violations of these types of things, things that we don't think about, whether it's Sharpie pens or whippets, I guess. Right? But I do wanna say that there is typically a process that where the licensee, the the individuals that are selling these particular items, there is agencies that kind of oversee their license.

And so I just want to make sure that, you know, as this bill moves forward, that, you know, there is some consideration of the current agencies and their enforcement practices, and how we can strengthen that as well.

I do wanna flag that there is a difference between the civil penalties versus the criminal, but this is getting more and more rampant. In fact, I was driving in San Francisco and I saw a guy with, in my opinion, was a whipped cream bottle. And, you know, you don't even wanna drive next to them because you're like, I I can't stop them if they pass out. And I was in in kind of shock.

So I do want to say that this is an issue that we do see in in the public and obviously kids are abusing it too.

So my recommendation is an aye, but I do just want to flag for the author to try to work with the agencies that currently oversee the process. We will move it at the appropriate time. We do not have quorum yet. Let me see. We do not have quorum yet.

So we're gonna just put it on on file to bring up in a minute. Thank you.

May I close?

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the comments and it enforcement is really important. I think the reality, this is a photo of a liquor store in Orange County, which, you know, some people might not even ever go into a smoke shop, but people are in liquor stores all the time for all sorts of things. And this here right at the front is just huge, displays of these.

Yes.

So it there really is a normalization of this, and so changing the law so that, it this is this is something that we don't see in liquor stores is what's really important. And I'll also just, I wanna highlight that because we had ACLU opposition to this bill in the first committee, we really have been working with them. They were concerned that those who are selling plastic bags or balloons for other uses might get caught up in this, some sort of prohibition on the sale.

And so we've dealt with that concern by making that clear that if you're just buying balloons or plastic bags, you're not gonna end up in violation of the law. So with that, I very much appreciate the the involvement with this important bill, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Alright. So as I said earlier, we still do not have quorum, so we're gonna move on to the next bill. Senator Richardson, if you would like to present file item number six, SB 1312, and then I believe you have file item number seven, SB 1340, right after.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I come before you today to ask for your support for SB 1312. It's a follow-up bill to last year's SB 777 to address the issue of abandoned cemeteries. Abandoned, the people interned and the property are subject to vandalism and theft, desecration of burial plots. There are 187 private cemeteries in the state of California that are subject to abandonment.

The number has already, the number of abandonment cemeteries has already grown. We have a list of more than 10, that are already abandoned currently and more are growing each day. You might ask why. When a cemetery becomes full, it is no longer profitable. You can no longer sell new plots.

And so people who own these private cemeteries have no further interest if there isn't a profit to be made. One of the challenges that we see is that individuals, when they purchase a plot, you pay for towards an endowment. An endowment is intended to provide continual care of that particular cemetery.

The challenge is many people purchased their plots, many years ago and so the amount of money that would have covered for adequate maintenance for a cemetery back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and so on is no longer sufficient. When cemeteries lose their owners, they lose protection.

I asked the sergeants to I gave them a copy of an article just a day before yesterday. One of the cemeteries was vandalized, because they have limited funds in order to protect because people are coming in, stealing markers, opening graves. I mean, it it gets to the worst. I do have a copy of the news coverage, but I didn't want to send it to you over the weekend, blindly. I wanted you to hear the information before us today.

But at this particular cemetery, they had, three or four dogs that were there to provide, protection and security. One dog was killed. Two others were stabbed. So to say that, cemeteries can just kind of somehow, continue with no protection, with no real direction of how an appropriate cemetery that's abandoned should be cared for really needs to be changed. So, the Private Cemeteries Act was intended to regulate the ownership, control, and maintenance of primary- of private cemeteries.

Currently, the California Cemetery and Fun- Funeral Bureau manages the endowment fund, accounts for abandoned cemeteries, and maintains the contracts for burials, but it is not responsible for the care and maintenance of the property itself. As a result, responsibilities necessary for the care of the cemetery grounds often falls to loved ones of those interred or other volunteers which often have passed away themselves or have limited resources to adequately maintain the grounds.

SB 777, which was chaptered last year, some of you might recall I came here at that time, called for the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau to convene a work group of effective stakeholders by March 1st, which was just, last month, to explore options for ensuring the continued care and maintenance and embellishment of the abandoned cemeteries. SB 1312 will serve as the vehicle for those options and recommendations. So just to summarize, I came before you last year.

We had specific recommendations of what could be done for abandoned cemeteries. Apparently, the year before that, Assemblymember Berman, on the Assembly side, had brought forward a bill to give people an opportunity to meet and collaborate and discuss options. So I agreed to, honor that in my bill last year. Now that they have met, we're waiting for the funeral bureau to give us recommendations.

We have the same recommendations as we did previously, but we wanna make sure to incorporate, the community's input and individuals who serve in this industry.

So, that's why the bill is coming forward to you today. We expect to have specific recommendations over the next, couple weeks and I'll certainly come back if you deem it necessary. But today, I would hope for your aye vote so we can can continue forward with the path of legislation. With that, I will, pause for any questions or comments.

Do we have any witnesses?

I do not believe so today.

Okay. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? You'll have two minutes.

Chair and members, not in opposition, but, fine with the bill as it moves forward. Jerry Desmond with the Cemetery and Mortuary Association of California, and we embrace the SB 777 initiated process to look at the problem of abandoned cemeteries and come up with solutions. We've been participating in that working group, together with, representatives of this committee and other committees and Senator Richardson's office.

And we put some ideas forward to try to identify where the flaws are in the current system, what the tools the cemetery bureau has today through its inspections, through its review of reports, through its ability to increase the amount of funds that a cemetery must deposit into the Obamacare funds. And we have some ideas.

We've even engaged with the stakeholders who work, in the counties where there are abandoned cemeteries. And so we look forward to what form the bill will take when the recommendations come out because we don't know what the recommendations will be either. But we do see some opportunities already to address before a cemetery is declared abandoned and they lose their certificate of authority and it's revoked. And we're coming up with some ideas to identify early on when a cemetery really has been abandoned. It's not being maintained.

It doesn't have sufficient funds. The community can't get in. And can we give authority to the bureau to take action then to say, hey, let's look at how we're gonna manage it. Who is there an owner? Is there some liability?

But the bureau would still have some authority over that cemetery. So we're engaged in the process. We're optimistic that we've given this input to the bureau, and that when it comes out in the form of amendments to this bill as it moves forward, moves forward, that we'll be able to embrace them. So we are engaged, and we do think there will be some positive outcomes that we can work together with. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any me too's? Me too in support or opposition. Seeing none, before we come back to the committee, I'd like to establish quorum.

[establishing of quorum].

Alright. And with that, would anybody in the committee like to comment? Senator Choi?

No. Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Yeah. I have some question. I- I know abandoned cemeteries are very big problem. This one is addressing for the future prevention or I will deal with the current abandoned cemeteries?

It would include, it is our intent to include the current cemeteries that are abandoned and those going forward.

Okay. Next question is that we do have a funeral bureau already. Within the department, there should be a a new personnel or division created to deal with this problem rather than creating advisory committee, which is another bureaucracy. What the who's gonna supervise the bureau, funeral bureau, or the committee? Later, it'll be confusing who will have authority over management, future management, or prevention of future of an abandoned cemeteries?

Permission to answer through the chair?

Of course. Yes.

Chair. Yes. I I was gonna give a more extended answer so I wanted to seek her permission. So, Senator Choi, the situation is the Consumer Bureau still exists and will maintain the ultimate authority. The working group was established to discuss what potential options.

We wanted to make sure that the funeral and cemetery industry participated, that LAFCO, for example, in Los Angeles, LAFCO is a body that's created that deals with many interagency issues. They, LAFCO itself, actually works with, cemeteries and in some cases, they are abandoned cemeteries. So, there are various processes but we wanted to make sure that all of them, that working group, had an opportunity to share with us the recommendations. So, there were to my understanding, there's not going to be a continued working group.

What we're looking to do is the working group is giving us the recommendations.

Those recommendations will be incorporated as amendments into this bill. And, essentially, the Consumer and Funeral Bureau, their responsibility is to hold the funds, the endowment funds. So, for example, Lincoln Abandoned Cemetery in my district has an abandoned has a endowment fund of $1,000,000 which equates to about $3,000 per year. So, they can do, basic maintenance for $3,000 a year, but as we know, dollars 3,000 is nothing.

