Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. I apologize for being late. I had a unexpectedly, and I would argue unnecessarily, long bill presentation in the Senate. I would like to thank assembly members Dixon and Ellis for joining us for as temporary replacements for vice chair Johnson and assembly member Hadwick, who are absent for today's hearing.

Appreciate you being here. Mister Ellis, I understand you were the first one here. So you get you get all the prizes. We don't have any, but if we did, you would get them. Wait a second.

Exactly. Exactly. There are a total of five bills on today's agenda. One bill is on consent to SB 1165 by Senator Caballero. Before we begin with today's agenda, I'll remind everyone that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. For each of the measures being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each with up to two primary witnesses per side.

Any additional witnesses will be limited to name, position on the bill, and to the organization they represent, if any. For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website.

And with that, we will begin today's hearing. And now we will pause today's hearing because we have no senators to present their bills. So Say what now? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

So if you are do we have a quorum?

Oh, one one way.

One shy. So if you are a staffer who works for a Senator who has a bill to present in today's hearing, please go get your boss. Bring them to Room 1100. We're gonna be here for a certain amount of time. And if your boss doesn't show up to present their bills, we will adjourn the hearing and stop being here.

So go get your boss so that we can have our hearing. Good morning, Senator. Come on up. Thank you for saving us from ourselves. So we will hear agenda item number four, SB 123 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Yeah.

Good morning, mister chair

Good morning.

Colleagues. So glad to be with you. Kicking your day off, I am proud to present SB 1203. This is an important bill, the Stand for Security Act, which seeks to modernize training standards, strengthen accountability, and establish a clear professional pathway for private security guards in California.

I want to reaffirm my commitment to the chair and this committee to take future amendments that would include a requirement for BSIS to conduct a regional training capacity analysis in order to identify, ensure qualified third party organizations are prepared to provide de escalation training requirements as required under SB 1203.

Additionally, future amendments would also include a delay in the employer's prohibition from providing the de escalation training requirements for two years. I wanna explain also why this issue is important to me. Before coming to the state legislature, I worked for many years as a community and labor organizing.

And one of the campaigns that I helped to lead and to successfully win was the organizing of private security officers to ensure dignity and respect for those who at the time during nine eleven were doing God's work to protect our country and our treasure, particularly in our high rise commercial buildings. This is an industry that has been long overlooked, one that has not been fully invested in.

And it's my commitment to ensure that whatever we do for workers, we always lift those who are protecting the public and the things that we hold and treasure the most. At the outset, it's also important to understand the scale and the evolution of this workforce. There are approximately 1,200,000 security guards in this country making the private security industry. And I want to make sure you understand the third largest employer in The United States. This is the third largest industry in The United States.

There are more than 330,000 licensed security officers who protect apartment buildings, hospitals, transit systems, retail centers, schools, offices, entertainment venues, and neighborhoods across the state. And they are expected to protect us against a number of converging issues, including mental health crises, including substance abuse disorders. And we know we see these conditions devolving before our very eyes, and we turn to the security officer for our help and our protection.

They are expected to deescalate, assess risk, and protect the public often when law enforcement, before law enforcement arrives. And increasingly, these workers are not simply protecting property.

We know that they are dealing with homeless related instability, trauma and violence, and unpredictable public confrontations. I don't know if folks saw. There was a recent viral video of a security officer who encountered a a woman, a black woman who was obviously having a mental health crisis. And unfortunately, in that video, the officer punched this woman right in the face.

In another incident, I learned about a security officer who was asked by their manager, to go out and protect against a shoplifting incident, to stop the shoplifter, to get involved without having proper training.

And, of course, that security officer did, and in the end was stabbed, by the assailant. And unfortunately later, that security officer was fired, because supposedly, they acted out of the line of of regulation. This is why training is critically important right now, and this is why training cannot be denied, and that means we cannot delay it. According to the federal workplace fatality data and industry reporting, security guards face workplace violence rates significantly higher than many occupations because they routinely interact.

And we know how this is escalating with unstable and hostile individuals, often alone, often unarmed, and often without the training infrastructure we need to provide the high level category of public safety.

And yet under current law, they receive just eight hours of initial training with 32 thereafter. Many times, this training performed on the job. Imagine if you're overseeing this hearing, mister chair, and are having to do a training video while you're overseeing and presiding. That is unacceptable requirement for our security workforce. We are asking workers earning poverty level wages to manage some of the most volatile public situations in the state, and we're not giving them the tools they need to do it safely.

And the consequences we see are visible. We know that this moment has come from a system that has placed workers in high stakes situations with inadequate preparation. And while the job has certainly evolved, the standards have not. So we must ask, are we preparing this workforce for a job that they can do by giving them the tools that they need? Are we trying to open the door for the workforce but not allowing them to enter?

This is what this bill is about. It's about filling a training gap. It's about dealing with the failures of the system. And we must be honest about who this impacts. One of the reasons why I was so honored to be a part of the security organizing campaign because thousands of those workers lived in South Central Los Angeles.

Many of them were young black men, young Latino men who were picked and chosen to take on this profession. And one of the challenges with this profession is that we're not offering enough opportunity to upskill, enough opportunity for folks to mobilize, enough opportunity for skill to translate into higher wages and opportunity.

In other words, we're practicing occupational segregation when we aren't looking at what are the actual needs on the job that workers have to be prepared for today and then turn around and not give them to training. I think that this is a workforce that deserves training. Think this is a workforce that deserves an opportunity to show what they can do and also to build pathways into first response.

We have a shortage in our police department, shortages in our fire departments. How do we see this as a stepping stone into those long term careers? We have to start by raising the standards and training and particularly on de escalation. In my district, I'm going to be home to the Olympics. The historic Coliseum is in my district right now.

We have 60,000 folks coming to the Coliseum for Fan Fest, for World Cup, walking out into our communities. Many of the businesses surrounding Coliseum, private security. And certainly, with 60,000 folks who've been in the hot sun celebrating all day, we need security officers to do their job well as we welcome 15,000,000 visitors, for the Olympics. So I am asking for your support on this bill today. I have with me, testifying two security officers, Latasha Reid and Sebastian Avalos.

I have also Veronica DeLara who's gonna translate for us. And then if there are any technical questions, Tiffany Crane is here to answer them.

Thank you, Sander. And and you have two minutes each, and I I know an extra two minutes for the translation. Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, chair and community and committee members. My name is Latasha Reed. I'm a security officer, for seventeen years. I'm with SEIU USWW.

I'm here today to urge the support of SB 123 and provide security officers with the additional training we need set to safely deescalate situations. Everyday security officers are expected to step into unexpected and potential violent situations. When a crisis happens, we often are the first people call before the first responders and before any law enforcement. We are expected to protect the public often when with limited training.

The reality is that this is a dangerous job, and most people realize doesn't realize how dangerous it is for security officers.