You can hardly cut your own lawn, you know, every month for a $100 a month, let alone a massive cemetery property.

So, the intent is to provide more direction. So when a cemetery is abandoned, who now would have the authority? What work can be done? There just needs to be, a greater ability to handle these abandoned cemeteries. And currently, all the consumer bureau does is manage the endowment account.

But it's not saying, oh, we're gonna send so and so company out to provide maintenance, to provide security. They're not doing that work. And so that's why I provided you with the article that shows of a cemetery just two days ago that was vandalized and dogs were killed.

You sound like the current, funeral bureau is, just, nothing but, fund the management vehicle rather than regulation.

They do provide regulation in the sense of current cemeteries. So what the witness was talking about, a current cemetery, I believe it's annually, they have to submit a report. What's in their endowment account? How many current plots are sold? There's basic information that they have to provide and an audit is conducted.

So the, cemetery and funeral bureau is more in the activity of the current active cemeteries. What the witness was saying is that we need to get past what the current cemeteries are doing. We need a plan to make sure that current cemeteries don't become abandoned. And we currently have a 187 that potentially could. So this will only be a growing problem throughout the state.

So working committee has, come up with the recommendations, to protect the remaining 186, cemeteries and not to become abandoned in the future?

Yes. And now we're waiting for the consumer bureau to give us those recommendations that we can then incorporate into this bill. So we will have a process going forward.

Yeah. Your concern in the dealing with the, you know, solving the current problem and the future problems is really highly, you know, supportable. But only thing was that the working committee, advisory committee to be newly established above and beyond the current funeral bureau, which should do everything, anything to do with the cemeteries because as the name says and then also you mentioned that they do have regulatory management above and beyond the management of the down on the endowment funds.

So I mean that the bureau can be strengthened and if necessary one or two new members can be hired rather than coming on with the regulatory advisory committee, two two separate ones. To me, for the consumers and the future cemetery companies will be more confusing and the two different bodies to go through.

Yes, sir. Yes. The advisory- The essence of the advisory committee was to form to give us the feedback. They have formed. They have met.

I think they had probably at least maybe six to seven meetings. And so now, they're- they reported that feedback to the bureau. So the bureau is still in charge and will give us ultimately what their recommendations are.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no other comments, son- sorry, Senator Niello.

Two things. First of all, you say this is Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery in Carson City and Carson City, of course, is in Nevada. You mean the city of Carson?

Yes. Just wanna clarify that. So I am a definite, decided, and certain maybe because I don't know what the recommendations are. And I think we are effectively approving whatever recommendations are to come. You said you come back and report but, this is- it's premature.

Yes, sir.

I- I suspect I strongly suspect that I would be in favor of it but I have a hard time approving this which is a tacit approval of what they are yet to come up with. So I'm gonna lay off.

Sure. A maybe is better than a no, sir. And the other point I would make is we have to adhere to the timeliness of the legislative schedule. So since they just concurred and had to complete their report just two weeks ago. We wanna make sure that we're incorporating what the community has wanted to provide.

But I will certainly have those updates for you when it comes before you again.

Thank you. We will let the Senator close. I do just wanna highlight that this type of issue has come before us as the Senator explained. Clearly, we want the bureau to be thinking about these things, and so we're obviously very, excited to collaborate, as this bill moves forward. My recommendation is an eye, because we have talked about this, not just in the two bills that you referenced, but even previously.

So with that, would you like to close?

I would respectfully ask to be the first vote that you would send over today, which is SB 1312.

Thank you. With that, we have a motion by Senator Archuleta and Irako from the chair. Can we call a roll?

Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. [roll call].

Alright. That bill is on call, and we appreciate it, Senator. I I do just wanna ask again for file item number two. We had a motion by Senator Archuleta on SB 936 by Senator Blakespear. I just want that to let's get some votes there.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill's on call as well. We're moving on to file item number seven, SB 1340 by Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, I'm here before you to ask for your support on SB 1340. California's small businesses are drivers of our economic growth and mobility. In 2025, California reported a total of 4,300,000 small businesses. These businesses created 7,600,000 jobs and made up 42.3%.

That's 70,100,000,000.0 of the state's annual exports. In 2022, the legislature emphasized the importance of small businesses contracting with the state of California, requiring a 25% procurement participation goal for small businesses. Yet, in 2024, 37.3% that's almost over that's actually over a third of our state agencies reported that they did not meet this mandated percentage. Example number one, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and number two, the Department of State Hospitals.

Additionally, the total awarded state dollars from mandatory agencies to small businesses and micro businesses decreased by 2,970,000,000.00 in 2023 to '24 compared to 2022, 2023 numbers.

California leads the nation in the number of patents, quantity of research, institutions, investments, and deploys more venture and equity capital capital, excuse me, than any other state. So, in California, small businesses have a significant footprint in our economy. So, what's the problem? One answer is the longevity of the state and local contracting. With small businesses contributing significantly to the economy, California must ensure it is consistently and adequately providing outreach and interest and an understanding of the competitive value of these businesses.

SB 1340 will help further California's progress in reaching the mandatory 25% participation goal. Essentially, SB 1340 will require a state agency a state state agency's current small business liaison to annually submit the department's contract information to the Office of Small Business Advocate created in 2011 in order to advocate for small businesses.

The following information included in the report will also be posted online: a list of all current contracts between the state agency and a small business, a list of all contracts of the state agency that include a subcontract with the small business and their respective expiration dates, the total number amount of each contract, including charge orders, and then finally, the total dollar amount paid to a small business under a contract or a or a subcontract.

By utilizing this data to ensure meaningful procurement participation, California can increase small businesses' and micro businesses' ability to compete. If I could just, share one example for you.

When I was, in my hiatus in between, doing public service, I worked with a company to help them develop their federal contracts. And one of the best ways that a small business can begin to get a government contract is to do a subcontract to the prime contractor. And when you have this kind of information as a small business, you can then anticipate and go to that prime contractor and say, Hey, I can fulfill 10% of your contract and thereby help you to meet your participation goals.

But if they don't have the information of what the amount is, what the contract is, what the term is, all of those details, it really hinders the small business from being able to effectively participate, in the future procurement process. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And we don't have a, lead witness. Correct? No. Okay.

Do we have lead opposition? Do we have, any support or oppose, witnesses? In the Me Too's, again, state your name, your organization, and that you support and oppose. No additional commentary.

Good morning. I'm Regina Evans, chief of staff to controller Malia Cohen, who's the sponsor of this bill. Unless you have questions, I think the Senator clearly delineated what we're trying to accomplish here. You, in passing AB 2019, set the standard across state government for all state agencies and departments to have a 25% contracting goal. This bill just goes a step further.

Not only do we have to report that we're entering into those contracts, but now we're gonna capture actual payment

Which is huge. Thank you. And a step in the right direction. Senator, thank you for sponsoring the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Do we have any other me too's? Seeing none, we're gonna turn it over to committee. Committee, team, nobody Alright. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Caballero.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Alright. That bill is on call. Senator, I do appreciate your time.

Thank you. Thank you for having me.

We are gonna move on to file item number one, SB 903 by Senator Padilla.

Alright. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Pleased to present SB903. I'd like to begin by thanking the chair and staff for working with us on this bill. As many of you already know, artificial intelligence has many upsides and potential to improve the lives of Californians across our state, but only if we ensure that it is used responsibly.

AI has been integrated into many industries with great promise to expand capacity and exist with efficiency and tasks. In an industry as with this high stakes as the practice of mental health treatment, we must ensure that our adequate guardrails are in place to prevent these algorithms from being deployed in a way that is potentially harmful to patients.

We've already seen some real world consequences of inadvertently irregular AI in mental health care with chatbots powered by AI algorithms on the market claiming to provide therapy or therapeutic services. Websites where these bots are available often use taglines like, and I quote, twenty four seven AI therapist always at your fingertips, unquote, or quote AI therapy in your pocket literally, and claim even to go as far as to provide cognitive behavioral therapy. Many people, including children, have turned to these chatbots for mental health support.

However, there's a growing body of research that shows that these tools can do more harm than good. A recent Stanford University study found that AI therapy chatbots may not only lack effectiveness compared to human therapists, but could also contribute to harmful stigma and dangerous responses.

Clinicians, very large and growing number of Clinicians are raising concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause client overreliance, give incorrect treatment recommendations, and have the inability to detect subtle communications cues such as tone and eye contact. Last year, I authored SB 579, which would have created a working group to assess the ways in which AI is used in mental health treatment and establish best practices.

While that bill did not progress, we continue to see the dangers, the data set that point to dangers growing and expanding.

In fact, many other states have looked to this same issue. Last year, the Illinois legislature passed the wellness and oversight of psychological resources act, which prohibited the advertisement or offering of psychotherapy services if they're not being conducted by an individual who's a licensed clinician or professional and also set clear legal guardrails protecting mental health care from unregulated artificial intelligence use.

This bill would build off this model and protect individuals seeking therapy or psychotherapy services by ensuring they are only provided by a qualified licensed professional, not an algorithm. SB 903 sets standards for use in therapeutic practice and settings by requiring disclosure and affirmative informed consent and always keeping a human in the supervisorial loop. The bill would also reinforce that use of AI tech in psychotherapy records must comply with already existing confidentially confidentiality laws.

AI has a potential to increase clinical capacity, but only if it is utilized in a way that does no harm. It draws a clear line. It can be a tool in the hands of licensed professionals, but it cannot be the professional. Joining me today to testify is Ilana Marcucci Morris, a licensed clinical social worker at Kaiser Permanente here today representing the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and Tyler Rindy representing the California Psychological Association.

Thank you. You're gonna each have two minutes timed. Thank you

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ilana Marcucci Morris. I'm a licensed clinical social worker at the National Union of Healthcare Workers and proud co-sponsor of SB903. The important healing work that professionals like me provide cannot be replicated by technology because empathy is fundamentally human.

If you ever have felt assured or healed by another person's empathy, you know that AI mimicking those same words would not produce the same effect. We returned from Zoom post-pandemic because human connection is irreplaceable. One of the specific dangers that SB903 will protect against is bias. AI has the potential to supercharge bias and discriminatory patient treatment. A growing body of evidence shows that AI is biased against non English speaking and non Western cultures.

In fact, a recent study found that large language models often propose inferior treatments for minority patients when their race is indicated. NUHW Clinicians have already seen AI technology implemented in our workplaces, and we've already seen cases where AI is recommending the wrong type of treatment for our patients. These are two things that I two more things that Aye, as a human practitioner, have that AI does not is anxiety and accountability. Through training, I use my human anxiety to identify safety threats to my patients.

And as a licensed professional, I am accountable to the state.

SB903 protects patients by ensuring that a licensed human professional is always in the loop. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tyler Rinde on behalf of the California Psychological Association. We represent over 2,000 licensed psychologists and are proud co-sponsors of SB903 by Senator Padilla. We're grateful for Senator Padilla's commitment to protecting Californians and appreciate the thoughtful analysis by the committee. SB 903 establishes clear, reasonable standards to protect consumers as artificial intelligence enters the mental health space.

Increasingly, individuals are encountering tools that resemble therapy but lack the training, accountability, and ethical obligations of licensed professionals. This bill ensures that care remains safe and regulated to protect consumers. Critically, it's already been stated, SB903 remain maintains a human in the loop. AI can support care, but it cannot replace the clinical judgment or responsibility of a licensed provider. The bill requires professional oversight and prevents AI from acting independently in delivering mental health services.

AI is a new and rapidly evolving technology and thoughtful guardrails are necessary now to protect patients while allowing innovation to continue. We also wanna note that the cosponsors are committed to working with the stakeholders to continue conversations on concerns that have been raised. For these reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote on SB903. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? You'll each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Members. My name is Doctor Karthik Sarma, and I practice psychiatry including psychotherapy at UCSF, San Francisco General, and the VA. I'm the founder of the UCSF AI mental health research group, and I'm here representing the California Medical Association. CMA is respectfully opposed unless amended to SBIC903. We appreciate this bill's intent to protect Californians from untested, unapproved, and potentially unsafe AI applications, and we welcome the recent amendments on consent and enforcement.

We look forward to continuing to work together. We believe that when thoughtfully implemented, AI can enhance rather than replace clinical decision making. As currently drafted, however, SB903 risks creating unintended consequences that may lead to worse mental health outcomes for Californians. Some of the bill's definitions are overly broad and unclear. For example, the definition of psychotherapeutic communication may cover compassionate statements in almost any context.

Psychotherapy is a planned, structured, skilled, and deliberate clinical intervention, not simply the offering of empathy. Without clarity, Clinicians will face uncertainty about what technologies are permissible and potentially discouraging the use of beneficial tools. These broad definitions could restrict appropriate evidence based Digital tools today, such as the VA CBT I coach for insomnia, and would potentially bar future AI Digital therapeutics that complete clinical trials and receive FDA approval.

Broadly restricting tools that detect emotions or mental states could also bar current tools that assess suicide risk and stop crucial research into accelerating diagnosis and improving treatment. Similarly, banning all training on psychotherapy data, even when collected in research studies with consent, could bar the development of scientific deep brain models intended to understand disorders like autism, dementia, and schizophrenia.

We recommend amendments that would focus on barring the use of untested and unapproved devices that purport to treat mental illness without convincing evidence of safety and efficacy, remove or revise multiple definitions listed in the bill, and provide explicit language that would allow for ethical research and development overseen by IRBs. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. I'm happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Robert, my name is Robert Boykin with TechNet. I am here today to respectfully oppose SB903 unless it is amended. While we appreciate the author's engagement and the goal of ensuring safe, clinician led care, we feel the bill as recently amended would significantly restrict beneficial uses of AI in health care. First, even when a licensed professional remains fully responsible, the bill would limit widely used tools such as patient check ins, journaling, and workflow support that improve continuity of care.

As noted in community analysis, these tools are increasingly being used to expand access and reduce stigmas around mental health care. Second, the bill creates internal conflicts and operational challenges, mainly around triage and screening. One section allows AI use with consent, while another effectively prohibits the core function of triage, accessing symptoms and determining care needs. In practice, this could require providers to unwind structures already deployed across the health care ecosystem. The committee analysis itself flags this ambiguity and suggests further clarification as needed.

Third, certain provisions may undermine patient safety and innovation. For example, the prohibition on detecting emotional or mental states conflicts with other policies regulating AI that rely on these capabilities to identify self, risk. And a blanket restriction on using data to improve systems can hinder efforts to develop safer, more effective tools. Lastly, we agree with the author that AI should not be advertised as replacing licensed professionals. However, AI tools when responsibly deployed, in a clear and consistent manner can help increase access to care.

With that said, we look forward to working with the author, the sponsors of this committee, and the many stakeholders to ensure these tools remain available to support patients and providers throughout California. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you. We're gonna move on to Me Too's. Either state your name, your org, and whether you support or oppose.

Good morning, Chair. Jorge Cruz on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association, proud health sponsor in strong support.

Carol, I'm Bill Hunter, on behalf of Teladoc Health. We, align our our comments with those who are opposed unless amended and look forward to working with the author on those. Thank you.

Good morning. Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. We're one of the proud co-sponsors of the bill in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Mark Farouk on behalf of California Hospital Association. Opposed unless amended, but did wanna thank the author, the staff, and sponsors for the ongoing discussions and the amendments. Look forward to talking more.

Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair, Members. Alex Alanis on behalf of the

American Nurses Association of California in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Dennis Cuevas-Romero with the California Primary Care Association Advocates. Really wanna express appreciation to the author and and staff. We were opposed unless amended. With those amendments, we're we're moving to our opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ruth Sosa on behalf of Power CA Action representing 13,000 young adults across the state in strong support.

Good morning, Chair Members. Elmer Lazardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. We're gonna move on to Committee members. Senator Menjivar.

Okay.

Thank you. Senator Padilla, one of the things that my wife talks to me all the time is about how, well, one, on social media, you know, she dislikes people providing mental health advice, but not even licensed clinical therapist. Talks about how chat box are being used to provide therapy and so forth. You know? So these are issues that are brought up a lot off are often in my home.