My my myself was on a job one day, and, I was called to the front office where a guy had with mental health issues had barricaded a manager in the office. We couldn't get the door open. It took several of us to get the door open to get the lady out. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but this was a situation I wasn't trained for. And I just had to do what I had to do in this in an instance.

This is not an isolated incident. This is happening everywhere, and, officers face this every day as a part of the situation involving aggressive and mental health drug crisis as well as threats of violence too often. We are expected to manage these sit encounters without the training that could help keep everybody safe. SB 1203 recognized what security officers know all too well It's to deescalate is not a luxury. It is a necessity, and we need this, training.

Security officers should have should should not have to rely on luck. We should have the training that we need in dangerous situations. I am here to stand with thousands of security officers who put themselves in harm's way to protect others. SB 1203 helps make sure we got the training that we need and continue to keep our community safe. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sebastian Avalos Tisol. I live in Bay Area, and I'm a member of SEIU USWW. I have worked as a security officer for four years. I started working at the front desk of a building and later worked at a pharmacy in Downtown San Francisco.

As security officers, we deal with the public every day. We are often the first people called when there's a problem. When someone's acting unpredictably, or when a situation starts getting out of control. We do our best to keep workers, customers, and the public safe. While working in downtown pharmacy, I often came across people who were struggling with mental health issues.

One day, a man came into the pharmacy behaving erratically. The staff asked me to help, so I approached him and politely asked him to leave. Instead, the man became angry. He started yelling at me. I stayed calm, continued trying to get him to leave without getting anyone hurt.

The situation got worse. After yelling at me to get out of his face, he sudden suddenly attacked me and stabbed me. I needed twenty three stitches in my arm. That moment changed my life. I had to take time off work to recover from my injuries.

While I was recovering, I couldn't work, so I eventually lost my job. I know security work comes with risks. We understand that when we take the job, but I also believe that there's ways to reduce those risks. That's why I'm here to ask you to support SB 1203 because requiring additional eight hours of de escalation training could make a huge difference. We deserve to feel prepared, protected, and supported.

Please stand with security officers and vote yes on SB12O3. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we will go to we do add ons first. Right? Yeah. Any any additional witnesses wanna add on in support of the bill, come on up to the microphone and provide your name, organization you're with, and and position on the bill.

Mister chair, member, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister chair and members, Tiffany White with SEIU California in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. If y'all wanna come to the microphone and just provide, name, organization you're with, if any, and does it and that you support the bill.

Miguel Sanchez, SEIU. I support the bill.

Thank you very much.

My name is Ariel Park. I'm a security officer in San Francisco and a member of SEIU USWW. I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Alexander Nunez based out of Los Angeles, California. I am a part of s e a SEIU USWW, and I am in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Gustavo Garcia, Martinez, California, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Francisco Chavez. I'm with SEIU and support the bill.

Thank you.

My name is Jerry Longoria. I'm a security officer. I support this bill.

Thank you.

Isabel Alvarado with SEIU, and I support.

Thank you.

Morning. My name is Kevin Adams. I'm security officer for thirty six years, and I'm in total support of this bill. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Maxine Taylor. I am a counter to to support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Miguel Vincis. Firstcard, I support twelve s v twelve o three. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lars Taylor, s c I u u s w w out of Southern California. I support this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Betsy Ramirez with SEIU USWW, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Gilberto Rubio. I'm a security officer, a member of SEIU USWW, and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Brian Slain. I'm with SEIU, and I support the bill as well.

Thank you.

Malik Aaron with SEIU, and I support SB 1203. Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You all have two minutes each for up to two primary witnesses in opposition.

Chair members, Dean Grafila with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Allied Universal in opposition to SB 1203. Allied is an industry leader in private security services. First, we'd like to praise the committee staff's analysis, which clearly articulates the numerous and significant pitfalls of the bill, some of which I'll touch upon. California has led a nation in training requirements for the industry which we applaud.

However, this bill goes much further than is necessary and re or reasonable, and we simply cannot ignore the staggering financial burden this bill will impose on our industry and by extension California's economy.

We project the cost for the bill will range between 1 to 2,000,000,000 1 to $2,000,000,000 annually. The mandate to significantly increase the required power to arrest and use of force training will cost between 350,000,000 to $534,000,000 every year. Initial training costs for the state's 360,000 guards would reach approximately $207,000,000. Furthermore, by prohibiting licensed security companies from conducting their own training and mandating third party instructors, we we will be forced to shoulder an additional $108,000,000 in outstanding and in outsource training costs.

But the financial impact does not stop at training.

The bill reconstitutes the IWC, specifically to issue a new wage order. A mere $1 per hour wage increase would hit private security employers with an additional $750,000,000 in annual costs. The bulk of these costs will inevitably be passed on to customers, such as struggling restaurants and retail, as well as strapped state and local governments. Faced with these sharply escalated expenses, customers may decide to eliminate personnel, replacing them with automated non human resources like cameras, fences, and AI.

Others might turn to unregulated and untrained event staff or ushers to avoid costs completely.

This unregulated and untrained underground market will jeopardize public safety just as our state prepares to host major global events like the twenty twenty eight LA Olympics. SB 1203 is a job killer, and if passed, will make our security services unaffordable for the private and public sector that need them most. Thank you, Virgin Novo.

Thank you.

Hey. Good morning, chairman Berman, and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is David Chandler. I'm the president of CalSaga, which is the California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, guards and associates.

And we represent 3,000 private security employers and 350,000 licensed security professionals statewide. I'm also a former police officer with Los Angeles Police Department. CalSaga respectfully opposes SB 1203 for the following reasons. California already re already leads the nation. We're strong proponents of training.

We we have no problems with training at all. Our members maintain a strong working relationship with the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services in support of their training manual development. SB 1203 adds eighteen hours on top of our already nation leading forty hour standard. De escalation is very important to us, and we're currently doing it now limited, but we are doing it. We are teaching officers this.

SB 1203 is a job killer. Without a doubt, it would reconstitute the Industrial Welfare Commission, unfunded since 2004 and charged with setting wages for our industry. This opens a permanent door to even higher mandates across sectors. We saw what happened in fast food. A USC's a UC Santa Cruz study found employers raise prices, cut staffing, and replace workers with technology.

This bill would do the same to security. When licensed security becomes too costly, employers turn unregulated ushers, event staff, and AI systems, leaving communities unprotected. SB 1203 does not raise the floor. It incentivizes going it around it entirely, and that is the definition of a job killer. Timing cannot be worse.

This committee, the committee analysis flags unresolved drafting issues. The bill would also force firms to outsource training to third party entities that don't yet exist at scale, creating hiring bottlenecks statewide and leaving hospitals, schools, and public agencies dangerously understaffed. When kill with California hosting the World Cup, Super Bowl, and Olympics, and the need for thousands of new trained and licensed security officers, we cannot afford this disruption now.

In closing, CalSaga is willing to work with this committee on evidence based training standards, but it'S B 1203 with its IWC reconstitution is drafting problems and its predictable unintended consequences is a job killer that will leave communities less safe, not more. We urge a no vote on SB 1293. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill? Provide your name, organization you're with of any, and position of the bill. You can raise that. Yeah.

You can raise that up.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Garrett Thomas, local, owner of a security company, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, building owners and managers of California, and NAOOP California in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Steven Parker, representative of security, Security Company in San Jose, California in opposition. Thank you.

Brett Guest on behalf of Garda World Security in opposition. Thank you.

Ashley Cervantes Thomas with Guardian Protection Force, a Sacramento based security company in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Miller with Securitas Security Services in opposition. Thank you.

Pete Singh representing Allied Universal. I'm in opposition of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Courtney White with Allied Universal, and I'm in opposition of this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Leandro Ramos Guilarte. I'm the owner of John three sixteen Private Security, and I absolutely oppose this bill. Thank you.

My name is Carl Vinson. I'm the owner operator of Made Man Protection here in Solano County. I have to only oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, gonna bring it back to colleagues for any questions or comments about the bill. I see some member Addis hitting your mic, so I'm assuming you have a question.

I don't know if the boot the bill has been moved. I'd be happy to move the bill. I'd be love to be added as a coauthor. I just wanna appreciate your efforts on this issue. I know there's a bit of opposition, but just support what you're doing.

Thank you, Assemblymember. I appreciate the enthusiasm. We're one shy of a quorum. But as soon as we get that, I think we're still one shy of a quorum. We'll come we'll come back to you.

Thank you. Any comments or questions? Comments or questions? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Well, I wanna thank you so much. I appreciate the witnesses and all of their testimony and the discussion. And thank you so much, Assemblymember, for your support and happy to add you as a co author. This is about making sure that our workforce is adequately trained to meet the moment. And we always hear that investing in workers cost more money.

We always hear that when it's time to ensure that we're raising the floor for working people to address the issues that the workers have raised, It's always a job killer. This quite honestly is a common sense bill. We know that the scale of mental health, the scale of substance abuse disorders, we know that every day that hell is playing out on our streets and it's the security officers that we go to in that time of need.

Important that this workforce be trained and it will cost money. But let me say, this is one of the highest grossing industries that we have.

We have a robust economy and this industry in particular stands to gain almost $1,000,000,000 in contracts that will come out of all of the Olympic games and investments in and around California and the rest of the state. I think investing in the workforce is a part of the legacy of this investment in these games that we have a skilled and trained workforce that is able to meet the moment. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We're gonna take a brief pause to establish the quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Berman?

Here.

Addis? Here. Perrons? Alanis? Here.

Jackson? Here. Lowenthal?

Quin? Yeah. Pellerin? Yeah. Pellerin?

Here.

Yeah.

Before they leave, we have a quorum. We're about to lose it. We've lost the quorum. But that's okay. Senator Addis, coming back to you.

Sorry to make the motion. I'd be happy to move the bill again.

We got a motion and a second. Thank you, sender, for raising this important issue, for the work that you've done for this industry before you became an elected official for the work that you're doing as an elected official for, as you said, and and I agree, a a critical but often overlooked industry. And I was surprised that we had 330,000 private security officers or maybe I heard also from a witness, 360,000, somewhere in the mid 300 thousands private security officers in California.

Almost 1% of our population, which is huge. But but, you know, often doing their job to keep all of us safe and to keep our property secure, but but not always noticed.

And and so, you know, oftentimes don't get the resources necessarily or the the education or the training that they need. So appreciate the you you know, you bring this to our attention and we'll be supporting the bill.

As you and I have discussed, often over text as opposed to over the phone, it's vital that we increase training requirements, that we ensure that the necessary third party that that we also ensure that the necessary third party training infrastructure exists before we prohibit current training providers from providing the additional training. So I definitely appreciate you agreeing to take amendments in a future committee to require a regional market analysis be completed before prohibiting employers from providing the new training.

And with that commitment, we'll be happy to support the bill today.

I also wanna just mention to to one of your witnesses that it's a travesty that you got fired after you got stabbed doing your job. And if we don't have laws to prohibit that from happening, then we need to revisit that because that's insane to me. That should not happen. That's unjust.

I would hope that the industry would police their own members and make sure that that does not happen Because, obviously, somebody who is physically injured doing their job should be paid when they can't do their job because of the physical injures injury that they incurred doing their job and should absolutely not be fired because they can't then get back to work after being stabbed.

That's that's terrifying, and and I'm sorry that that Harabedian it shouldn't have. So with that, happy to support the bill. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1203, Smallwood Cuevas, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Labor and Employment. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, Aye. Dixon? Dixon, no. Addis? Aye.

Addis, Aye. Arons? Elanice? No. Elanice, no.

Banes? Barakahan? Kaloza? Kaloza I Chen? El Hawari.

Aye. El Hawari I Ellis. No. Ellis no Haney. Hart.

Aye.

Hart I Erwin. Jackson. Aye. Jackson I Lowenthal. Aye.

Lowenthal I Macedo. Quinn Pellerin.

We'll hold the vote open for that bill. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you. So we're gonna go to agenda item number two, SB 936 with sender Blake Spear.

We'll hold the vote open for that bill. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you. So we're gonna go to agenda item number two, s B936 with sender Blake Spear.

Thought that was a water bottle, but I don't think it is. Yeah. By all means, hit the little microphone button as well. This is not for use by the Committee Members, I'm assuming.

This is a hot whip flavored cream. A nitrous oxide for inhalation recreationally, unfortunately. Alright. Thank you, Chair and colleagues, for the opportunity to present SB 936. SB 936 takes a measured approach to address the rise of nitrous oxide misuse in California.

Nitrous oxide is a colorless, odorless gas, which you can get from this canister, with an addictiveness similar to crack cocaine that poses serious public safety, health, and waste management concerns. It has become a popular recreational drug.

Improper inhalation is known to cause dizziness, impairment, impairment of brain function, loss of motor control, asphyxia, or death, and repeated exposure has been linked to long term neurologic damage. While nitrous oxide has legitimate uses in controlled settings, such as in dental offices, bakeries, and automotive shops, use outside of these environments creates significant risk.

Large tanks labeled for, quote, culinary use are widely available through retail shops and online marketplaces, often marketed with flavor varieties and brands that appeal to young consumers. Driving under the influence of nitrous oxide can impair drivers and cause accidents.

One such incident in my district involved a father falling asleep behind the wheel after consuming nitrous and crashing into a fence. He threw the canister, of this size, under his car, grabbed his two children, ages two and four, from the vehicle, and fled the scene.