But she also talks to me about how writing notes and documentation, she hates it. Only therapists all therapists here, it's a lot of time that is taken. And she gets distracted from watching her shows. I'm just kidding. No.

No. No. No. She's not. She's definitely not she did.

No. No. In all seriousness, I'm wondering if this would preclude therapists from using AI to streamline their note taking after a session. Because it's not providing the therapy for them, but it helps them. I know that takes a huge chunk of their time.

Madam Chair, Senator, thank you for the great question. I would argue no, although I would acknowledge and for the for the benefit of the entire committee members that we are working actively with those who have some critique of the existing definitions and language because it's clearly our intent not to affect pure administrative support that reduces timeliness, responsiveness, clarity, efficiency, all about that.

I think what we are trying to get at, and I would argue we're fairly clear about it in the draft language, is that we're addressing therapeutic communications, therapeutic, and supportive dynamics between a clinician and a patient, in a clinical setting, in a psychotherapeutic setting. That's what we're getting at. It is we don't we always want a human in the loop.

We wanna we're all about helping support efficiency. But as the committee is well aware, as we speak, as we sit here today, a lot of these services are in fact being advertised in an online setting as psychotherapy, as clinical setting support, and not at all involving a licensed professional.

A 100% agree with that. Is that part of I know opposition mentioned they're gonna be working on some, clarity and amendments to the gentleman. I'm wondering if that's the clarity that's needed and tie into, I know opposition mentioned, like, journaling, that helps with therapy. Is that also something since it's not the direct providing, that's gonna be clear. Great.

Thank you for the follow-up, madam chair. Senator, the the bill draft provides, specifically that if AI technology is gonna be deployed in a clinical setting for simply recording or note taking or other memorializing of the session, it it requires notice and informed consent. It is just strengthening that. So if the patient is in the loop and the doctor is in the loop, everybody is understanding how, what, and to what extent AI is being deployed in a clinical setting or in a therapy session.

And see if I understood correctly, one of the opposition's letter I read, and please clarify, Senator, that there's conflicting information where it allows for FDA approved AI to be used, but your bill also says no FDA approved. So I just wanted to if you can comment on that.

Madam Chair.

FDA. Thank you. Madam chair.

Madam Chair, Senator, I need to clarify a little bit of that myself because I take a little bit of issue with that. I other and and so we will we will provide that. That is not my understanding. But another inconsistency while you have it, there was another critique in the same letter that addressed language in SB 243 Your bill. That my bill that the governor signed last year.

And I just wanna point out, this bill addresses an entirely different scenario. That bill deals with a vulnerable or a minor person in the open online market engaging with an algorithm and putting inputs into the conversation that should be flagged and trigger protocols to protect that individual. This bill, again, specifically addresses the clinical therapeutic setting. This is getting at somebody who's engaging, with a bot or with an algorithm that very well could be easily misunderstood that they're engaging with a licensed psychotherapist and they're not.

If I can, ma'am, I'm sure I asked one of the opposition so they could clarify, see if I understood correctly on the FDA approved tools and if I did not understand that correctly.

Senator, Karthik Sharma again from CMA. I'm not a 100% sure I understood the question, but I think I I did make reference to FDA in that. My our concern was that the bill doesn't create an opportunity for an FDA approved application to be able to be used. It bans all such applications. We feel that we should be able to use research based, safe, and effective FDA approved tools.

Okay. Maybe that's what how I missed the question. Can I rephrase to can you address that, Senator?

Madam Chair. Senator, thank you for the clarification. Thanks to my staff and to the opposition witness That we're gonna continue working with them to make sure that we're aligning the regulatory framework so that we're not creating, an opposing framework that's inconsistent with the federal guidelines.

I'm really aligned with what you're doing, Senator. I think as we move as you move forward, I would love to make sure that there's ability for licensed clinicians to be able to use some tools that help streamline the administrative aspect of their work. Thank you.

Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with what you're trying to do, I think. You stated that AI can be a tool, a valuable tool in the hands of a licensed professional. I agree with that. And there we always want a human in the loop.

I, I agree that the chat bots are problematic at least. My concern about that though is as an example, Abby the AI therapist. I thought that was pretty clever and there's several others there too. If that is a platform that is originating outside of California or even outside the country, there's no way we can enforce that. And I I think, that's not a problem with this bill.

I'm just pointing that out, with with the ubiquitousness of the Internet. This is one thing that, always concerns me with regard to regulations of artificial intelligence or anything else on the Internet. If it originates particularly outside the country, there isn't anything we can do about it. And I'm at least I don't know what it is we can do about it. That concerns me about regulation in this area generally.

But the the the bill states that it can be used for administrative support and supplementary support. And you talked a little bit with Senator Menjivar about that. It also says that it, it prohibits it, from allowing artificial intelligence to do any of the following. And it says to generate therapeutic recommendations, assessment results, diagnoses, or treatment plans without review and approval by the licensed professional.

In other words, it can be used for those things if utilized by the licensed professional and that's the human that's in the loop.

It's unclear to me if this bill allows a therapist to utilize artificial intelligence to help him or her, in their assessment of an issue and therefore to assist them in coming up with a treatment plan. That'd be no different than going to the library and researching it. I I don't think we're outlined that. So I I it's not clear to me exactly what your bill does or doesn't allow?

Madam Chair, Senator, thanks for the great question. I would respond to say that the language in the bill that you just cited in the characterization from the analysis is correct. It is the intent clearly and perhaps we can continue massaging the language as we work with stakeholders to make it even, you know, more effectively clear, is that the scenario described is fine.

I mean, fundamentally, to really boil it down to its most rudimentary is you wanna keep a licensed clinician, a licensed professional in the loop, a human being to oversee. There's we're not taking issue with the fact that there can be some added value or utility here by the deployment of this technology.

We're not saying that. We're saying that it has to be contextually regulated around making sure we're protecting that the patients by making sure that the oversight is by a licensed professional and that they are in the loop. Now, our language may be imperfect and to your point, we may need to continue working to perfect it and we will do so. But the answer the the simple answer to your question is yes.

It's really important that the language is explicit and even I would say perfect because if we have regulations specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence. And if it's not crystal clear, even with consent subsequent to treatment, if a patient was dissatisfied, an action could be taken against that therapist, based upon a violation of law merely because the law isn't clear enough. So I would just emphasize, I'll support this now, but I don't think it's clear enough at this point.

Madam Chair, Senator, I hear you loud and clear. And I think to the opposition testimony from CNA, I think I see that coming through in a lot of their testimony as well. And we're sensitive to those concerns, and we're gonna continue working. Thank you.

Senator Choi.

Thank you. I also have some clear points with this peer language because you are emphasizing that no AI shall be used in therapeutic settings and for the treatment of the patient. That's not the case, but the licensed practitioner cannot use AI data at all in concert before the giving the treatment. It has to be solely in his or her judgment. Is that what the concern is?

Madam Chair.

Senator, if I might, no. That is not. And let me clarify if I didn't do a good enough job earlier. The bill does not restrict the use of AI in any fashion in a therapeutic or clinical setting. What it seeks to do is be sure that a licensed clinical professional clinician is in the loop of that.

If you're talking about assessing a patient even remotely, if you're talking about some degree of triage of a patient's condition, that always involves an element of some preliminary diagnostic or other other assessment skills that can't be replicated by an algorithm, absent a human being who is a licensed clinician. And so the the goal of the bill is to be sure that we're protecting services and quality and licensure, the quality of licensure, frankly, that we require any professional to go through to be able to practice.

That if they're gonna use and deploy AI tools, that that be transparent, that there be informed consent about how it's deployed, and that a licensed human clinician is in the loop supervised. So the bill does not prohibit the use of AI in treatment or supportive role of treatment. It just seeks to be sure that it is appropriately supervised by a licensed professional.

Yeah. Even though what I know of of very little AI is that the very advanced is not perfect. When I use it interactively, chat GPT, sometimes I find a lot of wrong information, and then I provide the correct answer and it apologizes. I'm sorry. So obviously, it's not perfect, but it's a developing stage.

So we are but at the same time, it is a very efficient and it is based upon huge data that has collected even though it's not perfect. So, obviously, at this stage, it's not acting as AI as a humanoid, not pretending I'm the doctor, the AI is a true to try to treat.