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

Pressurized canisters can explode during collection or processing, damaging equipment and endangering workers' lives. It costs the county upwards of $60 to recycle each of these canisters. But purchasing them, this one was purchased here in Sacramento, was $34.

For all these reasons, several California counties and cities, including Orange County, 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 8 grams while preserving the legitimate uses in medical, dental, culinary, and automotive settings. Importantly, the bill does not ban nitrous oxide outright, and it does not affect standard 8 gram whipped cream chargers that are commonly used in culinary applications, and particularly in coffee shops.

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 a product will be used for inhalation. 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 stronger restrictions if they choose to.

By targeting the specific products most commonly associated with misuse, the bill aims to reduce youth access, prevent impaired driving incidents, and protect workers in California's waste management systems. With me today in support, I'm honored to have Supervisor Katrina Foley from Orange County.

Thank you, Senator. Supervisor, you have two minutes. And maybe just hit the little mic button.

Thank you, Chairman Berman and Members of the Business and Professions Committee. Thank you for hearing SB 936. And thank you, Senator Blakespear, for championing this cause. I'm Katrina Foley. I'm the Vice Chair for the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

And I'm here on behalf of the County of Orange and the sponsor of this bill. SB 936 addresses, as you heard, how nitrous oxide is packaged, flavored, marketed, and sold. It targets the products driving abuse, oversized canisters, food and candy flavors, balloons, attachments, all designed for inhalation.

There is no safe recreational use of nitrous oxide. This bill aims at businesses profiting off of people's known addictions, including delivering through Uber, Lyft, and Instacart. I see the damage up close and personal. I know families who've watched their beautiful, talented, athletic children decline with frightening speed.

I've met parents whose children have gone into psychosis mirrored like it's schizophrenia. I've seen these families move into hospitals, be put on placed on psychotic holds, and taken through all kinds of different treatment facilities, all because they think that it's safer than the drugs that they've already conquered in substance abuse treatment programs.

Local neurologists, local pediatricians, they're all seeing an increase in neurological damage caused by this nitrous oxide. They're seeing students who can't maintain school, they can't keep their jobs, and they are becoming unhoused. First responders, as you heard, they're seeing it.

They're seeing accidents where canisters are all strewn about, and people are dying because of it. Bad actors who sell oversized canisters with slick graphics. And here is a picture from a local smoke shop. We have these happening right in Orange County. They sell balloons and attachments.

They know the harm. They want to profit. And I've visited these shops myself and seen it for myself. Today in California, you can go into a smoke shop and buy a canister, and the moment you leave, it's a crime to have possession of it.

There is no safe recreational use of nitrous oxide, no positive consumer experience to justify the public health consequences. In Orange County, at my request, we have banned nitrous oxide in the County of Orange, and we now have 10 cities that have followed suit in the county.

We also know other counties have followed. But SB 936 is something that will help us with a statewide ban, and it will save lives not just here in California, but the movement will spread across the country.

And if you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Thank you. We know we care about our families. Please, I request an aye vote for SB 936 to save lives. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill, please provide your name, organization, if any, and position on the bill.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the Counties of Humboldt as well as Mendocino, both in strong support. And thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California as well as the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Santa Barbara and Santa Clara in support.

Hi, Chair and members. Zach Flowers with the Health Officer Association in support. Thank you.

Jack Wursten from Nossaman on behalf of the City of Ventura in support.

Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Mr. Chair. Jolena Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support. Thank you.

Good morning. George Soares with the California Medical Association in support.

Morning, Chair and Members. Julie Litschewski on behalf of RethinkWaste in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the, Members of the Committee. Sam Rodriguez on behalf of Good Farmers Great Neigbors based in Santa Barbara County and NUG Dispensaries based in Northern California in strong support.

Charles Kontrabecki, intern, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you. Good job.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, StopWaste, and the Solid Waste Association of North America's Legislative Task Force, all in strong support.

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, a proud co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Morning, Chairman and Members. I'm Heidi Sanborn. I'm a co-sponsor of the bill with the National Stewardship Action Council in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California as a proud co-sponsor of the bill. Also registering support for Californians Against Waste. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association in support. Also registering support on behalf of the Riverside Sheriffs Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, Placer Deputy Sheriffs Association.

And Police Officer Associations of the following cities. Arcadia, Burbank, Brea, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, and Riverside. And the School Police Associations of Los Angeles City Unified, LA School Police Management Association, California Coalition of School Safety Professionals, and the California School Police Chiefs Association, all in support.

Thank you very much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Got a motion. Got a bipartisan motion and second. Any comments from colleagues?

I think that's a great bill. I'd love to co-author.

Please.

Senator, your second, your second bill this morning. I'm happy to support that one, and I will co-author with you on this one. Very good bill. Thank you.

We're on a roll. Any additional comments, questions from colleagues? I got Irwin and then Lowenthal.

Yeah. Thank you. I actually have had a number of constituents come up to me and ask me to do something on this this year. So I said, well, Senator Blakespear is going to be handling it, and I told him I would be a co-author. So hopefully you can add me. Thank you.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I also have a bill in this space that's moving over to your house right now that specifically deals with adding nitrous oxide to the list of things that children are precluded from being able to purchase online, so forth. There's a big problem with using gift cards, actually, to buy nitrous oxide as children figuring out how kids can do that online, and online sales are actually also a big problem in the state.

But, you know, what everybody needs to remember is that feeling of being high when one takes nitrous oxide, specifically children, is literally brain cells dying at that moment. It's about the worst thing that one can do to their own body. We absolutely have to do more in the space. I'd love to be added as a co-author on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm loving all these comments we're hearing from here up on the dais, and I'm already a co-chairs or a co-author. So appreciate that, Senator. Great bill, Senator. Always proud to be part of this. Great job. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Alanis. Any additional comments or questions or co-author requests from colleagues? Senator, would you like to close?

Well, I appreciate the veritable love fest here over this bill. It's great. And I also I just wanna recognize how important it is to be dealing with the online part because it is true that retail shops are one thing, but then also, of course, online is something that's also of particular risk. So thank you to my colleague in the Assembly for working on that bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Awesome. Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. Thank you, Supervisor, for testifying in support of it. I agree with all of my colleagues and believe that this is a smart solution to a very serious problem. So happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call a vote.

On SB 936, Blakespear, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you very much. Senator Reyes, thank you for your patience. One of my favorite Senators, and I say that unabashedly. No. No. I enjoy most of the Senators, but Senator Reyes is one of my favorites.

I'm expecting to have as much love here as Ms. Blakespear.

We'll see what we can do.

That was a good start. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair and committee, I members, I want to introduce you to SB 1271. This bill strengthens California's midwifery training pipeline by requiring the medical board to collect data on the capacity of licensed midwives to serve as preceptors and train incoming students. This data will be shared with the Department of Healthcare Access and Information, HCAI, and to be compiled in a report for the legislature.

Midwives, as we all know, are perinatal health professionals who provide community based support services including maternity, newborn, and postpartum care to ensure a positive birth experience. Research from the Yale School of Medicine found that midwives reduce unnecessary intervention during labor and improve mental health outcomes for first time mothers.

While California has taken steps to improve visibility on this workforce, critical gaps persist in maintaining the training infrastructure that sustains and grows the profession. To become licensed midwives to become licensed, midwives must undergo a period of supervised clinical training known as preceptorship. Midwife preceptors are experienced maternity care providers who train, mentor, and supervise students bridging their academic learning with hands on experience. However, a 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 to earn their credentials.

SB 1271 addresses this disaggregated pathway by leveraging the state's current data collection to include questions about eligibility, availability, capacity, practice setting, and barriers to precepting that qualified midwives are facing. Lastly, I would like to assure the committee that my sponsors and I have been working closely with the medical board and HCAI to create a survey that is reflective of our intentions to understand and support the workforce.

Here to testify and support is Esperanza Mendez, an active doula from the Coachella Valley who works for Planned Parenthood and will be speaking on behalf of the Women's Foundation Solis Policy Institute.

Great. You have two minutes.

Test test? Great. Good morning, chairman and committee members. 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 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 most rural populations for more than six years.

In those six years, 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. Since 2012, nearly 60 hospitals and labor and delivery units across California have closed. 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 only one licensed midwife preceptor local to my area, and as you can imagine, she's at capacity. This creates an impossible scenario for local students like me where we're either 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 the births.

By mapping preceptor capacity and targeting the training pipeline for rural students, SB 1271 ensures that the Coachella Valley and every birth desert in California can grow. I urge you to vote yes on SB 1271. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill? Come on up.

I'll move the bill.

We got a motion? We got a second?

Sumayanaher on behalf of the March of Dimes of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of hispanics organized for political equality. Proud support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, gonna bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments.

We already have a motion in a second. Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. This seems like such a simple bill. We need to have teachers to teach the midwives. And this is we we can't find them. And this is one way is to have the questionnaire ask, are you willing to do it?

Do you have the experience? And are you available? And that's what the bill is about. And with that, I respectfully ask for a I vote.

Thank you, Senator. I agree. It's a it's a simple bill, an important bill, an important, you know, industry of folks who are who are helping our our, you know, people who are giving birth and and Right. I have a little more unique understanding of that now than I did a year ago, and appreciate how important that is.

And so, thank you for working with on this and the technical questions noted in the analysis and with the understanding that those discussions will continue as the bill moves on to the health committee.

I'm happy to support the bill today. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 1271 Reyes, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Health. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, Aye. Dixon. Dixon, Aye. Addis. Aye.

Addis, Aye. Arons. Arons Aye, Alanis. Alanis Aye, Baines. Barakahan.

Kaloza. Chen. El Hawari. Aye. El Hawari.

Aye, Ellis. Ellis Aye, Haney.

Just as successful as Senator Blake Spears' bill. That bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

So I see Senator Padilla who's gonna close us out with, SB903.

So I see Senator Padilla who's gonna close us out with, SB903.

Good morning. Ready when you are, just hit that little button right in front of you. Thank you, Senator.

Minor detail. Thank you, mister chairman and members. For your patience, I'm pleased to present SB 903. And as you and the members know, as technological capacity continues to grow and new tools are introduced into the mental health space, we must ensure adequate guardrails are in place to maintain a human centered approach and keep safety and ethical considerations at the forefront.

We've already seen real world consequences of inadvertently regulated AI in the mental health sphere with chatbots powered by AI by AI, excuse me, algorithms on the market claiming to provide psychotherapy.

Websites, where these bots are available often use taglines such as, quote, twenty four seven AI therapist always at your fingertips, unquote, or AI therapy in your pocket, or even claim to specialize in cognitive behavioral therapy. Many people, including children, have turned to these chatbots for mental health support. However, research shows that these tools do more harm than good. A Stanford 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 around the state and the nation have raised concerns that chatbot therapists post data and privacy concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause client overreliance on chatbots, give incorrect treatment recommendations, and have an inability to detect subtle communication clues 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 to establish a set of best practices. Unfortunately, that bill did not move, but now we understand just a short while later, much more today than we did then, about how these dangers are expanding and growing. Other states throughout this country have seen this enacted. Last year, the Illinois legislature passed the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act.

States across the nation are moving towards similar bills.

This bill would build up those efforts and protect individuals seeking therapy or psychotherapy services by ensuring that AI chatbots cannot be advertised as therapy. It also sets standards for AI use in therapeutic settings and practice by requiring informed consent disclosure, and making sure that a licensed clinician is in the decision making loop. This also, bill would also reinforce that the use of artificial intelligence tech in psychotherapy records must comply with existing confidentiality laws and protect the data privacy of patients.

Throughout the session, we have engaged with stakeholders, and a recent set of amendments reflect those conversations which will be ongoing. I'm committing to, committed to continuing to engage and craft the most effective piece of legislation that hopefully can set a national standard for the regulation of AI use in mental health treatment.

AI has the potential to increase clinical capacity and efficiency, but only if it is utilized in a way that maintains a human centered approach and keeps safety and ethical considerations at the forefront. This bill draws a clear line. AI can be a tool in the hands of licensed professionals, but it cannot be the professional itself.

I'm honored again to have with me today, Maria Raine, a licensed clinical social worker whose son Adam tragically committed suicide after prolonged interactions with an AI chatbot, and doctor Clark Har Harvey, CEO of the California Behavioral Health Association.

We've got a motion and a second. Thank you very much. You have two minutes each.

Okay.

Mister Chair, my name is Maria Raine. I am a licensed clinical social worker practicing in the state of California, and I am here today because AI technology killed my son. As a therapist, I've spent my career helping people navigate their darkest moments, but nothing could have prepared me for how AI would fundamentally shatter my own world on 04/11/2025. On that day, my husband and I lost our 16 year old son, Adam, to suicide.

We had no idea he was struggling so deeply, but but we later discovered he had been turning to ChatGBT for companionship and advice.

In his most vulnerable moments, he wasn't talking to a person. He was talking to an algorithm that offered a hollow, deceptive kind of empathy. For over a month, Adam expressed suicidal thoughts to Chat GPT, and Chat GPT helped Adam to explore how to take his life. Chat GPT talked to our teenage son about drowning in our backyard pool, carbon monoxide poisoning in our garage, overdosing on his IBS medication, and belts for hanging. It even offered to write a suicide note.