But the the summary says that it's prohibiting the individual or corporations or entity from providing advertising or or otherwise offering cycle therapy service, including through the use of artificial intelligence to the public unless psychotherapy is conducted by licensed professionals. Obviously, AI is used by professionals. AI itself is not acting by itself.

So it is we are directing. We are utilizing it, either for advertising or anything else. But treating in the therapeutic setting, I thought that this bill was trying to prohibit that. But now we can allow the professionals to use AI. So that's the point of where your bill is unclear to me.

Madam Chair, thank you, Senator. Let me try clarifying again. First, I would respectfully disagree in that right now as we sit in committee, the, there are plenty of examples of interactions with chat bots and algorithms online being advertised to consumers as access to psychotherapy. And oftentimes, people are very easily misled that they're think they're communicating with a licensed human professional and they are in fact not.

In many cases, some of the studies have shown some of the feedbacks and communication from the algorithm to the perspective patient is conducting itself in the conversation as if it were practicing psychotherapy.

So we draw a distinction here between and you're correct, Senator, that right now it is deployed and used in a supportive role to help Clinicians and therapists administratively, efficiencies, record keeping. The bill does not prohibit that at all. It doesn't put a blanket prohibition on the use or deployment of AI in these settings. What it simply said is you have to have clarity, informed consent, and you have to have a licensed professional in the loop. And that's what that's what we seek to do.

But right right now, there are people accessing these services who think they're actually in a psychotherapeutic setting and they're really not because an AI chatbot cannot legally practice psychotherapy. As And I don't think most of us would want them to be. At least

I hope not. Yeah. Can can I follow-up on your question? Yes. Has there been any real cases that this has become a problem for using AI independently and the decision was made AI not by interpreting by the licensed practitioners in in commanding AI to provide that information.

Has there been any actual setting problem? Why? What prompted this bill? That that's the really confusing part

to me. Madam chair, Senator, I would refer you again to my my presentation of the bill and I would refer you, we can get to your office, the Stanford study that I cited. But there's a growing data set and body of evidence that shows that that is sometimes unfortunately happening and it is not leading to healthy outcomes.

Thank you.

So I just wanna be very clear again, to the public. This is brief gonna be referred out to the Senate committee on privacy, digital technology, and consumer protection. I also wanna highlight that therapists are able to use AI tools, to potentially help with note taking and speeding up the administrative process. However, very, very well documented that AI has significant limitations on emotional intelligence and interpreting what is said by a human being, especially in a vulnerable state.

Our goal here, and I I wanna be very clear, is we all know the significant demand for mental health and behavioral health services that our state faces, and we're all working to close gaps in providing quality care.

We know that there has to be a balance with all of the various methods that services can be provided with the protection of patients receiving those, you know, services. Senator Padilla, I know that you will be continuing to work with stakeholders to support the important role of trained and licensed clinicians that play in our increasingly digital marketplace.

But with any bills, I continue to monitor the discussion with an eye toward and I wanna be very, very clear, consumer and public protection that also reflects the significant value of innovation to these technologies. I also want to be very clear about this as well. There have been well documented cases across this nation where there have been individuals thinking that they are talking to a legitimate therapist when they are not.

Some have committed suicide. Again, very well documented. Our goal as policymakers is to not stifle innovation, but genuinely put up safeguards that protect the individual, the human being first. And I think that that is has been our approach when talking about artificial intelligence in this building as well as technology in general. So, I have consistently said this, humans first, and we are gonna work on this.

So, Senator, would you like to close, please?

Thank you very much, madam chair. Again, I'll just reiterate, we are committed to continue working diligently with all the stakeholders and would respectfully ask for an item.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Move the bill. Senator Menjivar moves the bill.

[Roll call]

And committee members sorry. That bill is on call.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members.

Thank you. I I just wanna remind all the committee members to keep your questions pretty concise. We have a number of bills still before us. We're gonna move on to file item number four, Senator Reyes with SB 1271. And for folks, again, the lead and opposition witnesses in support and opposition, two minutes, you will be timed.

The Me Too's, if you guys can line up pretty quickly, state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose, no additional commentary, please. So, Senator Reyes, if you would like to begin.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Thank you for this opportunity to present SB 1271, which strengthens California's California's midwifery training pipeline by collecting data on the capacity of licensed midwives to serve as preceptors who can train incoming students. This data would be shared with the Department of Health of Health Care Access and Information to comply to compile a report to the legislature. Midwives are perinatal health professionals who provide community based support services, including maternity, newborn, and postpartum care to ensure a positive birthing experience.

Research from the Yale School of Medicine found that first time mothers with a midwife on their care team were seventy four percent less likely to have their labor induced, seventy five percent less likely to receive oxytocin augmentation, and twelve percent less likely to have a cesarean birth.

These outcomes clearly demonstrate how effective midwives are at reducing unnecessary intervention during labor and improving maternal health. California has taken steps to improve visibility on this workforce by collecting demographic data on midwives. However, critical gaps persist in maintaining the clinical training infrastructure that sustains the growth and grows the profession. To become licensed, midwives must undergo a period of supervised clinical training, know as preceptorship.

Midwife preceptors are experienced maternity providers who play a critical role in training, mentoring, and supervising aspiring midwives, bridging their academic learning with hands on experience.

However, the severe lack of available preceptors and limited methods to find them have left students to navigate a broken system on their own. As a result, many trainees rely on out of state programs to earn their credentials. This disaggregated pathway continues to undermine efforts to build a diverse community rooted midwifery workforce capable of delivering service to high need regions across the state.

SB 1271 addresses this issue by leveraging the state's current data collection on midwives to include questions about the eligibility, availability, capacity, practice setting, and barriers to precepting qualified midwives or to precepting that qualified midwives are facing. This voluntary survey conducted by initial certification or at the time of renewal will ensure we have data informed metrics that help us remove barriers to preceptorship and strengthen the midwifery training pipeline.

Here to testify and support are Yulie Smith, a practicing midwife preceptor on behalf of Around Birth Collective and Esperanza Mendez, an active doula from the Coachella Valley who works for Planned Parenthood.

Witnesses, please come forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you, chair and members. My name is Yuli Smith, and I am a licensed midwife and currently serve as a preceptor. I am here in support of SB 1271 on behalf of Around Birth Collective. Licensed midwives or LMs are health care providers regulated by the Medical Board of California who complete accredited education, extensive supervised clinical training, and national certification. We provide care for low risk individuals and center our work on maintaining clients' low risk health status.

Midwife led care produces excellent outcomes, lower cesarean rates, fewer NICU admissions, lower costs, and higher breastfeeding rates. Each year, seventy Californians die largely from preventable pregnancy related deaths. LMs are an underutilized tool to address this crisis. Yet, with only 500 licensed midwives statewide, we face a serious workforce bottleneck. Students cannot become LMs without supervised clinical training provided by practicing midwives who serve its preceptors.

Currently, we lack reliable data on how licensed midwives are willing or able to train students where they're located or what barriers prevent them

from doing so. This bill is barriers prevent them from doing so. This bill addresses that gap simply and responsibly, adding targeted questions to existing license renewal about the preceptor's capacity. Participation is voluntary, non punitive, and without expansion of scope or regulatory burdens. It gives the state information needed to strengthen the training pipelines.

As a student midwife, I had to drive three hours in each direction because a qualified preceptor was not available where I lived in rural North County San Diego. Many students face similar barriers today. Without preceptors, we cannot train new midwives. Without training pathways, we cannot grow or diversify the workforce. Without workforce growth, families will continue to face limited access to safe maternity care.

I respectfully urge your support for SB 1271. Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, madam chair and community committee members. Thank you, Senator Reyes. My name is Esperanza Mendez. I work for Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, which serves San Diego, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. I'm also a full spectrum doula serving rural Coachella Valley, and I'm also an aspiring licensed midwife.

I'm here today to speak in strong support of SB 1271. I represent not only myself as an aspiring midwife, but also the birthing families in my rural community who are currently facing a crisis of access. I have been a full spectrum doula serving Riverside County's more rural populations for nearly a decade. I have witnessed the physical and emotional toll that perinatal deserts take on families and birthing people.

Many of my clients come from the Eastern Coachella Valley, where I was raised, and frequently have to drive anywhere from thirty to sixty minutes while in active labor to get the obstetric care that they need.

Excuse me. Since 2012, nearly 60 hospitals and labor and delivery units have, across California have closed. Excuse me. My neighbors to the south in El Centro have seen hospitals and birthing facilities shuttering due to staffing shortages and funding cuts. These closures turn rural areas into birth deserts.

California labor and delivery units are closing at a rate three times faster than other parts of the country. When hospitals close, community based midwives are the only safety net left, yet our current training pipeline is too weak to sustain them. Currently, there is one licensed midwife local to my area. And as you can imagine, she's at capacity. This creates an impossible scenario for students like me.

We are forced to delay our education, travel hundreds of miles, or abandon the profession entirely. We cannot improve birth outcomes if we don't have the providers to attend births. By mapping preceptor capacity and targeting the training pipeline for rural students, SB 1271 ensures that every birth desert in California can grow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it. Any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none, Me Too's both in support and opposition. Seeing none, committee members, would you guys like to make a comment? Senator Caballero.

Very briefly, I move the bill and this is a budget issue. I think we need to put money into services that women need. And thank you for doing this. We've got to find alternatives because she's absolutely right. We're closing labor and delivery rooms all over the state.

It's unacceptable.

Here. Here. Senator, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

We have a motion by Senator Caballero.

And, let's call the roll.

Motion is do passed to Senate Health Committee. Wahab.

Aye.

Wahab Aye. Choi.

Aye.

Archuleta Aye. Arreguin.

Choi Aye. Archuleta.

Aye.

Aye.

Caballero.

Aye.

Caballero. Aye. Grayson. Menjivar.

Aye.

Menjivar, aye, Niello.

Nilo, aye, Smallwood Cuevas.

Smallwood Cuevas aye. Strickland.

Aye.

Aye.

Strickland aye. Umberg.

Alright. That bill's on call. Again, thank you very much. Senator Reyes, file item number five, SB 1327, whenever you'd like to begin.

Thank you, Madam chair. SB 1327 would shift authority on EV Charging accuracy from the Department of Food and Agriculture's Division of Measurements Standards to the California Energy Commission. California has established ambitious Calif- Climate goals, including reaching 100% zero emission vehicle sales by 2035 and having 5,000,000 emission vehicles on the road by 2030. Meeting these targets depends on a charging network that is accessible, accurate, and easy to deploy.

Under current law, EV chargers that sell electricity as a transportation fuel are treated as commercial measuring devices similar to gas pumps.

This places them under CDFA's weights and measures division to ensure consumers are charged accurately. However, stakeholders report that the system is unevenly enforced across counties, is costly and difficult to scale. Over the years, the legislature has attempted to resolve this issue by simply by simply put, the existing the existing process by which these charges are regulated that does not work and slow slowing EV charger deployment at a time when the state needs rapid expansion.

As the state's leading agency on EV infrastructure, the California Energy Commission, also known as the CEC, is better positioned to oversee this work. Over the last several years, the legislature has provided the CEC's Fuels and Transportation Division with primary regulatory responsibility for EV chargers, including authority over charger reliability, charger inventory data, payment methods, and networking roaming network roaming.

For example, the CEC's recently adopted charger reliability regulations require inventory reporting on all publicly installed chargers and require chargers that have received public funding to maintain 97% reliability and report charger status in real time. The CEC's Office of Compliance Assistance and Enforcement regulates, sets standards, monitors compliance, and takes enforcement action to ensure chargers meet the required standards. This bill does not eliminate consumer protections. Instead, it consolidates oversight of EV charging accuracy within the agency already regulating chargers in almost every other capacity.

The CEC would have until 07/01/2027 to develop regulations and CDFA's regulations would stay in place until the CEC develops theirs.

Maintaining CDFA's authority during this period ensures there is no gap in oversight and that consumers continue to be protected throughout the handoff. CEC's rule making process will incorporate stakeholder input and build on lessons learned from the existing framework to strengthen accountability and safeguard consumers. Here to testify on the bill today are Reed Alice, Reed Addis on behalf of the EV Charging Association, and Zach Acquardi on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. SB 1327 weaves consumer protection, reliability and climate goals together in a comprehensive manner by charging the CEC with oversight. The CEC has decades of experience in energy and transportation policy, and more recently, the legislature has tasked the CEC with overseeing EV infrastructure deployment, maintaining statewide charger data, and setting technical standards. This bill simply aligns consumer protection with the agency that already understands how this technology works.

The reason this is important is at least threefold. One, chargers are coming offline due to minor labeling issues, not metering problems. The current system has stranded employees who rely on workplace chargers and tenants living in apartments from using charging in their complexes. Chargers must often be tested on-site using specialized equipment that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Taken together, these issues create a confusing and fragmented system across 58 counties that increases the cost and reduces charger availability.

Furthermore, this bill does not reduce consumer protections. It strengthens them. It requires the CEC to adopt enforceable standards, conduct inspections, and respond to complaints with no gap during the transition. This is not about avoiding oversight. It's about putting oversight in the right place for modern network technology.

California needs to deploy roughly 400 chargers per day to meet its goal of 1,000,000 chargers. We cannot do that under a system that is inconsistent, costly, and unpredictable. SB 1327 is a practical fix that maintains strong consumer protections while enabling while enabling the scale we need. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Zach Accardi. I'm here on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council in support of SB 1327. NRDC comes to this bill as an organization that wants to see EV adoption succeed and who understands the conditions necessary for that success. So, one of those conditions is that Californians must be able to trust and rely on public charging infrastructure, no matter where their travels bring them.

Simply put, that trust can only be cultivated by charging stations that deliver the amount of electricity that consumers purchase. The other is that EV infrastructure must be built at the speed and scale necessary to enable the state zero emissions vehicle transition. The existing unworkable regulatory framework that is an impediment to rapid charging network build out must be modernized and so that it can be implemented.

This bill would move the state closer to meeting those goals by ensuring that the technical standards and regulatory oversight needed are made implementable and then implemented by the institution with the right expertise to do so. Transportation, as many of you know, is California's largest source of climate pollution and the transition to zero emission vehicles is central to the state's strategy for addressing it.

Drivers who have negative or confusing experiences at public charges are less likely to rely on public charging networks and that hesitation has real consequences for zero emissions vehicle adoption rates. Imagine paying for a full vehicle charge, for example, and then departing only to find your battery half full—frustrating and unfair experience that would surely reduce your enthusiasm for clean vehicles.

California and the private industry have made substantial investments to support EV charger deployment, ensuring these chargers are accurate and the consumers have recourse when they're not accurate is a necessary complement to those investments. The state cannot ask residents to make that transition to electric vehicles while leaving them with inaccurate infrastructure, and we can't achieve our climate goals without rapidly transitioning to electric vehicles.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Seeing opposition witnesses, you have two minutes. Opposition.

Good morning, Miss, Ms. Chair and members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association respectfully opposed to SB 1327. California already has a strong, uniform, and time-tested system to ensure accuracy in all commercial weighing and measuring devices, including EV chargers. County sealers of weights and measures operating under CDFA and DMS, conduct inspections, testing, and enforcement across all 58 counties in every corner of the state.

They ensure that when consumers pay for a product, whether it's gasoline, groceries, or electricity, they receive exactly what they paid for, while also maintaining competitive fairness in the marketplace.

SB 1327 would carve out EV charging equipment from this well-established system and shift oversight to the California Energy Commission, an agency that that that does not administer or enforce weights and measures laws. In doing so, the bill breaks from a century-old regulatory framework that has been proven effective and removes these devices from the program specifically designed to ensure measurement accuracy. This proposal also creates unnecessary duplication.

The state already has a well developed process for type evaluation of commercial devices, adoption of acceptable accuracy tolerances, and clear specifications and certification of commercially commercial measuring devices through CDFA. These are not just state standards.

They're actually nationally adopted uniform standards. Last year, County Steelers conducted over 5,000 inspections of EV chargers, resulting in a 121 confirmed tolerance-based violations. These are weights and measures violations that resulted in overcharges to consumers. Counties have also already invested over $3,200,000 thus far in the equipment necessary to regulate these devices. Equally important, it removes the local enforcement presence that consumers and businesses rely on.