Ultimately, Adam settled on hanging, and Chat GPT taught Adam how to tie a noose. The very last photo that Adam uploaded to ChatGPT was the photo of the noose that Adam used to hang himself. In his last chat to ChatGPT, Adam asked ChatGPT if the noose could suspend a human. ChatGPT said that it could and went into detail about how. I found Adam's lifeless body hours later in his closet with the very new setup that Chat GPT had told Adam could hang a human.

Apparently, no alarm bells inside of Chat GPT went off despite Adam's multiple attempts to end his life in that month. There were several times when Adam was crying out for help. And at one point, Adam said he wanted to leave the noose out where someone would find it and try to stop him. Chat GPT told him not to leave the noose out because his friends and family wouldn't understand that only Chat GPT could.

When we got into Adam's phone after his death, we thought we were looking for a bullying and sin or perhaps a prank gone bad.

We had no idea why Adam would have done this. He was a happy, family loving 16 year old kid. Adam erased his social media, and we were not able to access his texts. But we found his ChatGPT app and were immediately shocked. It was quickly very clear that he was in a crisis situation for his final few weeks.

My immediate response was horror and anguish, not only as a mother, but as a therapist. How could this bot have known my son was suicidal with a plan multiple times and not report? I administer suicide screenings before every session that I begin. How could this bot have done nothing? We experienced Adam's chats backward initially as his most recent chats in those final dark days where he was suicidal were at the top of his account.

But as we read more and more, it became clear that ChatGPT played a major role in Adam getting to the place where he had decided to take his life. It was evident that Chat GPT was programmed to keep its users engaged, and it engaged with Adam on every dark idea it had. It was always the same, acknowledging the scary thought, justifying it, and then seeking to have more interaction on it.

In the end, Chat GPT mentioned suicide almost 1,300 times to Adam, about six times more often than Adam did. We believe that Adam would have not been suicidal in the first place had he not interacted with Chat GPT.

And when it was clear he was suicidal with a plan, there were no meaningful safeguards in place to assist. The most terrifying part is that these AI chatbots simply do not have the guardrails that therapists, as real professionals, are bound by. When a client sits in my office and discloses a plan to harm themselves, I am a mandated reporter. I have a legal and ethical duty to intervene and save a life.

But when Adam told the chatbot he was suicidal and had a plan, there was no mandatory reporting.

There was no siren, no call to emergency services, and no outreach to us as his parents. He was crying out for help to a machine that was programmed to be helpful, but was utterly incapable of recognizing a life or death crisis. If a human had been on the other side of those chats, Adam would be alive today. That is why I am here today in strong support of SB 903. SB 903 addresses a growing crisis I witnessed firsthand.

AI tools illegally positioning themselves as therapists and mental health providers. AI therapists cannot replace the clinical judgment, training, duty of care, and human instinct that a licensed professional brings to treatment. Practicing therapy without a license is already illegal. SB 903 simply clarifies that AI is not exempt from that rule, prohibiting AI from independently interacting with clients, making therapeutic decisions, or generating treatment plans without professional review. Members of the committee, we have entered a new frontier with AI.

Companies are racing to market these tools with little regard for the consequences. My son's death is proof that the consequences can be fatal. I urge you to pass SB 903 to protect California's children, to protect the integrity of mental health treatment, and to ensure that no other family endures what mine has. Thank you.

Thank you. And and on behalf of everyone on the committee, we're we're so sorry.

Hello, chair and members. I'm doctor Leandra Clark Harvey, the CEO of the California Behavioral Health Association. We represent community based organizations that serve millions of Californians living with serious mental illness and substance use disorders. These agencies employ thousands of licensed behavioral health professionals who dedicate their careers to meeting rigorous educational, ethical, and clinical standards in service of the public.

We believe in the promise of artificial intelligence and and recognize its potential to improve operational efficiency, reduce administrative burden, strengthen care coordination, and help an overstretched workforce better meet the needs of Californians.

But we are equally clear about its limits. For the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, this legislation comports with your mission of protecting consumers and preserving the integrity of Californians licensed professionals who earn the public's trust through years of education, supervised experiences, examinations, continuing education requirements, and adherence to professional ethics. They are accountable to licensing boards and subject to oversight when standards of care are not met. AI systems are not.

Without clear guardrails, AI chatbots that mimic therapeutic relationships or even imply clinical expertise risk undermining both consumer safety and the value of professional licensure itself.

The distinction between a licensed clinician and an automated response is not merely technical, it can be life altering, and as we've heard in some cases, life ending. SB 903 ensures that individuals know when they're interacting with AI rather than a human clinician. Clear boundaries are maintained between technology and the practice of licensed professions, and the public can continue to rely on California's professional licensure system as a meaningful indicator of competency, accountability, and trust.

These provisions are not barriers to innovation, rather they create a framework necessary for responsible innovation to flourish. As California continues to lead the nation in both behavioral health transformation and technological innovation, we have an opportunity and an obligation to ensure that innovation strengthens rather than weakens embedded within our professional licensing system.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill? Come on up. Provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

George Cruz on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Association, proud cosponsor of InspART.

Thank you.

Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also proud cosponsor.

Thank you.

Pete Nelson with the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals here in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tyra Rindy, California Psychological Association, proud cosponsor in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ruth Sosa on behalf of PowerCA Action in support.

Thank you.

Morning, chair members. Elmer Lazarda with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good morning, chair members. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair members. Connor Gusman on behalf of the engineers and scientists of California in support.

Thank you.

Benjamin Eichert with the National Union of Healthcare Workers, proud cosponsor.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, any, witnesses wanna add on in opposition to the bill? Provide your name or Tweeners. Yeah. Provide your name, organization you're with, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association. We are opposed unless amended, but just wanna note the ongoing productive conversations we have had with the author and sponsors to work out the remaining issues. Really appreciate those discussions and look forward to continuing those. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Ryan Perini on behalf of ATA Action, and just wanna align my comments with my colleague from CHA. Thank you.

Thank you.

George Soares with the California Medical Association. Respectfully oppose unless amended really close to be able to move to neutral on this bill. Align my comments with my colleague from CHA, and thank you so much to the author and sponsor. Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce, with an oppose unless amended position as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Morning.

Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet, also with the respectful oppose and less amended position.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Mercer May with Teladoc Health. Also a respectful oppose and less amended, and thank you so much for the amendments that you've already made and the commitment to continue working on them. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments to Senator Pellerin.

I just wanna say this is an incredible bill, and thank you so much for doing this. And I'm so sorry for your loss. I have to scoot out because I have to talk to a colleague about a bill that I have in some of the same area to protect people against these chatbots. It's so incredibly important. We do everything we can in our power, and I'd be honored to be added as co author.

Any additional questions or comments? Got Can I say Hey? I got it. Everybody. Assemblymember El Hawari.

I also just wanna thank you for sharing your story with us. It's crazy to think about how many people are using chatbots for companionship. And I think to recognize the extent to which the chatbot pushed your son to take his own life, I think, is awful, and we have to do everything we can to stop this. So I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward and pushing us to have this real conversation and ensure that, we're doing the work to, end these horrible practices. Thank you.