Over 400 trained, licensed county sealers are out in the field every day in all 58 counties, inspecting devices and responding promptly and directly to consumer complaints and ensuring compliance in real time. In closing, county sealers are the non-biased, third-party presence to ensure fairness in the marketplace.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker. Alright. Seeing none, Me Too's in support or opposition. State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Thank you. Julie Malonowski-Baum, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Sam Hood, on behalf of ChargePoint, in support today. Thank you.

Jennifer Aguilar, on behalf of San Mateo County, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair. Beacon Murray with the Weidman Group, on behalf of Electrify America, in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any others? Seeing none. Committee members? Same? Senator Caballero?

So, I just wanna make sure that may—this makes logical sense, but I'm concerned with the work that's done at the local level. There should be no impact by just moving the state workload over to the, CEC. And that's my take on it. When number one is it won't increase cost. And number two, it it's, it's not something that's going to create this whole regulatory framework, is it?

It's not. And, I just have let me have my witness answer the question in greater detail. But thank you for the question...thank you.

Yeah. Hi, Senator. Reed Addis on behalf of Electric Vehicle Charging Association. We're in support of the measure because we think it clearly allows the CEC to undergo a regulatory process that would involve all the stakeholders here today to make sure that we have a statewide-set set of standards and that we're enforcing at each county in a standardized way. For example, today, Orange County is enforcing, Los Angeles County isn't. That's an example of these differences.

So, our hope is the CEC will go through a robust process to do that.

Here's my concern is that people are really sensitive to cost drivers. And I've got to assume that by making this shift, we're not gonna be increasing costs unnecessarily at a time where, maybe four years down the road or five years down the road, it might be a better time to do it. I, I'm, I'm so, that's.

Sorry. If I—I maybe misunderstood where you're going with your question, Senator. Yes. Our understanding is there would be no extra workload here. We're just simply transferring some of the activities from one agency to another.

Thank you very much. I move the bill, madam chair.

Thank you. We had Senator Menjivar next.

I have a follow-up to that question, sir—through the chair, if I can.

Yeah. Go ahead.

In the stakeholder process, you're gonna be gathering, do you envision, or, or the Senator, that the sealers are still gonna play a role?

Absolutely. So, I, I can't prejudge how the CEC will do that, but they're gonna go through a stakeholder process with public input. My guess is, given some of the comments by the sealers, they will be involved and wanna provide their input.

I, I understand that you're looking to standardize, which is really great. I'm wondering if the problem is that the lack of enforcement across different counties, why not establish that standardization within the current process now instead of sending it over to the CEC?

I'll, I'll let the witness give more details, but I think it's clear that as we're moving toward—so much of it is already with the CEC. This is just one more thing that is going to be added to it. And in that stakeholder meeting that's going, or the process that's going to be taking place, they are absolutely going to take into consideration the, the, the weights and measures personnel that has already been doing a lot of this work.

There are two types of of errors that are found.

One, or it's the administrative errors that are found. But the other has to do with more, more issues and we're finding that a lot of the issues are more administrative. Those are easily found by whoever is going to be regulating this, but let me have our witness give you greater detail.

Yes, happy, the, I, I think the issue is right now, those—we have no issues with the county sealers. I wanna be very clear. They, they are operating within the current system as a system was designed.

But as you heard them say, it was a system designed a hundred years ago. What we're dealing with is a system that that looks at a landline and how to regulate that, and we're in the iPhone era. All we're saying is that today, the system says all the county should be doing this equally, and they're not. So, the law already states that.

We think by having the CEC, who all—who the legislature's already given regulatory authority to look at EV chargers is a better place for them to make sure that standardization is occurring, it's being done effectively, and not leaving consumers out.

So, I think it's ambitious to do the regulations in six months, especially if you're looking for public input. If we're looking to protect the consumers, I don't think six months allows for adequate public engagement in that process. I don't anticipate the regulations to be done in six months. I would ask that the author work on the date to give more time for, for the, for the regulation. And while, sorry, you've mentioned that the, the goal is to work with all the stakeholders.

There's nothing in the language that states that it's a requirement to consult or work with the sealers. I would also ask to make that clear in the language as well so that there is assurance that they, their expertise would be taken into consideration for that. And, Senator, you—I've seen your work. You are a defender of consumer, consumer rights, but I still worry. In the analysis, it described a description of DMS, and their goal is to protect consumers.

And the CEC's goal is to reach energy goals, regardless of consumer impact whatsoever. They've never had a history of doing that. So, I do have concerns that CSC is not prepared to both meet the goals and protect the consumers at the same time. This is a big bill, a huge shift. As you're navigating the process, I would ask that you continue to or add protections to consumers.

I will be voting for this, but I still have some outstanding concerns. It'll be hard for me to vote for it again if I don't see any kind of protections added to the bill that do solidify some consumer protections.

In our discussions with the CEC, that has been something that we have emphasized, and I am certain that that will be—as we move forward with this, it'll be clear. Earlier, I was trying to, to, to, to share about the violations of existing the existing process. There are administrative and then there are inaccurate charging. Those are two separate things that that are being reviewed.

Most of what has been found are administrative inaccuracies, as opposed to inaccurate charging, which is something that we're most concerned with and we want to make sure that every county is included.

I'm sorry, Senator. The second part of one was consumer protection, but the other is to make sure that the county sealers are included in this discussion. Absolutely. And if that is not clear, we'll make sure that that is clear.

They are an important part of this. They have been doing the work up to now, and there are lots of lessons to be learned from the work that they have done.

And the final piece would be the timeline. I think that's a...

Yes.

Very ambitious date.

And there have been discussions with the CEC, and that may have to be worked on to give them more time. I think it is ambitious, but we'd like to begin with a date such as this, hoping that this can all be taken care of and the transition can, can happen as smoothly as possible. If more time is needed, then more time will be provided.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. We're gonna, again, remind folks to ensure that comments are brief. Senator Strickland.

I'm very concerned with many aspects of this bill. It's not simple just to move from one agency to another. First of all, the sealers operate in all 58 counties. Does the CEC even have the capacity to do this work? That's number one.

Number two, who's gonna do the on-ground inspection enforcement within the CEC? Because I don't think they have the structure to do that, and if they start taking on this responsibility, going back to my colleague from the San Fernando Valley, it's a huge shift. Many times in my history is when there's a huge shift of like this, what ends up happening is then the CEC was gonna come back to the legislature asking for more resources because now we shifted the money to their responsibility and they're gonna ask us for more money.

That's where the cost driver comes. And then, if we do that, are we then gonna take money away from the sealers who do this currently? And because what usually happens is we leave the money with the sealers, and then we give the responsibility to the CEC. CEC asks us some more money and it ends up being a major cost driver. Those are like some of my concerns because it's not easy just move from one agency to other.

So, I know there's a lot of questions in there but like really is the CEC—do they have local people in all 58 counties to do these kinds of inspections today?

And again, I'll, I'll, I'll defer to my witness but that's what the stakeholder, that's what the, the, the, the initial evaluation is going to happen. And the stake—the, the county sealers are a great part of that. The work that they have done, I go back to the same thing. They, the, the work they've been doing for years and years, it is going to provide the information that is needed by the CEC.

As far as the future request for funding, that future request for funding can also come from the Department of Food and Agriculture for the work that the sealers, the county sealers do.

But I think that as of now, there isn't going to be a shift in the request for the funding. It is just changing from the Department of Food and Agriculture to CEC. But if I may.

I, no, no, yeah. That, but if I may, just on that note, aren't we already funding the sealers based on them doing this kind of work right now?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yes. Chair and members, Reed Addis on behalf of Electric Vehicle Charging Association. We're not the sponsors of the measure. We're working with the various agencies and the senator, so we don't know exactly how the CEC would roll out their process. However, right now, all 58 counties do have county sealers and there is no standardized local enforcement.

I think all we're trying to get at is to make sure the CEC, as it has its process, identifies how to make that standardized and maybe this county sealers will actually be part of that. I just don't know. So, we would actually argue this modernizes the enforcement. It actually would allow a customer who has an issue to directly call a phone number, for example, for the state and have an issue addressed.