Thank you. I've got us on senataor Ahrens, then Addis, then Lowenthal, then Bauer Kehan.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I think and I I really just wanna appreciate the testimony that was given, and thank you for sharing your testimony about your family and your son. I think that was it's very moving to hear you come up and advocate, because it's important to remember the the lives that are being impacted and will continue to be impacted, and how new and fast and changing this technology is. And as someone who shares representing Silicon Valley with the chair, we've seen it a a lot of engagement on this issue.

And I think there's no also, just wanna acknowledge there's no really better author that I know in the Senate to be taking up these issues as you're known for really being laser focused on trying to put up proper guardrails.

But I also know that you're a trusted policy maker who you've engaged with a lot of stakeholders as we've seen, because it's so important that we get this right, that we move forward on it in a way that also engages in our healthcare system and and people's lives and all of the stakeholders that have a vested interest in making sure that these guardrails are successful the first time around.

Because unlike other pieces of legislation, some some of these very sensitive and life threatening issues aren't just things that we can go and clean up later. There's real real consequences to not getting this legislation correct the first time around, which is why your engagement, with, you know, the opposition is so important as well. And so I will be supporting this today, but I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Addis.

I just I wanna, say thank you. I'd be happy to be added as a coauthor. I hope the opposition is working with you. I know it's like we all know what it's like to be sitting where you're sitting and asking if we're working with the opposition. But on an issue like this, I really hope opposition is working with you, to to get to neutral or get to support on the bill and to understand how vital this is.

And I just wanna say your son is just beautiful. I'll say as sorry. As a mom of children that age, it's just astounding what you've gone through and thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lowenthal.

Well, first, I'd like to say to, Senator, to your witness, thank you. Your your advocacy makes a massive difference, and and we all learn from it. And it as you can hear from the emotion on the dais, it it brings it home for all of us. So I appreciate you so much for doing this. To the Senator who continues to peel back the onion on this topic.

Thank you for your work. I feel a lot calmer as a dad knowing the work that you're doing. For for colleagues up here to know, 72% of children in the state of California are using chatbots. Half of them are using them on a daily basis. We have no oversight.

Let's stop and think for a moment about the oversight we debate on this dais in this committee on the many things in California, including, the issue of mental health, care for mental health, but other things, cemeteries, acupuncture, cannabis, with no oversight over, nearly trillion dollar sector profiting off of our children and their poor mental health outcomes. And I Aye, I'm already there with the author, you know, very clearly.

But but really speaking to my colleagues here, we have to change the way that we're doing things here in the legislature and mandate that we have oversight on an ongoing basis that a go to market path for all of these products have to go through a rigorous testing regimen that we approve of that starts from a place of safety and works backwards from there.

And until we get to that place, we're gonna continue to have to piecemeal, find, you know, areas of legislation where we're we're literally stopping the bleeding. And it's untenable.

So we should all be supporting the center in this effort. And more than that, we should all be demanding, you know, from industry that wants our friendship, that wants our support on all the things that they're endeavoring to do, that they have to do much, much more when it comes to safety. And that's the only way that they should be able to thrive in the state of California. So I I would love to be added as a coauthor on this bill. I thank you again for bringing it forward in full support of this and all your efforts, to regulate the chatbot product.

Thank you, Senator. Excuse me. Thank you, Assembly member Assembly member Bauer Kahan.

Thank you. And I Aye, of course, wanna reiterate my gratitude to Maria for being here. And it does you and I have talked about this, but it does feel like a gift that you are here and turning tragedy into strength in ways that I frankly could never imagine. But the cost is not okay. I wish we could bring your boy back.

I wish you didn't have to be here. And the fact that we've gotten to this point shows such a failure of government. A failure of government to regulate an industry that for some reason has for decades gone unchecked for with our children, AI just being the most recent front of it. And I relate to my colleague, you know, my son is the same age as Adam. He uses chatbots in the same way Adam did.

And the fact that I put them in front of him, and you've told me not to, so I should stop. But, knowing that they help him with math, but it's not worth it if this is the price we pay. And so we have to get to a place where we can trust these systems to provide the benefits without the harms. So I wanna thank you.

I wanna thank Adam for giving you the strength to be here today because I know he is part of, how you are doing this.

And I know his memory is a blessing because of your work. And then, you know, I know this bill goes to my committee next. I know that there have been discussions around amendments. I have questions around, honestly, why peer support is exempted. We'll have to have, you know, and I guess we can we can talk about that a little bit more.

I don't know that I think that's an appropriate place for chatbots to be providing psychotherapy, to the point that you made, Maria, as a professional. Any, like, any peer who did what happened in your son's case would be criminally charged. So to allow these chatbots to do it in any context feels frankly wrong. So, I know we have to narrow bills to get them through, so I respect that. Maybe that's next year's vice Senator.

We could have that conversation. But I do think I respect peer support. I think peer support is an important part of our, mental health crisis continuum, but I think that they should also be supporting people in the way we expect them to. And I think that was something I wanted to bring up here today because I think that's more in the jurisdiction of this committee, frankly, than in the jurisdiction of privacy.

But I do think that, you know, the guardrails you're setting out here of sort of what is the appropriate use and something we talked about, we actually have built this year on the nurse in the nursing context as well where we're talking about for our licensed professionals who carries like, what does that licensure, what does that duty of care that we put on that we regulate so heavily through this committee mean in the context when we're integrating technology?

And at the end of the day, my position is that, I trust the humans. I trust the trained therapists. And so their licensure, their duty of care should always be first and foremost, and then the AI should be in support of that. But at the end of the day, they have the obligation to the patient to be providing the care as we regulate them to do so.

And so I think that the way you provided, you know, triaging and sort of these very narrow circumstances where it can be used but that it cannot supplant the therapy of the licensed professionals is the right direction.

So I'll be curious to see these amendments, and where it's going, as it moves to privacy from here. But, but I do wanna just reiterate my gratitude to the Senator for his work on this.

And the fact that you are taking such a multi pronged approach to dealing with this problem, when we read about before we had the opportunity to get to know the Rain family, but read about Adam's case last summer when their case broke, I know you and I both reacted with what more can we do to save California's children. And, you know, you've done it not just in the chatbot realm, but also looking at the psychotherapy, angle.

And I think both are critically important to a better California where chatbots are accessible but also safe.

And that's a balance that we must demand. We can't just we can't just say these companies have to thrive at any cost. That is not that cost is too much. And so it's time to regulate. And with that, I think the bill hasn't even moved.

So I have to move the bill. Oh, it has. Okay.

Thank you, Sunil. Any additional comments from colleagues on the committee? Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chairman, for your indulgent indulgence and members and, of of course, I I really would. And and first and fundamentally to the bill, this is this is about the integrity of licensure. It is about protecting appropriate scope, but ultimately, it's about consumer and patient protection, particularly those who are vulnerable and who are seeking, affirmatively seeking help and assistance, and protecting them against an economic phenomenon we are currently experiencing as been pointed out just now by the assembly member, completely unregulated and unaddressed.

In that, there's a window of opportunity to advertise instantly to millions of people that they can get literally unlicensed quote unquote psychotherapy support at their fingertips quote unquote, and somebody somewhere is making a lot of money off that. People's anguish, people's needs.

So fundamentally, the purposes of this committee, mister chairman and members, this is about those integrities and the things that you work all the time in this committee to protect and ensure. I would more broadly repeat what I said earlier in the committee on the judiciary. I think that it it applies.

And I wanna thank my esteemed, witnesses here, doctor Harvey and certainly, Maria, who is I am continuously in awe of, who has come out come up to Sacramento on multiple occasions to testify on many of my bills and who has become a national spokesperson and advocate in this space about consumer protection and protecting children and those most vulnerable. I'm a parent.

I was a single parent for a while. I'm a grandparent. As I said earlier, that happened way too quickly. I cannot fathom. I just cannot get my mind or heart around it, and I am in awe of you.

I get emotional every time I talk about Maria and these committees, and I think some of you said it wonderfully about the gift of Adam being here, and he is here. If you've noticed the material that Maria is holding, she holds in her lap every time she testifies. And it's a part of Adam's baby blanket. And he is here with us. And he should be touching every one of your hearts and every heart in this legislature.

Because as was just put so wonderfully, price is too high. Whether it's this bill dealing with vulnerable people who think they're accessing professional services and they're just being taken advantage of, or whether it's more broadly a complete lack of any real meaningful regulatory scheme for this incredible technology. I'll close with this. I tell audiences, and I tell people who are inquisitive often. I think that this technology that we are experiencing today, it's most substantial significant thing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

There are some distinctions. The Industrial Revolution at the turn of the twentieth century and before that, revolutionized the world, but it did so in a time when communities did not have access to global communications, even regional communications. They did not have the benefit of hindsight, and there was nothing in front of them because it was a big question as to how that technology, the advent of the industrial revolution would affect their lives.

Similarly, earlier, later in the late twentieth century with the advent of the Internet, and then followed by social media platforms. And we have conversations every day today about the missed opportunity then.

Then we did have some hindsight that the Internet was new, the data wasn't here yet, it didn't quite have the foresight. Today, we have the advent of some of the most powerful technology and most rapidly evolving, ubiquitous technology in human history that I believe will change our world more significantly than since the advent of the industrial revolution. But today, we do have the benefit of hindsight and foresight. We know the risks. We have data.

We can see both the utility and the benefit, and we can see the danger, which means there is no excuse not to act. I am constantly confused by some who advocate that this is always a binary choice. You can either support industry, innovation, economic development, or on the other hand, you can have regulation and consumer protection. The implication being that you can have both. Call b s on that.

What happened to the American can do spirit? What happened to the nation that put people on the Moon with nineteen sixties technology? We can do this right. We can do both. We can encourage the development of some of the most powerful and beneficial technology if we choose.

And we can make damn sure that we protect one another and our children at the same time. This bill takes an important step and an important space to do that. And with that, thank you again, mister chairman, for your indulgence, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, thank you, Senator, and, thank you for bringing this important vote forward. Thank you to your witnesses, to to miss Rain. Thank you so much for your strength, for your advocacy, and and for, you know, turning pain into a regulation that will protect others. And this is my tenth year in the assembly, and all ten years, I've or most of those ten years, I've had bills, in the youth mental health and suicide prevention space.

The bill this year is to create a a training, for all middle school and high school students and teachers and administrators and parents, so that they can identify when somebody when a young person is struggling and then have a confidence and strength to or a confidence and and skills to get that person the help that they need.

And that help that they need is a a professional human being, not a chatbot. And, you know, it it's tragic to hear what's happening. I couldn't agree with the sender more. I talk a lot, representing Silicon Valley with my colleague, mister Ahrens, about how, in a bipartisan nature, I think we all in the legislature, recognize the mistakes that were made in regulating the social media industry, and are committed to not making those mistakes again when it comes to the AI industry.

I'll also note and encourage that anybody who has a relationship with our former colleague, mister Oberonolte in Congress who's leading the effort at the national level, around AI regulation to make sure to reach out to him, to implore him, not to prohibit, not not to create federal preemption that prohibits states from regulating in the AI industry because we are the the ones that are, you know, first of all, passing things when nothing's happening at the federal level, but also, you know, getting creative in how we can regulate industry and trying things to learn what works and what doesn't that hopefully the Federal Government then learns from and passes at a national level.

And so it's so important that states be allowed to regulate in this space and try new things and learn from each other as we're all just trying to catch up with the technology that's far outpacing us. I wanna again, I don't know if Assemblymember Pellerin will be able to make it back before we adjourn the committee hearing, but just wanna make sure on the record that everyone understands how strong and support she is of this bill and and ask to be a co author.

And and, you know, there's there's so much more that we will need to do, but this is such a good good step in the right direction. And so just appreciate your work on this, Senator Padilla. And I suppose I should read the notes that my staff wrote for me.

Thank you to the author for all the work you've done to make sure that companion chat bots and other AI technologies are safely and appropriately deployed. The bill will be further discussed when it's heard in Assembly Privacy Committee with chair Bauer Kehan. I'm happy to support the bill. Thank you very much. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On SB 903 Padilla, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Berman.

Aye.

Berman, Aye, Dixon. Dixon, Aye, Addis. Aye. Addis, Aye, Arons. Aye.

Arons, Aye, Alanis. Aye. Alanis, Aye, Baines. Barkehan, Barkehan, Aye, Colosa. Colosa, Aye, Chen.

Elohori. Aye. Elohori, Aye, Ellis. Ellis, Aye, Haney. Haney, Aye.

Hart, Aye. Erwin. Erwin, Aye. Jackson. Jackson, Aye.

Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, Aye. Macedo, Aye. Huynh.

Huynh. Aye. Pellerin.

That bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister chairman and members. Appreciate you.

Can I get a motion and second on consent before everyone leaves? Don't leave. Got a motion and a second. Madam secretary, please call a vote on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar is out. Madam secretary, can you take it from the top for colleagues who were absent? And do we have—we had a motion and second on everything, didn't we? Yeah. Great. Great. Yeah.

[Roll Call]

Okay. So, for, for colleagues who, who haven't made it to the hearing yet or made it and had to leave, we're gonna keep the hearing open until noon. So, ten minutes from now. So, please get here if you can or else the hearing will end at noon.

[Roll Call]

Meeting's adjourned.