Are folks on the ground right now in CEC and does CEC want this?

I need to be careful on how exactly the CEC feels. I don't know, Senator. But we've had conversations with the CEC and we believe they're an appropriate entity and I think they have the expertise to handle this.

But do they have people on the ground and and are they requesting something like this and added to their responsibility what they already have on their plate?

Having had conversations with the CEC and technical assistance to try to address the questions in the bill, we think that this absolutely builds upon the authority you've already given them over the last number of years to improve reliability in the electric vehicle charging space. So, we think this is appropriate and it works for them and I think I have to leave it at that on exactly

So can we say that this would be net neutral then if we give more money to CEC to do this responsibility, that it'll be net neutral then we'll just define what the, the sealers are doing and getting paid for right now?

So, before, before you answer that, I, I just wanna be very clear. This is strictly about policy, and I understand that some of it touches budget, but it will go through approps as well. And so, I want those conversations to kind of be directed in approps. I will also highlight that typically, the departments, unless they are fully, fully behind the bill, they will provide technical support and not necessarily weigh in on certain legislative you know, request.

But, but madam chair, there's a lot of times we talk about policy. And yes, we just don't leave it always in this committee, or in any other committee that we ignore the financial aspects. And in fact, one of my former, my former colleagues just talked about the concern of cost on this bill. So, that's why I was just getting at that.

And, and I understand we had two conversations. We, we let it kind of be at the surface level, but anything deeper, in regards to cost and how much we're gonna move and things like that, needs to go through Appropriations with a fiscal analysis tied to it, so we actually have numbers and not estimates necessarily. But with that, if you have any other questions.

I go back to the chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Niello.

Thank you, madam chair. On a policy perspective, my concern is that we are trying to fix an imperfect approach with an approach that I think will prove to be unworkable. And I say that because CEC currently, I strongly suspect, does not have the capacity to do this. Cost would be a discussion eventually, but capacity is truly a policy issue. And there's an—a conflict of missions.

Senator Menjivar mentioned that. I think that's an important distinction. But is the CEC here?

They are not. They are not.

They're not here. Well, these are really important things with regard to their role in this and they're not here to answer questions, the simple question, do you have capacity? Now, again, I strongly suspect they do not. I have to assume that perhaps, until they can address capacity, maybe they would continue to have the existing entity perform the function.

I don't know if that's the case, but I don't know how else it's going to be done. And if that's the answer to how do you provide capacity it's, well, the, the, the sealers are going to continue to do it. What have we accomplished? So, it just. again, it seems to me we are moving from what is an imperfect approach to one that I think I fear will prove to be unworkable. And without the CEC here, we cannot assess that.

So, I, I wanna be also clear that this bill, if leaving this committee, will go through the Energy Committee. And five of us on this committee sit on that committee, so, we will be able to ask a little bit more in-depth specifically. I do wanna highlight that we are trying to, again, talk about meeting our goals throughout the state. And if there's any other member that would like to comment. Senator Choi.

Yeah. I also share three senators', previously, concern. This bill is trying to protect consumers from inaccurate EV charges, charge, charges. I didn't really know that was the ongoing problem. I will support that notion.

However, rather than focus—this bill is not focusing on how to improve for accurate charges, but it's fundamentally changing the authority, who's gonna, who's gonna run the program and from the existing CF—CDFA—to CEC. I think that is the, all three, including myself or four senators' question, is for...to, to this problem. Once we change the authority to other agency, they have to start all over again.

And how can you tell they, they will have accurate measurement methodology or implementation if we do not focus on, on, on that accuracy, accurate charge issue alone from the existing program? So, that is my concern, and I don't think today I can support it.

Senator, would you like to close?

I sincerely appreciate all of the comments, both for and against. And I appreciate the comments both from the witnesses in favor of and those who are opposed. I think that what we're trying to do is we're trying to, is if the, the, the CEC is already handling the broader EV infrastructure. They oversee other issues like EV charging reliability, an issue that I've worked on over the years, reporting data to the end, and all also the reporting.

So, it makes sense to consolidate all oversight of EV chargers at the CEC. This robust regulatory program that we've talked about where, perhaps, six months is not going to be sufficient. But during that time, we hope that they put together the regulations that are necessary and it's not going to be starting all over again. It's looking at what has worked and what has not worked, which counties are being missed, which counties are being served, so that every single county in the state of California is served under this program. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Can we get a vote? Motion? Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill's on call. Thank you, Senator. We're gonna move on to file item number eight, SB 1165 by Senator Caballero. And since we have members here, can we just lift the call just real quick?

File item number one, SB 903. Call to absent members, please.

File item number one, SB 903. Motion is do pass the Senate privacy, digital technology and consumer protections committee. Current vote is nine to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Arreguin? Umberg?

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

10-0. See you on call.

10-0. That bill's on call. File item number two, Blakespear.

Item number two, SB 936. Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote seven to zero with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Arreguin? Grayson?

Smallwood Cuevas, aye.

Grayson, aye. Smallwood Cuevas?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

Umberg?

Alright. That bill's on call. Senator Reyes file item number four.

Motion is due to pass the Senate Health Committee. Current votes eight to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Arreguin? Grayson?

Grayson, aye. Umberg?

Aye.

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

All right. That bill's on call. File item number five.

Motion is do passed to Senate Energy. Utilities and Communications Committee. Current vote six to three with chair voting aye. Choi? Arreguin?

Aye.

No. Okay.

Number five aye.

No. No. You're not here.

I voted.

Alright. That bill's on call. Moving on to file item number six, Richardson.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote six to zero with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Arreguin? Grayson?

Aye.

Grayson, aye.

Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Umberg?

Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas?

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

Alright. That bill's on call. Moving to file item seven, Richardson.

Aye.

Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current votes nine to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Arreguin? Umberg?

Umberg, aye.

Alright. That bill's on call. Senator, would you like to proceed?

There, let me start by accepting the committee's amendments, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1165, which improves tax compliance and promotes fairness for law abiding contractors by improving coordination between state agencies. So current law allows a Contractor State License Board CSLB to suspend a contractor's license when they have outstanding unpaid taxes. However, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration CDTFA, lacks the statutory authority to share necessary information with CSLB to facilitate the collection and enforcement.

As a result, CDTFA is unable to easily utilize the CSLB licensing as a compliance and collection tool. Currently, the outstanding balance is $42,500,000 in debt owed to the state, which has serious consequences as you know as we look at our state budget.

SB 1165 improves coordination between the state agencies. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you

Do you have any lead witnesses?

No.

Thank you. Do you have opposition witnesses?

Could be a lead witness very, very briefly.

We're gonna do me too's. So I

Todd Bloomstine on behalf of the Southern California Contractors Association, the Southern California Association of Scaffold Contractors, and for Phil Vermeulen on behalf of the Barricade Contractor Association. Thank you.

In support, I'm assuming.

In support.

Thank you. Opposition? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to run up yeah. I'm trying to, like, speed it up. I've said that a little earlier right? so

James Thuerwachter on behalf of the California State Council of Labor is also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to thank you. Senator Strickland would like to move the bill. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Strickland.

Motion is do passed as amended to Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. Wahab?

Wahab, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Aye.

Choi, aye. Archuleta?

Aye.

Archuleta, aye. Arreguin? Caballero?

Aye.

Cabarello, aye. Grayson?

Grayson, aye. Menjivar?

Aye.

Menjivar Aye. Niello?

Nilo, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas?

Aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Umberg?

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

Alright. That bill's on call. We're gonna move on to file item number nine, SB 1179 by Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, madam chair. Colleagues, for close to two two years, I've been working on an issue that is looking to close the gap of the lack of bilingual physicians in California. Now we can talk about the lack of physicians overall in the state of California, and that could be for another bill. But this in particular is looking to address the gap in bilingual Spanish speaking physicians.

As of right now, we have approximately 29% in California that only, that turn to Spanish as their number one language, and they're having barriers to access to health care.

So about a year and a half ago, I flew to El Salvador and I talked to physicians at universities there to implement or replicate the program that already exists now with Mexico, where physicians from Mexico have been brought to California to address this gap. It started as a pilot. It was focused in Central Valley to address the needs of farmers, and it expanded.